I binge watched Netflix's new crime drama and here's why you should too
Netflix's new crime drama, Dept. Q, is a thrilling watch, and it looks like mystery fans agree with me
Matthew Goode plays the sarcastic male lead Carl Morck.
(Image: Netflix )
With an excellent 86% rating on fan and critic review site Rotten Tomatoes, it is clear that a large proportion of people agree with me, when I say that Netflix's new crime drama Dept. Q is a thrilling watch.
Set in Edinburgh, sarcastic Detective Chief Inspector Carl Morck played by Matthew Goode, has been assigned to a newly formed cold case unit, which is essentially a big PR stunt to make the police force look better.
Following a traumatic incident that left him shot in the neck, his policing partner paralysed and a young PC dead, Carl must navigate his new life with trauma.
He joins forces with a team of underdogs, mysterious Akram (Alexej Manvelov) who slowly reveals more about his life in Syria and DC Rose Dickson (Leah Byrne) who is battling with an alphabet of conditions including PTSD, OCD and ADHD. For the latest TV and showbiz gossip sign up to our newsletter .
They decided that the first cold case they would tackle in the new department would be the disappearance of a prominent civil servant who vanished several years previously.
Article continues below
Despite not knowing what truly happened in the lead up to the event, or if she was even still alive four years after being abducted, they put all their energy into the investigation.
Described by The Guardian as a "g rimy, gothic treat" the grey background of a rainy Scotland is the perfect accompaniment for some tragic crimes.
Not only that, but the dryness of the Scottish sense of humour makes for a funny watch which contrasts the darkness of the show's plot. This is done in part by the script and by it's cast.
Chloe Pirrie plays solicitor, Merritt Lingard
(Image: Netflix )
Matthew and Alexej's characters are a perfect balance of chaos and calm, as we see their unconventional partnership develop through the course of the series.
The DCI has past trauma and guilt from his previous partner's accident and as a result struggles to let people in. Matthew plays the character extremely well as we can see how he becomes more comfortable allowing his team to assist in the case.
Chloe Pirrie plays Merritt Lingard, a hard solicitor who we slowly learn more about, including why she has such a tough exterior. The detectives delve into her tragic upbringing across the water, and her relationship with her family.
With twists and turns around every corner, you feel truly immersed in the drama and the mystery of the show. You almost find yourself trying to solve the crimes and figure out what's happened as all of the new evidence comes in.
Dept. Q has you gripped from the very first episode, which is good for those who are looking for a new crime drama, although it's not too good for those of us who don't want to interfere with our sleeping patterns.
The series is set across nine episodes, each of which is roughly an hour long, which means if you start binging it late in the day you stay up way past your bedtime. So keep that in mind, and binge-watch sensibly.
The crime fighting duo, Carl and Akram, are a great balance of sarcasm and calm
(Image: Netflix )
Dept. Q is based on a series of books by Danish writer Jussi Adler-Olsen, so hopefully that means that the platform will adapt further books and continue the series. Knowing it was a book series makes a lot of sense really, as you're watching you can picture it being written and the Scandi Noir elements drawn in from its Danish writer.
Despite not yet being renewed for a second season, Netflix is rumoured to have submitted Dept. Q for Best Drama Series at the Emmy Television Awards. Forbes has highly suggested, "that if Netflix is submitting this series for Emmy consideration, it thinks the show is high-quality, and that is a clear indication of a second season renewal."
For now, if they want to get their Scottish crime drama fix, fans of the show will have to re-watch the series. For those of you who are yet to watch Dept. Q, what are you waiting for?
Grab a can of IrnBru and get Netflix on the telly, you've got nine hours of intense Scottish detective work to watch.
Article continues below
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Argus
44 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
Age verification UK explained: How is it impacting the UK?
In short, social media and other platforms are required to implement safety measures protecting children or face large fines. This means that age verification tools are now being used on sites where they could access harmful content. Here's all you need to know about the new rules and how they are being implemented. Well done to everyone who campaigned to ensure age verification for pornography was in the Online Safety Act! Today it comes into force and while no doubt there will be some who get around it, it means young kids in particular won't be stumbling on violent and harmful porn. — Jess Asato MP (@Jess4Lowestoft) July 25, 2025 What is the Online Safety Act? The Online Safety Act is a piece of legislation that received Royal Assent on October 26, 2023, with the aim of protecting children and adults online. The Government website adds: "It puts a range of new duties on social media companies and search services, giving them legal duties to protect their users from illegal content and content harmful to children. "The Act gives providers new duties to implement systems and processes to reduce risks their services are used for illegal activity, and to take down illegal content when it does appear. Why is age verification being used on the internet? As of July 25, internet platforms have a legal duty to protect children from harmful content. Companies within the scope of the act must introduce safety measures as part of this, which include age verification. The Guardian reports: "This means all pornography sites must have in place rigorous age-checking procedures." They continued: "Social media platforms and large search engines must also prevent children from accessing pornography and material that promotes or encourages suicide, self-harm and eating disorders." Platforms will also have to suppress other material that could be potentially harmful to children. This could include "the promotion of dangerous stunts, encouraging the use of harmful substances and enabling bullying". How is age verification utilised by platforms? Ofcom, the media regulator, has set out a number of ways websites can verify the age of users. This can be done through credit card checks, photo ID matching and estimating age using a selfie. Whatever format platforms choose, they must be "technically accurate, robust, reliable and fair," BBC News reports. Which sites will require age verification? Pornhub and a number of other major adult websites have confirmed they will introduce enhanced age checks, BBC News reports. Recommended reading: Reddit has already introduced checks to stop people aged under 18 from looking at "certain mature content", while X and Grindr have committed to this as well. Discord gives UK users a choice of face or ID scanning as a way to verify their age, after testing methods, and Bluesky says it will give UK users a range of different verification options, external. BBC News adds: "Many more services which allow sexually explicit material may need to bring in measures to comply with the new rules."
