VM: What were your expectations of the show coming back on air?

BC: “I was of the generation who never watched Dr. Who when it was originally on because it finished for all intensive purposes in 1989 and I came to in the 90s.

My expectations were like a lot of people when it was announced that Dr. Who was coming back, the name attached to it from the off was Russell T. Davies and I think if perhaps other people had been named as producing or writing the show, your expectations might have been like it was during the end of the 1980s. It had quite convoluted plot lines, it looked cheap and it was I suppose a bit of a joke.

Back in 2003 when Loraine Heggessy the controller of BBC One at the time [another Collingwood alumnus] announced it was coming back some of the press were putting forward names of who could play the doctor and people like Paul Daniels were mentioned and Jamie Oliver. The expectations from a lot of people who weren’t sort of familiar with Russell’s work was that it would be sort of a spoof maybe on BBC 2 late night basically just relying on nostalgia.

Another expectation a lot of people had was that because it was Russell who was most famous for having done Queer As Folk that it would be very gay or very adult. Perhaps go down the route of Torchwood now where it would be full of sex and swearing and stuff but actually for me, personally knowing Russell and knowing what a fantastic writer and producer he is, I was reasonably confident that he would bring it back as it deserved to be brought back which was as a piece of quality drama which is cross generational.”

VM: You’ve touched on something there I would just like to pick up on, one of the few criticisms that the show comes in for from the press is that the show pushes a gay agenda, do you think it’s a fair criticism?

BC: “I find it an odd criticism. If you watch the Torchwood spin off, it’s aimed very specifically at adults, its post-watershed and in that you do get bad language, you get sex, you get violence and it’s the appropriate forum. Now Dr Who when it features, as it has done, gay characters its not going to sort of have them shagging each other in the Tardis, that’s not going to happen.

I think probably the criticism of gay agendas is more about the particular publication or particular individual making the criticism than it does about the show.

If you go back and watch the first series in 2005 a bisexual companion character was introduced called Captain Jack played by John Barrowman. If you watch all of his episodes but particularly the two he was introduced in written by Stephen Moffat the words bisexual or sex are never mentioned. Kids will watch it and a lot of it will go over their heads, whereas adults will watch it and know exactly what’s going on. It’s the Pixar model which I know is something Russell used for how the show should work.

Something Russell’s always stressed, and its all about how its tackled and context, but something Russell has said to me in the past is that he has always tries whenever he’s giving an interview to mention just subtly, just somewhere that he’s gay. Its all about visibility which will lead to acceptance and I think that’s pure Dr. Who and every few episodes you will get a gay character or a bisexual character just like real life really.

John Barrowman has talked in the past and said, you know some of them do get it gradually the issue of Captain Jacks sexuality, one kid came up to him and said I know Captain Jack loves boys but he’s still cool and that’s just opening up visibility which will lead to more acceptance which is perfectly healthy, its not rammed down anyone’s throats, it still packaged for a family audience so its fine.”

VM: What has been the highlight for you both watching the show as a fan and reporting on it as a journalist?

BC: “There have been some fantastic stories, story lines, characters, actors over the 5 years but there is nothing quite as thrilling as watching that first episode after it came back, back in 2005. Because I suppose at that point because I had been reporting on the show I had been on set and read the scripts but you can never quite know whether something works until you sit down and watch it on transmission. Even sat watching it in the editing suite a few weeks before for the final edit, you can’t tell.

Its actually sat on a sofa, watching it on a television sometimes in a room full of people then you can kind of get whether it works and I suppose the most thrilling thing was watching that and realising that it really worked and it was particularly nice the next day when you get the overnight ratings and 10.2 million people had watched it and not only had it worked but the show has a chance of being popular.”

VM: Do you think that David and Russell have left at the right time or would you have liked to see them stay on for more?

