In The Brontes at the BBC (BBC4, Sunday) the channel tried to settle the eternal debate which occupies bookworms and film buffs alike: which was better, the book or the film?

Let’s admit it: it’s almost always the book. How can something which has been snipped, adjusted and filtered through a director and various producers, actors, actresses and moneymen be as good as the original piece of work, the mighty novel, which is unadulterated and pure, coming straight to you from the novelist’s imagination (allowing for tweaks by an editor or a helpful proof-reader)? It’s far better to go with the real deal than the glossy adaptation and there’s no rule saying you can’t eat popcorn and hotdogs whilst you read. But then, I’m a member of The Bronte Society and a bit of a fanatic, so I would say that, wouldn’t I?

But even a tiresome bookworm like me can allow that sometimes the debate is flipped on its head and we get a film which is actually better than its book – The Shawshank Redemption anyone? Or there might be rare cases when the film and book are equally exquisite, such as Gone With The Wind.

But let’s get back to The Brontes. This programme showcased clips of all the Bronte adaptations the BBC have attempted over the years and, oh, there have been plenty! But, as a TV critic and Bronte lover, let me tell you that the only adaptation which is worthy was not from the BBC, but an ITV production of Jane Eyre in 1997, staring the magnificent Ciaran Hinds as Mr Rochester. After watching it you will surely agree no one else should ever play him. His performance even managed to dislodge the Rochester image which Charlotte Bronte had created on the page – but I think she’d have approved of him.

So ITV might have given us the best Bronte film, but the BBC has still made some brave attempts and they’re keen to remind us of them here. A good effort, BBC, but ITV still nabbed the best one. Nonetheless, the show was fascinating in letting us see the myriad ways in which a single character can be interpreted by a hundred different imaginations. As with all good books programmes, this made me want to read all the Bronte novels again. Except Agnes Grey – no one bothers with that one!

Over on STV, you could argue the debate of book v film was being continued with Maigret (STV, Monday). The French detective, Maigret, is based on the popular novels by Georges Simenon, who managed to publish 75 books about his enigmatic character. Clearly, there is something quite exceptional in a character from whom 75 novels can be wrung and his particular essence was famously caught by Michael Gambon in the TV adaptations of the 1990s, so was it wise to have him portrayed here by Rowan Atkinson?

He played Maigret as understated, sullen and wise but the production was so slow and plodding that it soon became dull. Perhaps things were deliberately slow in order to very bluntly convey that Maigret is the classic French detective: careful and plodding but he’ll always get his man in the end. If so, there must be better ways of conveying his precision and exactitude. