adrian-43767 SCOTT & BAILEY has everything to be special: great acting, sound direction in most episodes, sharp dialogue, but... only the females are intelligent. The males either deceive their spouses and try to kill the lover (Rupert Graves): are very dull, stupid and are rude to in-laws (Adrian, married to Scott); try to wreck Scott's marriage (Nicholas Gleaves); do everything that moves (chief Bullmore's husband); Bailey's brother is an absolute good for nothing who seems to embody the vision that the program has of the male; and the male commits horrible crimes, like Geoff. Women are always the victims in this series, men are there just to make their lives excrutiangly painful.And then there is DCI Murray (played by Bullmore) who has a computer for a brain, a memory to make an elephant green with envy, and knows absolutely everything, plus correctly determines who is guilty at the blink of an eye, and never strays from that God-like omnisapience. The exception is the hubby (the male, of course!) who cheated on her... but in Season 2 she tells Bailey she knew about it all along, so there. Perfection and smarts, woman is thy name!Best avoided, if you're a male. Highly recommended, if you're female.

georgeritmeester As this and other shows/movies illustrate, trying to solve crimes provides way more drama and tension than good guys and bad guys shooting machine guns at each other. And the actors are believable as experienced police detectives, unlike with so many American shows where the alleged FBI experts, street-savvy cops or whatever look like they just gave up a modeling job yesterday to join the FBI/police force/etc. And the personal issues the two main detectives are dealing with seem real rather than contrived, as is so often the case with Hollywood-type crime dramas. Scott and Bailey has one thing in common with Perry Mason. In Perry Mason, once Perry confronts the real killer in court, the killer always caves and confesses. It would be interesting to see an episode where Perry still has to prove it to a jury's satisfaction in a new trial. In Scott and Bailey, they always solve the crime just at the end of the episode, but never have to prove it in court. The show always ends without a trial for the actual perpetrator. This is not a huge problem as the viewer can be confident the available evidence will be sufficient for a conviction. However, some episodes end without any understanding of the motive behind the killing. Perhaps the motive is revealed but not always readily apparent? This isn't necessarily a negative. Many episodes are so complex one can certainly enjoy a second viewing, unlike with paint by the numbers Hollywood crime dramas. However, things do proceed at a brisk pace. I find that I often have to read an episode summary to clearly understand the entire episode. But this probably has as much to do with the British accents as anything else. I often can't make out what was said (thus often missing key points) and wouldn't mind having sub-titles for this show.

bjarias Cop dramas have a great tendency to follow a formula script, and as a result after several seasons usually become tedious and boring, and audiences continue watching them mostly out of habit. Scott & Bailey is the huge exception to the rule, and I'm positive that those knowing just how good a program this is they're watching, want it to continue on indefinitely. There's actor after actor in this marvelous series that consistently do outstanding work.. and for it all to end, well, would just be criminal. It's one of the ironies that when it looks so easy, an enormous amount of talent and effort on all sides make it appear that way. All involved are producing top flight work, and deserve all the accolades they get. I watched Doctor Foster and that turned me on to one of the leads in this series... soooo glad I did. The final season was short.. and once again extremely good. Know they wished to go out 'on-a-high'.. but this is another series that will be sorely missed.

Susan Alston I will continue to watch this because there are 3 female leads, and I am a feminist at heart. This program shows that women can be inventive, thoughtful, insightful and that interviews do not need to be horrifying. On the downside, Rachel really has to get control of her alcoholism and it should be recognized as a problem for her and those around her. Ideally, this should be done on screen. It is apparent that this is a show run for and by women, but you have to stop disposing of men so indiscriminately. One or two "for the girls" but the just dropping like flies thing just make the concept seem silly. The portrayal of the chief (the 3rd woman) really needs work.