BC: “Yes I think they did leave at the right time, there was a point back in 2008 when David was having to make his final final decisions about leaving and he wobbled. He was this close, so so close, to staying on for a fifth series because it had just been announced that Stephen Moffat was going to be the guy writing it. Stephen had sat down with David and explained his ideas for stories and scripts. He is a brilliant, brilliant writer and David understandably wobbled a bit and then decided no, it was the right time to leave.

I remember at the time of that wobble, because I was writing the book with Russell T. Davies and I was privy to some of the stuff going on behind the scenes, they would have loved him to stay as he has been the best doctor they have ever had but for the sake of his career it’s the right time to move on. He’s at the height of his powers, doesn’t want to become typecast, doesn’t want to become bored actually of doing a job he loves.

But also for the show I think Dr Who is always about change, its about reinvention, it always has been, its like a rolling review and I think its healthy to the show that every three or four years it gets the thrill and the challenges of a new lead actor. Russell has said that he thinks one of the reasons the five years that he has been in charge of the show has been a success is because, through accident actually rather than design, there has always been at the end of each series a key cast change. At the end of series one Christopher Eccleston left as the Doctor, end of series two Billie Piper left, end of series 3 Freema Ageyman left, Catherine Tate came in for series 4 and so there has always been a change.

If a particular series was not as good as the last it wouldn’t have been the writers or the producers who get the flack it would be the lead cast members. Russell and the production team have always been adamant that must not happen so it’s kept the production team on their toes and improved the show even more.”

VM: At the end of Series Four a clone of the 10^th Doctor was created, do you think that was written in as a way back in for David Tennant?

BC: “I think that was the best way to write out the Rose character rather than allow for David to be written back in. Having said that you never know what future production teams will do.

At the end of series three for instance the master was killed off and just as an after thought, at the last minute literally the script was written, they were about to start shooting and as an afterthought Russell decided to add in just a little scene just at the end with the Master’s ring. They didn’t know who this woman was picking it up, they didn’t cast an actress to do it, it was just the production assistant whose hand it was and they thought just leave it there. Just plant it just in case a future production team wants to pick up on it.

What surprised Russell was that actually a couple of years later it wasn’t a future production team but him, his own script that ended up picking up on that. I think perhaps it’s the same for the alternative 10^th Doctor in the parallel universe, if in 10 years time someone wants to pick up on that they could do.

But you know what, its sci fi, if a production team wants to bring David Tennant back for an episode alongside the current doctor then they will find a way as they did with Peter Davidson [the 5^th Doctor]. There is always some sort of device, I think Star Trek call it techno bable, which is basically science gobbledy-gook that means nothing but allows them to facilitate the story.”

VM: When Christopher Eccleston, the 9^th Doctor, pulled out from doing a second year was there a panic at all? Did they worry that after all the hard work in bringing it back so successfully it was going to crumble?

BC: “There wasn’t panic. Back then I think everyone thought it was quite remarkable that the BBC had not only agreed to bring back Dr Who but agreed to commission a series that was prime time drama and 13 episodes.

Talking about one of the ways in which Dr Who has changed drama production at the BBC its now series commissioned and they often commission for 10,11,12,13 episodes. Back in 2003/2004 usually if a new drama series was commissioned it might be for 4 episodes or 6 episodes. We are heading slightly towards the American system of commissioning far more so I think it was so remarkable back then that the sort of number one concern was to make a first series as good as possible and then maybe think about a second.

I don’t think anyone was seriously thinking quite that far ahead so Christopher Eccleston was the Doctor for that series and what happens after that well we’ll see. So when sort of 2/3 of he way through production of the first series he decided that he was going to leave the show its been done seven or eight times before he regenerates into a new actor. I don’t think it was panic, I think its an opportunity to tell an exciting story, to introduce the concept of regeneration to a new audience, I think actually by introducing it just after one series this idea that the lead actor can change has probably ensured that the shows long term success is safer.

Doctors are a bit like Blue Peter presenters, you know the current crop and vaguely remember the old ones. I think most people forget that Christopher Eccleston played the part and I think in a couple of months time when kids are obsessed with Matt Smith they will look back at David Tennant fondly but its all about the new guys really.”

