So not everyone got away scot-free, unlike in Spain where all officials got immunity.
"A Very British Transition" - A Post-Junta Britain TL
- Thread starter powerab
- Start date
Why would the junta surrender power with the threat of prosecution over their heads?
Their First Lord was dead, there was a general strike and half the world were against them. It was step down peacefully and dictate some terms or get Mousollini'd. It was incredibly rare for anyone to get prosecuted and the most senior officials like Mike Jackson got off soct-free
The Government in Exile was based in Paris, whilst the French recognised the Junta as the legitimate Government, they refused to deport Callaghan et al. The government in exile was mostly ceremonial, very few countries recognised it as the legitimate government so it was more a pressure group than an official government in exile
We can see the 1970s under the Junta as being a "repressed" time in every sense - would there not be attempts to row back on some of the 1960s social legislation?
I could imagine the re-criminalisation of homosexuality, the criminalisation of abortion and the restoration of the death penalty all being supported by the Junta in 1968. The violence of the 1970s wouldn't be political - it would be social and cultural.
One area likely to see a strong Government response is popular music and culture - the likes of Cliff Richard, Petula Clark and Brotherhood of Man would all be fine but the Beatles, the Stones, the Who and many others would be banned and persecuted. There would be no glam, no punk - the more radical arts and theatre would also be suppressed (no "Hair" for example, no "Rocky Horror Show", no "Clockwork Orange"). Musicals are the staple of 1970s theatre along with the classics.
On television, "variety" is king - the likes of Bruce Forsyth and Bob Monkhouse enjoy plenty of success. Comedy is also in the ascendant - Morecambe & Wise enjoys the patronage of the First Lord, who makes a cameo appearance in the 1975 Christmas Special. Dad's Army is another hugely popular show in the early 70s along with The Good Life (slightly surprising but the Junta wanted to reduced foreign food imports so the Goods are an example of the new British "suburban farmer"). Other than that, it's the classics again as well as lots of sport. Classical drama enjoys a renaissance with shows like "The Forsythe Saga" and "Upstairs Downstairs" also favoured.
The British Board of Film Classification becomes powerful under the Junta with Lord Harlech and a General in joint charge. The likes of Mary Whitehouse and others from the Viewers & Listeners Alliance are also highly influential as the BBFC stretches its control from film to television and newspapers in the 70s.
The one area which sees a huge expansion is the Public Information Film. With the introduction of decimalisation in 1971, the Junta recognises the value of the short 3-5 minute film as a way of putting across its key political and social messages. It's also used for road safety such as the famous "Green Cross Code" films, in one of which Mountbatten himself appears with Dave Prowse to push home the message. The "information film" is a staple of early evening viewing in the 1970s with one before the 6pm news and one before the 9pm news.
They were often fronted by news readers, actors, sportsmen or other personalities.
The novel House of Cards never got past the censors as it portrayed the Junta in a negative light, the original manuscript is in Michael Dobbs' attic somewhere. Yes Minister also never got past the censors.
The Thick of It's only just started, the first real independent political satire in Britain for several decades. But instead of parodying the spin obsessed New Labour Government it instead parodies the paranoid SDP government convinced theirs going to be a coup every five minutes. Instead of being a press officer, Malcolm Tucker is a Military Attache to the Department. Most episodes revolve around the team trying to get something passed without Tucker finding out. Tucker then finds out, swears a lot, threatens a coup and generally ruins everything.
Last edited:
Chapter 9: Violence, Baguettes, Violence
The Heathrow Attacks would lead to protests and riots by Civil Assistance
“Plans by right-wing extremists to exact "revenge" on Scots and socialists after last week's bomb attacks are being monitored by police. Channel 4 has learned that extremists are keen to cause widespread fear with high-profile events in the capital. Football hooligans communicating over the internet have spoken of the need to put aside partisan support for teams and unite. Hooligans from West Ham, Millwall, Crystal Palace and Arsenal are among those seeking to establish common cause. As part of wider plans to generate a backlash, right wing groups such as Civil Assistance and the NPP are said to be planning marches. Extremists hope to hold a march along Victoria Embankment in London tomorrow. It is also known that many trade unions and other organisations have received bomb threats since the attacks.” - Channel 4 News Report (2005)
The backlash to the events in London came almost immediately from the political right, in Leeds City Centre, several youths armed with knives attacked Mick Rix at a street stall in Leeds. Rix was a rehabilitated former Red Brigades fighter and now an organiser with the NUGW (National Union of General Workers), Rix had been leading a protest against reforms to rail franchises. Whilst he wasn’t killed the attack left him in critical condition. Eyewitnesses claimed the attackers had declared the attack as revenge before disappearing into various back-alleyways. The attack further cemented West Yorkshire as one of the flash-points for Civil Assistance political violence.
