You make a really good point here about how the show seems to pin a heck of a lot of the onus on the awful role models boys have online like Andrew Tate. Would Jamie have experienced his angry episodes and loss of emotional control without the existence of Andrew Tate? My experience with children tells me yes - he had the potential to do what he did even without that influence.
But it is such a challenge trying to work out where those behaviours come from. I have worked with children who exhibit them and there is never an easy answer. Socio-economic factors, childhood traumas, lack of opportunity - is the compilation of factors always the same for children, or more specifically boys, who find themselves struggling to cope with the world around them in a way similar to Jamie?
Is the show oversimplifying the matter, or is it too complex and nuanced for the show ever to have covered everything that comes into play? I’m not sure - you’ve really made me think.
I wonder if some simple statistics at the end of the episode (but before the credits) might have created some real-world context. This many boys have joined pro-state forums; this many have expressed violent behaviour in school; this many have reported loneliness or boredom or social marginalisation etc etc. Would it have distracted from the narrative of the drama? Would it have added enough wider context?
You make a really good point here about how the show seems to pin a heck of a lot of the onus on the awful role models boys have online like Andrew Tate. Would Jamie have experienced his angry episodes and loss of emotional control without the existence of Andrew Tate? My experience with children tells me yes - he had the potential to do what he did even without that influence.
But it is such a challenge trying to work out where those behaviours come from. I have worked with children who exhibit them and there is never an easy answer. Socio-economic factors, childhood traumas, lack of opportunity - is the compilation of factors always the same for children, or more specifically boys, who find themselves struggling to cope with the world around them in a way similar to Jamie?
Is the show oversimplifying the matter, or is it too complex and nuanced for the show ever to have covered everything that comes into play? I’m not sure - you’ve really made me think.
I wonder if some simple statistics at the end of the episode (but before the credits) might have created some real-world context. This many boys have joined pro-state forums; this many have expressed violent behaviour in school; this many have reported loneliness or boredom or social marginalisation etc etc. Would it have distracted from the narrative of the drama? Would it have added enough wider context?