VM: How can the new Steven Moffat and Matt Smith team keep the show fresh and maintain their predecessor’s high quality?

BC: “Well it’s a lot of the same production team, the on screen talent has changed and the producers at the very top have too but most of the people working on the show are the same people who worked on it for the last five years so I think there it will be fine. They are people who know what they are doing.

Steven Moffat is brilliant, he’s been instrumental in each of Russell’s four series as show runner so he really knows what he’s doing. I don’t think there is any doubt that the standard will be kept up.

How you keep it fresh, well you’ve got a new Doctor, a new actor inhabiting the part so you know you are almost starting from square one again with that character which is fantastic. The same with the companion played by Karen Gillan.

VM: Do you think the BBC was right to cast a young fresher actor after David or should they have gone with someone more established?

BC: Well I think they needed to try and cast somebody who was not just a David Tenant clone but someone different. So if you are going to go different, people always talk of casting a female doctor but I think that would change the nature of the character too fundamentally, I don’t think that was ever seriously considered.

VM: There was a lot of speculation about Jennifer Saunders taking the part though?

BC: Well no, I think her name along with sort of Joanna Lumley and people, her name is often mentioned in the press but I think that’s just press.

It would be like casting James Bond as a woman, it would become about a woman who saves the universe rather than just a character who saves the universe.

So I think therefore they either needed to go older or younger than David, they needed to do something that was different and simply. Also from a purely practical point of view I don’t think, and the production team I think felt this too, you can cast an actor who is too much older. For actor in their 50s or 60s, because its an intense 9 month shoot down in Cardiff working very long hours, doing a lot of physical stuff it would be a struggle. So just from a very boring production point of view if you cast someone like Bill Nighty as the Doctor, which is a name often banded about in the press, I think at the end of that nine month shoot it would kill him.

Hence instead they decided to go younger, they auditioned lots and lots of actors, I don’t think they were particularly looking for one to fill one demographic, but Matt just walked into that audition and blew them away and that’s what you need really. I think there is only a hand full of actors in this country, a dozen or so who could carry a show like Dr Who and play that part, it’s a bit like Hamlet.

Blair rose quickly in the Met, becoming a Detective Inspector in 1985. However, he also became heavily engaged with the academic side of keeping the peace. In 1985, he published a book called Investigating Rape: A New Approach for Police which led to widespread reforms in the way police forces investigated allegations of rape throughout the country. He compared the challenge of managing the Met to that of managing a FTSE 100 company, and studied such institutions to see how the police service could be reformed. Dubbed by some as ‘the thinking man’s policeman’, he offered Palatinate an insight into his thoughts on some of the problems of keeping law and order in the decade to come.

Young people’s drinking habits and the effect that they have on policing was first on the agenda. Blair responded to the recommendations of some government medical advisors that there should be a minimum price for a unit of alcohol: “the raising of the unit price does have some logic. The problem of street drinkers is related to the ability to get hold of very cheap alcohol – cider especially – and this can make people pretty miserable. The second thing is that there is no doubt that the character of inner cities changes on a Friday and Saturday night due to the considerable amounts of drinking that is going on. However, I’m not sure that price change is the answer. For example, I have a student son. He doesn’t drink every night, but if he decides to go out with his mates, you would have to raise the price very significantly to change his mind. So I’m not sure that it’s that effective an idea”.

He went on to elaborate on the endemic nature of the country’s alcohol problem: “The British have had a reputation for drunkenness for hundreds of years. The only thing that’s really changed is this issue of availability and price”.

Blair continued to expand upon the problem of substance abuse. Some commentators are beginning to argue that alcohol and drug use should be seen on a continuous spectrum and be approached as parts of the same problem. Blair did not agree:

“Drugs are a different problem altogether. The issue of drugs is connected to crime inherently, as it is an illegal activity. Young people are in danger of getting a criminal record, with life shattering consequences. Drugs are also linked with criminal gangs, which have an interest in gaining a monopoly over supply. Fights between drug-dealing gangs cause a great deal of very unpleasant crime”.