Meanwhile the hunt for the Heathrow attackers was on, three of the attackers had been arrested in London whilst a fourth had been captured by Belgian authorities fleeing to Brussels. Whilst the four SNLA “commandos” directly responsible for the attack had been arrested, Home Secretary Peter Tatchell said the hunt was not over yet, as British police tried to identify and disperse any further rogue SNLA cells operating in the capital. The city still remained on edge, with heavily armed officers in gas masks on patrol and even soldiers at key strategic locations.
Meanwhile in Paris, Development Secretary Jack Straw was meeting with the Balladur administration to discuss the opening of a new train line between Britain and mainland Europe named the Eurostar. Talks of high speed rail across the Channel Tunnel had been ongoing for decades but with Britain's isolation from the world such a project had never been feasible until now. The train section of the Channel Tunnel had stood empty for years. With the Johnson administration wanting to strengthen relationships with Europe and desperately needing a win for the audience at home, an agreement was signed. The British, French, Dutch, Belgian Government all agreed to work alongside private business to make the project a reality.
“The tunnel itself had been mooted for 200 years before British and French workers broke ground and began digging towards each other. French engineer Albert Flavier first proposed It took seven years for 14,000 workers to build the 31.4 mile tunnel, 23.5 miles of which run undersea, making it the longest of its kind in the world. That kind of engineering and manpower did not come cheap, with costs in 1997 estimated at £5 billion, a massive 90% more than planned. Many believe the Tunnel helped bring down the British Junta, allowing the British people to see the other side in liberal France” - How the Channel Tunnel changed Britain forever, CNN (2019)
The Channel Tunnel had been built in the late 90s, but disagreements between the Junta and the French meant the rail segment was never finished
Whilst the Eurostar agreement was good for Britain’s EU accession, the continuing chaos at home was not. The Johnson administration hoped the quick capture of the Heathrow attackers would prove to the world he was still in control. After the humiliating rejection from the G7, some EU members began to express doubts around Britain’s usefulness to the EU. Straw’s visit was half business but also half diplomatic as he set to reassure a rattled French establishment. French President Balladur was warm, but warned there could be a domino effect from the violence in London, if the international community lost confidence in the Johnson administration, economic problems could follow.
Back in the Cabinet high level discussions were at hand. Under Junta era counter-terrorism rules those suspected of terrorism could be held for up to six months without trial. A key manifesto pledge of the SDP had been to reduce this to just one month. Home Secretary Peter Tatchell had been the architect of the policy. However, Johnson and others within the Cabinet wanted this manifesto pledge scrapped, arguing the Government couldn’t afford to look weak at this crucial moment in time. Tatchell, and other allies on the left of the party like Glenda Jackson argued keeping detention without trial would make them as bad as the Junta, and warned it would infuriate the Socialist Alternative, possibly into pulling their support for the Government.
The SA/SDP alliance was on very thin ice
After hours of discussion Tatchell threatened to walk out the Cabinet. This would be a disaster for the SDP, just a few months into Government and losing their Home Secretary after a spate of terror attacks. Tatchell was a popular figure on the left of the party, and the SDP whips feared his resignation could lead MPs to jump to the Socialist Alternative. Eventually a compromise was reached, the Junta era detention laws would remain in place for a year as the Government got a hold on political terrorism, as things calmed down the law could be reformed. The Tatchellites were infuriated but remained in the tent, another day in the grubby world of politics.
With several key pieces of liberalising legislation coming down the pipeline, including the legalisation of civil partnerships, lowering the age of consent for same-sex relationships to 16 and the bringing in of rights for transgender individuals, Tatchell felt he couldn’t afford to walk out of the Government right now. However clashes between Tatchell and Johnson were becoming increasingly prevalent as the months wore on. As well as this the constant abuse and death threats were beginning to take their toll on Tatchell and other leading LGBT politicians, the bad old days of the Junta didn’t feel that far away, Wareing had been shot, how long before the next politician was killed?
