Good Drama but with Two Major Plot Holes

I think you mean Jim.

Dave was the mortgage broker.

1) How can you say the location is unspecified but 'must have' been somewhere?
2)Dave didn't know this.

www.igloooftheuncanny.blogspot.com

About your first remark, I think you got two different houses mixed up:
Jim, the security guard, bought a house which was on the market for about £150,000. He had to pay £650 the first year and later on £950.
Dave, the mortgage broker, bought a house for his own in the unspecified location you mentioned. That house was about £800,000, if I heard it correctly.

1) I'm going to presume you mean Jim rather than Dave. Although the other storyline is based in London we don't actually know where Jim is living and the house that they were shown in the estate agents was £156,000 I believe and that was the asking price.

2) In Jim's stressed state and possible lack of education he was probably unaware of such a process. Hey may not even be a union member.



"I like my coffee black, just like my metal."

There were more than just plot holes. But as for plot holes, you couldn't get a house like Jim's for £156,000 anywhere near London. I think he was living in Watford or somewhere close, but unfortunately £156,000 wouldn't buy you a garden shed. I can't comment on the level of mortgage premium, but the scam that was going on was well-documented but ignored because everyone and their dog believed New Labour *beep* that Gordon Brown had 'beaten' boom and bust and that house prices were going to rise forever and a day, which meant you simply borrowed beyong your means, then sold up a year later for a tidy profit. As we know, it didn't work out that way, and more to the point never, ever does. As they say, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Jim's employment status isn't clear. He may well have been an agency worker and if he was would have had minimal statutory employment rights.

Neither of these classify as 'plot holes,' since they do not interfere with the story's internal logic.

many years late to the conversation and not sure if anyone will have transferred over from imdb, but I completely agree with both of these points - while I wouldn't call them plot-holes, they are flaws in an otherwise great program/film.

(1) I assume you meant Jim's house, and any way you slice it, there's no way any semi-detached house in outer-London would have gone for £156k in 2007, never mind a mock tudor one with an extension and in an attractive looking area. If it had been a run down/fixer upper terrace house in a rough looking area, that would have been more realistic (and even then you'd struggle to get that for under 200k in outer-London in 2007). Actually it would have made Jim's story even sadder - after a year of renovating and making the house livable, that's when the repayments go up and they have to leave!

(2) Arguably sleeping on the job could be considered gross misconduct with work of that nature, but still, legally he'd have to be given a weeks notice of there being a disciplinary hearing and right to representation etc. If they didn't want him still working there in the meantime, they could have suspended him then dismissed him at the meeting. Doesn't matter if Jim wasn't in a union member or didn't know the process himself, the company would still have to do everything legally - I think head office (where the video was sent) would know that! Unless he'd been an agency worker, but the dismissal seemed a bit too formal for that and 6 years as an agency worker, prior to the recession....I'm not sure that could have happened.