Is the legalisation of drugs the best way to stop this violence? “I am not in favour of legalisation. It would ensure that the quality of drugs is proper and not mixed with any unpleasant substances, and the government would get income from it by taxing it. But put against that is a massive disadvantage of extending the use of drugs, which do so much damage to people’s health. We are not in a very comfortable place over drugs, but I certainly am not in favour of legalising or decriminalising.”

Following promotion to Detective Inspector and the publication of his book, Blair’s ascent within the police hierarchy continued. After becoming Superintendent and then Chief Superintendent, senior positions in Thames Valley and Surrey Police paved the way for his appointment as the most senior policeman in the country. However, he was at first overlooked, becoming Deputy Commissioner to Sir John Stevens in May 2000. Following a knighthood for his services to policing, Blair eventually became head of the Met in Feb 2005.

An intellectual policeman, Blair had grand plans for reforming the Met into a 21st Century force. Indeed, he was a leading figure in the development of Community Support Officers and the widely acclaimed ‘Neighbourhood Policing’ strategy. However, his time as Commissioner of the Met was overshadowed by the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings.

Blair is not the only Commissioner of the Met to be undermined by unpredicted events. Sir David McNee’s position was questioned after a man broke into Buckingham Palace. The credibility of Paul Condon’s intention to rid the Met of racism was undermined by the Met’s failure to apprehend the white murderers of black teenager Stephen Lawrence just months into Condon’s tenure. However, the unlawful killing of Jean Charles de Menezes in July 2005 by counter-terrorist police provided the darkest of shadows to hang over a new head of London’s police force. It remained until Blair resigned in Dec 2008.

It is widely accepted that Boris Johnson effectively fired Blair by asking him to step down, so it is unsurprising that he is unenthusiastic about the involvement of politics in policing affairs. In response to the idea of heads of police services being held directly and solely accountable to local politicians, he insists that “there is nothing wrong with any political system of accountability per se”. However, although he does not think it is the job of the policeman to rule on how he is appointed, Blair does preach caution over the suggestion that politicians should become more involved in police accountability, or that senior policemen should be elected by the members of the public they protect.

“Each country operates their system of [police] accountability in a different way. In Britain, there has been a longstanding tradition of what is called the tripartite system: an arrangement which balances the powers of the Home Secretary, the Police Authority and the chief officer of the police. My concern is that we shouldn’t move to a different system – which is the idea of either an elected police officer, or the replacement of the Police Authority [the institution charged with holding the police force to account], which is a mixture of both elected and independent people, by a single individual – without a great deal of thought. In the United States, where the Mayor has the power to hire and fire, there is one particular implication: the length of tenure of the police chief is much shorter. As an example, there have been 25 Metropolitan Police Commissioners, and there have been 40 New York chiefs in a shorter period, and I’m not sure that’s good.”

After a distinguished career, Blair insists that he has no regrets about joining the police force, stating unequivocally, “I certainly would do it again. There was extraordinary variety in the jobs that I did, consecutively running the office of Commissioner of Strategic Planning, and investigating murder enquiries. There was a very wide spectrum”. Joining the police force is a career path perhaps unfamiliar to many Durham graduates, but Blair extolled the virtues of life in the force:

“I certainly would recommend it. People don’t recognise it as a usual graduate profession, but it’s surprising how many graduates make up the force. I think it’s around thirty percent. There are very few careers that offer such extraordinary variety, the combination of physical, moral and intellectual challenges, that policing does”.

With employment prospects in the private sector still looking maegre in a lacklustre economic recovery and growing public resentment towards the financial industries, perhaps Blair’s challenging, intellectually stimulating career in the police force is something that Durham graduates should pay more attention to.

With the graduate proportion in the police likely to keep increasing, now could be a perfect opportunity for finalists to consider following Sir Ian’s model and using intellectual, academic skills in a practical way.