“Tatchell denies he has sold out. "I come from the left. There is an endemic culture of betrayal on the left: waiting for the next leader or spokesperson to sell you out." Most politicians are nobodies. They come and they go. They rule for a brief hour and they fall and disappear. Tatchell is another kind of creature. He has been famous for 35 years, ever since John his resistance operations. He likes it. He has never had another existence; he grew up writing leaflets, taking command, organising campaigns. He is good at it. He wants to keep doing it. Does he have a future in Johnson's government? No one knows, apart from the true Johnsonistas in the Downing Street bunker. But there is something about Tatchell - all that energy and activity - that makes him more dangerous to the SDP on the outside than in the fold.” - Tatchell’s World, Kevin Toolis, The Guardian (2005)
Tatchell was a civil riots icon, Johnson couldn't afford to lose him
Tatchell does seem like weird choice. He is a radical and a bit of a weirdo, to put it mildly. He advocated lowering the age of consent to 14....
Sorry I completely missed this comment I didn't mean to ignore you! Yes the closest comparison is NI, with the Basque County scattered in for good measure. Some Scottish sqaudies would go on to join the SNLA but most officers and member of elite regiments like the ones you mentioned would stay loyal
Chapter 10: We’ll Keep the Rainbow Flag Flying Here
The Government cracked down on street yobs so riots became rarer, but when they did happen they were more deadly, led by paramilitaries
“Far-right mobs rioted on Sunday for a second consecutive night in London, injuring at least 30 police officers. Crowds of men wearing masks terrorized citizens and attacked security forces. Cars were set on fire at major intersections, closing a highway into London. The more than 3,000 police officers at the scene were bombarded with homemade explosives while they held rioters back. Sir John Stevens, London's chief constable, said the clashes posed "one of the most dangerous riot situations in the history of policing in the UK,". One policeman was shot in the eye and partly blinded by a gunman associated with the paramilitary group Civil Assistance. "It is unique for officers to come under live fire in what was a public order situation," Sir John said.” - Far-Right Riot for 2nd Night in London, Injuring 30 Police Officers, Brian Lavery, New York Times (2005)
As summer gave way to cooler weather and cooler heads, the violence of the summer began to subside into a brief respite. Attacks became more sporadic rather than a factor of everyday life as the police became better at riot control and lower-level attacks. The Johnson administration now began to push on with its legislative agenda, most notably with a raft of socially liberal legislation. Under the Junta, Britain’s social policy had been frozen in the 1960s and it lagged far behind other western countries in terms of rights for LGBT people and ethnic minorities, the SDP Government now set about to rectify this.
The liberal reforms had two aspects, firstly was the obvious social benefit to expanding civil liberties, but the reforms also had a political aspect. National was heavily split, with reformists in favour of modernising social legislation, and the hardliners strongly opposed. Johnson hoped he could use the reforms to drive a wedge between National’s warring factions, putting further pressure on Collin’s leadership. Obviously if you asked Johnson publicly the rights of Britain’s minority groups came first, but the political benefit definitely didn’t hurt.
A new British bill of rights guaranteed civil liberties not seen since the pre-Junta days. It included rights such as the right to legal counsel, a fair trial, religion, to join a union and to protest. As well as new sections preventing discrimination on LGBT, ethnic and other grounds. LGBT rights were especially expanded, with the age of consent for same-sex relationships lowered in line with different sex relationships. Same-sex couples were also granted the right to a civil partnership and adoption. Finally the British Government gave a formal apology for the Aids crisis of the 1980s, where thousands of gay men died after the Junta government failed to provide proper support.