Scotsman
44 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Appeal court decision has raised questions over liabilty claims
Andrew Gilmour expects further guidance will follow as cases addressing the issues proceed Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Every day, members of the public enter offices, shops, supermarkets, restaurants and gyms. An issue that has arisen of late is how the Scottish courts deal with accidents caused by the condition of something in such premises that is defective. In the case of McCormack v Fitness Limited, the Sheriff Appeal Court provided guidance on how to analyse and determine whether an occupier of premises containing defective items should be liable for such an accident. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It has long been a feature of Scots Law that in certain circumstances, the maxim res ipsa loquitor could apply to an accident. The claimant should establish that the thing which caused damage was under the defender's management and control, and that the accident was of a type that does not ordinarily occur if proper care is taken. An inference of negligence is then accepted only if the defender can offer no explanation consistent with absence of fault on their part. Andrew Gilmour is a Partner, Horwich Farrelly In McCormack, the claimant was injured by a ragged edge on the outer rim of a weight plate in a gym that cut his hand when he tried to place it onto a shoulder press machine. How the damage to the plate occurred was unknown. At first instance, the court decided that res ipsa loquitor applied to the accident circumstances and found for the injured party. The view taken was that the gym owner could not provide a reasonable explanation for how the accident occurred without negligence. The court held the gym owner had exclusive management of the premises, controlling access by way of membership and subscriptions. The owner employed staff on reception and on the gym floor. Seeking to place a weight plate onto a machine should not ordinarily cause injury to a user. There was no evidence of any inspection of the plate on the morning of the accident and no faults were recorded. However, the appeal court decided the court had erred in focusing over the control exerted over the gym premises, rather than the weight plate itself. The court was bound to consider and decide the question in this way, as if there was no control over the thing that caused the accident, then res ipsa loquitor did not apply and liability would not be established. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The court had regard to the well-established observation that the principle only applied where the incident suggests negligence on someone's part and, because of exclusive management and control in the defenders at the time when the negligence occurred, it can be presumed it was the defenders who were negligent. In this case, the free weights and shoulder press machine were not in the exclusive control of the gym. The gym was open to members of the public who had a membership or subscription to use the premises. Those members had free use of the weight plates during the course of their exercise. Therefore, the appeal court overturned the decision and absolved the gym from any liability, as the exclusive management and control over the weight plate had not been established. The decision raises questions about exclusive management and control of items in premises. Does the presence of members of the public mean that few items in the premises could be under such control? When should a claimant seek to establish a case based on a failure to take reasonable care, rather than risking establishing that res ipsa loquitor applies? A number of cases are addressing this issue and no doubt further guidance will follow.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Irvine Welsh puts in double shift on publicity round
EDINBURGH festival time and the quest for publicity is in full swing. Smart operators like Irvine Welsh know it's best to plug early and often, even if it means a Sunday morning shift. Sunday Brunch was a mix of celebrity chat, cooking, and anything else the producers could throw in the pot to fill three hours of live television, including a competition to guess the age of expired food. This was the 'zoo' format revived, with too many guests talking at once and the crew supplying chortles off. When not gabbing, the celebs stuffed their faces with whatever came out of the kitchen. Not an appetising sight at 10am. Welsh was there to flog his new book, Men in Love, and accompanying album. All was well until he referred in less than flattering terms to the vocal styles of some singers today. It was enough that the presenter, Tim Lovejoy, felt he had to apologise. Contrast this with Katie Razzall's Irvine Welsh: The Next Chapter, which has been aired on the BBC News channel and has its network debut on Monday. This was an old-school, pre-recorded sit-down, largely consisting of Razzall lining up a subject and allowing Welsh to talk at length. It didn't always work. On Scottish independence, for instance, Razzall asked if he thought 'the steam had gone out of the fight'. 'The steam's gone out of every fight now,' said Welsh. 'People are very despondent about the mainstream political institutions and their ability to change and adapt. Whether it's supporters of Scottish independence or supporters of anything, whether it's any kind of radical or revolutionary change or any kind of political change, people are just waiting for the system to fall apart rather than push it.' What did he think about the current political landscape in Scotland, or the swell in support for Reform UK? Detailed follow-ups might have produced tighter, more interesting answers. The chat occasionally wandered, at one point ending up in Alan Partridge territory. After footage of Welsh sparring, Razzall asked if boxing was useful to his writing. 'Boxing keeps me thin,' he said. 'Does that make you a good writer? 'Yeah, being thin does make you a good writer, because you have to be comfortable in a chair. If you're sitting down and you're overweight, it must be quite uncomfortable.' Was he being serious? It was hard to tell. Never mind, Razzall was on a roll. Should Trainspotting have won the Booker prize? 'Emphatically no, it would have been the kiss of death. Because I would just have been another writer, another writer who won the Booker prize. Because I became the anti-Booker prize writer, I was pushed into a different category, and it gave me a radical, anti-establishment cachet that I maybe didn't deserve even, but I'll take it anyway.' Did he still feel anti-establishment? Sir Irvine Welsh, if they came offering? 'I've no interest in that kind of thing. They've got nothing I want,' he said. Good publicity, though. Irvine Welsh: The Next Chapter, BBC2, 7pm tonight
