I have to say that this programme was utter tripe. The actor who played Glitter was awfull, more like George from George and Mildred.

Also I don't know how they can make a programme about a man been executed who is still living and free to roam the streets.

I caught part of it,so can't fully comment.But all I will say is that it's not as bad as it could have been.
An interesting part was when in the Bailey the defence pointed out a witness was related to a police officer investigating the case.Obviously a very valid point,and after she burst out crying and he continued in the same vein the judge instructed the defence to leave it alone.Terrible abuse of power,and no doubt similar excesses of the judiciary have gone before.

It was utter tripe from what I saw. They tried to infer some "impartiality" in that oh-so-Channel 4 way but this didn't really work. Apparantly Gadd speaks like a stoned David Essex all the time, and has also adopted his "Emperer Ming" guise permanantly - and the 'personalities' who appeared as 'talking heads' should hang their's with shame for getting involved in such garbage....

If they do bring back hanging, making lowest-common-denominator tv like that should be the first crime on the list!

I agree that making a programme about executing someone who is still alive and has served their sentence for the crime is wrong on lots of levels.

I disagree about the actor playing Glitter, I thought he gave a good performance in an otherwise average drama.

Watched it; thought it rather pedestrian and couldn't quite understand - if they were against capital punishment why not a more sympathetic victim like Sally Clark? Or Barry George/Sion Jenkins if they wanted a living person (why?).
If they were in favour, why not a completely fictional monster?