The Junta had swept the aids epidemic under the bus, killing thousands of gay men
“18 years ago, a new killer invaded Britain, setting off panic buttons and causing rumors among an ill-informed population. The killer was Aids. Some people were afraid to sit near gays in case they caught it from breathing the same air. Some believed it could be contracted by visiting a public toilet. Others thought it was a punishment sent by God to end the scourge of homosexuality. Tabloid newspapers branded it a 'gay plague'. Medical experts feared they could be facing the worst public health disaster of the century. The lack of effort the Government put into averting an epidemic, have been revealed in remarkable Cabinet Papers. Under Health Secretary Martin Smyth, a former Presbyterian minister the British Government failed to properly respond to the virus.” - How Aids flustered the Junta, Andy McSmith (2005)
These reforms, dubbed the 05 Charter, were the most consequential civil rights reforms since the Magna Carta. For the first time in British history the rights of citizens were enshrined in an American-style bill of rights. With one stroke of a pen Parliament could bring Britain forward forty years. Some in the SDP were concerned with the radicalism of the reforms. They called for the reforms to be split up and delivered slowly, one by one. However, the momentum within the SDP was against them, with the vast majority of SDP members supporting the Charter.
Some argued Britain's lack of a written constitution had allowed the Junta to happen
In National the reforms were incredibly divisive and provided a headache for Tim Collins. Hardliners like Anne Widdecombe and Gerrard Batten were calling for the party to oppose the whole thing, meanwhile reformists like Tim Boswell, Lembit Opik and Sajjad Karim spoke publicly in favour of the reforms. Collins found himself stuck in the middle deciding how to whip. If he came down strongly on either side he could ferment more internal dissent or even a split. If he didn’t choose a side he’d look weaker and weaker. National had spent the last year on the political back foot, reacting rather than leading.
Eventually Collins announced a free vote on the issue pointing to the “broad range of opinion” on the National bench, Collins personally abstained. This move was roundly condemned as a cop-out and showed the issues at the heart of National. Most National MPs (122) would follow Collins in abstaining, including most frontbenchers. 44 hard-line MPs would vote against the bill and 23 of the reformists voted in favour. Without any real opposition in Parliament the Bill of Rights passed easily, much to the rage of the hardliners and social conservatives.
In Britain’s once underground gay pubs and bars the rainbow bunting was hung up with pride. Registration offices saw a deluge of civil partnership applications. Britain’s various protest groups and NGOs, who had spent the last year technically operating illegally were not recognised, able to open offices and hire staff. Britain’s culture had taken a great leap forward. Home Secretary Peter Tatchell welcomed a new, modern and tolerant Britain. But with the darkness of the Junta still looming over Britain there were still fears as to how the far-right would respond. Figures on the hard-right of British politics, such as Reverend Robert West warned of deadly consequences as Britain moved to “degeneracy”. The new Britain was here, but not everyone was happy.
“A party with a long term record holding executive power is most likely to be dominated by it. A period of repression may persuade transition actors to take an interest in institutional mechanisms, such as a Charter of Rights. This is the insurance model in relation to the politics of constitutional design during regime transition. Evidence from Britain indicates that a change in attitude may be engendered by concrete experience of life in the wilderness. A rational, prospective calculation of the likelihood of holding executive power in the future. The sheer strength of feeling that had built up during 40 years of Junta rule ensured the passage of the path-breaking Rights Charter.” - Explaining the Elite Politics of Britain’s Bill of Rights Debate, Lecture by David Erdos, University of Cambridge (2009)
Women's rights were updated, including easing access to abortion
Last edited:
Yes - very good update.
The social and cultural legacy of the Junta sounds appalling - you'd have had thousands, if not tens of thousands, trying to flee to Europe or the USA to find a more tolerant environment.
I'm intrigued by what general societal attitudes would have been in 2005 - the end of two generations of social conservatism might have led to a cultural flowering in London and other cities but would this have been the same everywhere? There's a temptation to think social conservative attitudes aren't going to disappear with the Junta.
Might we have seen British social conservatives seeking to move to some of the American southern states for example?
The social and cultural legacy of the Junta sounds appalling - you'd have had thousands, if not tens of thousands, trying to flee to Europe or the USA to find a more tolerant environment.
I'm intrigued by what general societal attitudes would have been in 2005 - the end of two generations of social conservatism might have led to a cultural flowering in London and other cities but would this have been the same everywhere? There's a temptation to think social conservative attitudes aren't going to disappear with the Junta.
Might we have seen British social conservatives seeking to move to some of the American southern states for example?
I don’t see a great cultural revolution coming, historically countries under dictatorship for decades tend to be more socially conservative. Eastern Europe and post-Soviet nations are a clear example. Of course, after fifty years things change (Spain is clearly more socially liberal then many other countries three generations after Franco’s death, although it has still authoritarian aspects and is plagued by internal problems) but in the 2005-2021 period it’ll be too early. Of course, ITTL UK seems a dictatorship more open, more connected and less isolated then Franco’s or Soviet one and this could explain Thatchell as Home Minister and similar, but nevertheless I expect a conservative backlash.
