Talk:Policeman (An Unearthly Child)

Merger with Reg Cranfield

The information on Reg Cranfield might suggest that this page and that page should be merged. But reading Reg Cranfield's page there's nothing exactly that links him to the policeman seen at the start of An Unearthly Child, and as this page notes Fred Rawlings is also a contender for the role of the policeman.

I don't think that he's named for the actor who played the policeman is enough of a reason to merge. Continuity references are rife in the DWU especially around the 50th anniversary when Shroud of Sorrow (novel) was published. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:11, September 28, 2017 (UTC)

Although I agree that by the Wiki's policy the in-universe evidence isn't tangible enough to make the link, I don't think I understand the point of that last sentence. How does "there were a lot of continuity references being made at the time" invalidate the idea that the name would be a link to the TV character?

Again, I agree that this link shouldn't be drawn for now, but because of a variation of T:NO RL (within the DWU the name has no significance, it's only with real-world knowledge that we understand its relevance), not some nebulous judgement regarding the amount of continuity references that were going on. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 20:06, December 8, 2019 (UTC)

Surely, if we can't say that Reg Cranfield is this character, the same applies to Fred Rawlings, who is also mentioned on this page. Both are mentioned in the novel Shroud of Sorrow, which I've read, and indeed I got the impression that Reg Cranfield, and not Fred Rawlings, was supposed to be this character. And in either case there's no definitive evidence for either character being this one. Same with Bernard Whittam from The Last Day at Work, actually, who, I must not already has his own page. This page is in a very odd state at the moment and I think most of the parts not specially about An Unearthly Child should probably be removed. 86.170.183.51^{talk to me} 21:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I made that last post. Forgot to sign in. Again. I do apologise for how this is becoming rather a habit now. NightmareofEden ☎ 21:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I think Whittham is different. For one thing, we have an illustration of him and he clearly looks just like the policeman in An Unearthly Child. Secondly, while Cranfield and Rawlings are wink-wink easter eggs, it is literally the premise and selling point of The Last Day at Work that it explains who the Unearthly Child Policeman really was. If we cannot acknowledge that on this Wiki, then something has gone disastrously wrong. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing "disastrously wrong" about requiring sources for info. We don't do assumptions. If something is intended, it can't be that hard to find a source for it. Shambala108 ☎ 22:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course. But I didn't say something had "gone disastrously wrong". I say it would if we couldn't; but in fact, it is my contention that we can. When a story is advertised as featuring the Third Doctor, and the man on the cover looks like Jon Pertwee, then even if in-story he's not called "the Third Doctor," we know the "white-haired time-traveller" is Pertwee, not Hartnell or Capaldi.

By the same token, I was telling our anonymous friend over there that if a story is advertised as the story that reveals who the Unearthly Child policeman was, and the guy on the cover looks like the man in An Unearthly Child, then we can in fact consider that this is an appearance of that character even if he doesn't break the fourth wall in-story to lean at you and whisper in your ear "by the way that was me at timestap 00:00:03 of An Unearthly Child, Episode One.

User:CzechOut's comments and conclusions at Talk:Totem (short story) are I think the precedent we need if we want a specific word of policy on the subject — finding that yes, if it's clear from the out-of-universe intent that the character was meant to be the Eighth Doctor, and there are actual narrative clues in-story that point towards the Eighth Doctor (even though they could theoretically point towards the Third Doctor as well), then we can acknowledge that it's an Eighth Doctor story. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 23:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

So, just so we're clear, is the proposal to merge Whittam, but split both Rawlings and Cranfield then? NightmareofEden ☎ 11:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. (Although we would of course mention Rawlings and Crenfield in the "behind the scenes" section of the merged page.) Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 11:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

BTW, my headcanon is that Fred Rawlings was a normal, human police officer, and NOT the policeman seen in An Unearthly Child, while Reg Cranfield WAS said policeman, who was created by the TARDIS complete with a fake backstory including a dead father, with Whittam actually being the same entity as Cranfield, with new false memories created by the TARDIS automatically rewriting his backstory to protect against the Shroud's attack. Not strictly relevant to editing of this page as it's basically just a fantheory but just I thought may as well mention it while we're on the topic. NightmareofEden ☎ 11:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Wait, stop, stop, stop. Fred Rawlings is as much as the same individual as the policeman from An Unearthly Child as Bernard Whittham is.

Reg Cranfield was initially assumed to be the policeman from AUC, hence the original proposed merger; however, upon inspecting Shroud of Sorrow, it seems pretty explicit that Fred Rawlings was the individual from AUC.

This wasn’t his regular beat. He’d swapped shifts at the last minute with his drinking buddy, PC Rawlings, who claimed he was coming down with the flu. Reg wasn’t convinced. Fred was as healthy as a horse; he’d never had so much as a sniffle in all the time they’d known each other. Sergeant Clough reckoned it all had something to do with what had happened last night, when Fred had returned to the nick as white as a sheet, blabbering on about ‘people in the mist who weren’t really there’. More likely he’d stopped off for one too many bracers at the Rose and Crown, but Fred had swapped with him plenty of times over the past few months so he could go and visit his dad.PROSE: Shroud of Sorrow

From this, it is pretty clear that Reg and Fred are absolutely not the same individual, but two separate individuals both named in homage to the disputed actors of the original policeman, as well as essentially serving the same job.

But as I have previously said, Fred is absolutely the same character as the policeman as Bernard Whittham is.

Epsilon📯 📂

12:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and this section of the novel takes place explicitly on 23 November, the day after TV: An Unearthly Child, and is set in Totter's Lane, thus making Fred Rawlings pretty obviously the policeman in question.

In short, in AUC, a policeman is seen doing his rounds in Totter's Lane on 22 November, and within the space of twenty minutes the First Doctor kidnaps Ian and Barbara.

In SoS, it shows that a policeman, Fred Rawlings, had later came into the policeman station blabbering on about "people who weren't there", and thus, the day later on the 23rd, his co-worker Reg takes over Fred's shift onn Totter's Lane as Fred stays at home, Fred assuming that he had just caught the flu and had not actually seen a bunch of people disappear.

Epsilon📯 📂

12:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

OK the original long post I had here got edited conflicted and I just lot it all so I'll summarise my points as best I can from memory; 1. You say Fred Rawlings is meant to be the policeman because the "people in the fog who weren't there" were meant to be the Doctor, Ian, Barbara, and Susan. But the AUC policeman didn't witness any of that. I assumed he was referring to the Shroud itself, perhaps in a weakened state if news of Kennedy's assassination, which the novel tells us gave it its power, hadn't travelled to him yet, but that's not important right now. 2. Who says AUC took place on the 22nd of November? Well, Who Killed Kennedy does, to fit in with its plot, but generally that story is assumed to take place on its airdate. 3. The meta reference fits better if Cranfield, rather than Rawlings, is the AUC policeman, since Cranfield played the AUC policeman in the finished version of AUC. 4. Even if we do take the policeman to be Fred, is there actual hard evidence for that, or even on the level of the evidence for Whittam? I'm not too sure... 5. Of course they are seperate individuals, but nobody is disputing that so I'm not sure why you mentioned it. NightmareofEden ☎ 12:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I know AUC taking place on its airdate doesn't make much sense, given that AUC was presented as a schoolday, but that's still what is generally assumed. NightmareofEden ☎ 12:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Counterpoints

1. Well, the policeman in AUC was never actually shown to leave Totter's Lane, was he? It would make sense that he was still in the vicinity to hear Ian and Barbara getting into the kerfuffle with the Doctor and started making a lot of noise, and returning just as the TARDIS dematerialised.
2. And? The author of PROSE: Shroud of Sorrow could've easily used PROSE: Who Killed Kennedy to date the events. That's not a issue, surely, one story being in continuity with another?
3. I had thought that some sources had stated that Fred had portrayed the policeman in the final edition?
4. Well, there's a lot of evidence that I enumerated just above your latest reply.
5. I had thought that someone had said that both Reg and Fred were intended to be the policeman, implying that they were the same individual, so I wanted to clarify that they weren't, even though upon reflection that seemed a bit obvious.
6. As for the airdate being the date in which AUC is set, 22 November, well that was a Friday. So still a schoolday, surely?
   Epsilon📯 📂
   13:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

See, a lot of what you're saying is based on assumptions/guesswork. So is a lot of what I'M saying, sure (my headcanon is even that the reason Saturday is a schoolday in AUC is Coal Hill School has some optional bonus studies on that day even though AUC has ZERO indication it's anything but a normal schoolday), but I'm not arguing anything definite. You are. I'm just saying there's not quite ENOUGH evidence to merge them, not saying they CAN'T be the same indivual. But, to respond to your points.

1. There's no suggestion of any of that in AUC. And I think he would have intervened earlier with Ian and Barbara stalking a student if so.
2. Sure, there's absolutely no issue with it being in century with the short story A Long Night, which dates the events of AUC to 23rd November
3. Well, then why even bring up Reg?
4. You thought wrong
5. Yes. That would make more sense, logically, I admit. But it still doesn't seem to be what this book is going for. NightmareofEden ☎ 13:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)