Sandro has it fairly bang-on here, couldn't say it better myself
I’m intrigued to see how Ireland is doing from all this. The Juntas actions in Northern Ireland has likely left official relations very cold but not hard to imagine Ireland also enjoying some cultural boons, such as Irish who made their names in the otl UK likely stayed or British exiles starting choosing to stay close and start new life in the Emerald Isle. Could see a different evolution to the term “Plastic Paddy”
Absolutely, many Irish people would stay in Ireland and a large part of Britain's intellectual brain drain would travel to Ireland as its near, speaks English and lots of Brits have Irish families. A large number of left-leaning academics would make their way to Ireland, so top Irish universities like University College Dublin are a lot more prestigious globally.
Ireland's also benefited from being the only English speaking country in the EU, helping to form a trade bridge between Europe and the Anglo world.
Chapter 11: From Brussels with Love
Former dissident Catherine Aston now led the British delegation to Brussels
“Catherine Aston's speech to the European parliament has been hailed as a masterclass in the art of seduction by the French press. High praise indeed. The European parliament was putty in her hands; the foreign press reported her speech on their front pages in glowing terms. Her rallying cry for an enlarged Europe with open markets and free trade was on the main national news bulletins in 11 member states. No wonder she has told aides that she intends to make further speeches to the parliament as Britain's lead accession negotiator. But can she turn a debating success into real political action, and lead Britain into the EU and lead broader debate across Europe? Critics of Ms Aston's speech complained of feeling as if they had eaten a Chinese meal. It delivered instant gratification, but was less substantial than it appeared.” - Europe: a whole new world of opportunity, George Parker, Financial Times (2005)
Catherine Aston spent a lot of time on late night flights between London Heathrow and Brussels Zaventem. As Britain’s lead negotiator she headed up accession talks with the European Union. The negotiations had been hard, in Britain's weakened state she had no room to negotiate against a much stronger and united European Union. Attempts for concessions on issues like the pound were unfruitful. Brussels was clear, if Britain wanted to join Europe she would be a full member, no exemptions, no special treatment. When negotiations had opened back in the late 60s before the coup Britain was a leading industrialised nation, she would’ve been the jewel in Europe’s crown. Now Britain was just another post-dictatorship state queuing at the EU’s door.
37 individual joint task forces had been set up to help align Britain with the EU on everything from agriculture to art subsidies. Known as the National Integration Strategy, these alignments had been controversial at points back in the UK, especially with the trade unions angry at some of the privatisions the Johnson Government was undergoing in order to align itself with EU competition years and make Britain's economy a more appealing offer to the nascent union, the SDP had built up a lot of good will with the trade unions but Johnson was talking a dangerous tightrope. As Trade Union Congress General Secretary John Edmonds said the unions had “no permanent friends and no permanent enemies” if they were pushed too far the unions could turn on the Government.
“The TUC’s policy position of strong support for EU accession membership becomes explicable if viewed as being part of a series of nested games played between it and the SDP. The TUC’s aim in the transition period was to build bridges with an SDP government disinclined to consult with it on industrial reform. Its strategy was to signal, through its strong support for the EU, that the TUC now accepted Euromonetarism. This underlines the difficulties assuming unions will line up according to material incentives. The views of interest groups can shift even when the underlying material facts remain unchanged. Instead, domestic political considerations, including alliances with parties may also be important.” - UK Trade Unions, the SDP and EU Accession, Steve Coulter, LSE (2016)
Britain was jumping between huge constitutional changes at a break-neck pace
The Johnson administration had to give into the EU’s terms Britain would be joining as a full EU member, and would be taking the Euro. This was not good politically at home, the Euro was incredibly unpopular. But there was some good news, at a summit in Prague it was agreed, Britain would be fast tracked into the EU, the joining date was official. New Year’s Day 2007. Britain would be joining a wave of other countries including Poland, Slovakia, Latvia and the Czech Republic. The accession would have to be ratified by the EU Council and Parliament, as well as the people of Britain, but the date was official and in the political diary. Countries like Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania were outraged, they had spent years negotiating EU entry just for Britain to jump the queue. This would be the fastest EU accession in the Union’s history, beating Finland’s record of three years.
Schengen would also be an issue, Britain would soon be accepting unrestricted free movement from all the EU member states. Whilst some National hardliners raised concerns about mass immigration from Eastern Europe, the more pressing issue would be emigration. Compared to its nearest neighbors like France, Belgium and the Netherlands Britain was relatively poor and underdeveloped. The British Government feared a brain drain similar to that seen by Italy and Spain in their early days of EU membership. Whilst the richer EU countries worried about keeping people out, Britain was worried about keeping people in.
Civil servants feared a mass emigration to Ireland, France and Belgium
Now came the hard choice of how to sell this to the British people. Johnson was personally in favour of a straight vote through Parliament, but there was no guarantee this would pass. The Socialist Alternative would be strongly opposed, and several figures on the SDP’s trade union left like John Prescott were also suspicious of the EU. Even with the support of some National dissidents and the SNP it would be an incredibly tight vote, and if the No vote won it would be a cataclysmic event for the Johnson administration. There was also the issue of democracy, after 40 years under the jackboot, did Johnson really want to send the message of far away stuffy politicians.
After long cabinet discussions it was agreed, on the 8th of June 2006 the British public would be asked the question “Do you approve of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’s accession to the European Union?” They would be given two options, “Yes” or “No”. As well as being a massive political event this would also be a huge constitutional event, representing the first direct referendum in British history. Power to the people and all that. Now came the work of finalising Britain's alignment with the EU, fixing regulations and liberalising the economy. The clock was officially ticking.
“High above the London skyline the Museum of London, is being prepared for its most grandiose addition: a giant clock. It will start ticking at midnight. A millennial brainchild of the Provincial President, Andrew Adonis, it will be measuring out a momentous timetable for Britain - the race to join the EU. "Timing is important for us, but it is not as important as concrete achievements," says Mr Adonis, a dynamic 40-year-old. "But if we are not a member of the EU in 2007," he warns, "things could be very difficult." Britain's 60m people still linger in a political and economic no man's land as the EU's members discuss taking newcomers into their club. In theory, all is well. EU communiques declare that Britain will join in January 2007. But many believe that is too fast and not going to happen. On the Brussels rumor mill, 2008 and 2009 are often heard.” - The British accession clock is ticking. Will it be a time bomb?, Irish Times (2005)
Britain needed to align itself with the EU as quickly as possible
Last edited:
Wikibox: The Thick of It
The Thick of It is a British comedy television series that satirises the inner workings of the British Transition. Written and directed by Armando Iannucci, it was first broadcast for two short series on BBC Four in 2005. It had a small cast focusing on a government minister, his advisers and their military attache. The cast was expanded for two hour-long specials to coincide with Britain's accession to the EU in 2007. This saw new characters forming the opposition party added to the cast. These characters continued when the show switched channels to BBC Two for its third series in 2009. A fourth series was broadcast in 2012, with the last episode transmitted on 27 October 2012.
The series highlights the struggles between politicians, the military and civil servants. The political parties involved are never mentioned by name, and in series 1 and 2 most policies discussed are generic. When Peter Mannion and his team are introduced the context makes clear that the government party is the SDP and Mannion's party is National. This continues through series 3 and series 4. Former civil servant Martin Sixsmith was an adviser to the writing team, adding to the realism of some scenes. The series became well known for its profanity and for story-lines which have mirrored real-life policies.
The action centers on the fictional Department of Social Affairs and Citizenship ("DoSAC). Thus it acts as a "super department" overseeing many others, with some similarities to the Cabinet Office. This concept enables different political themes to be dealt with in the programme.
Hugh Abbot, played by Chris Langham, is a blundering minister under the watchful eye of Lt Col Malcolm Tucker (Peter Capaldi), the military's aggressive "enforcer". The programme also features James Smith, Chris Addison and Joanna Scanlan.
A feature film spin-off, In the Loop, was released in the UK on 17 April 2010, parodying Britain's withdrawal of troops from Iraq and the US reaction. A pilot for a U.S. remake of the show was not successful, but Iannucci was invited to create Veep for HBO. Veep had a very similar tone and political issues, with the involvement of some The Thick of It writers and production members.
Last edited: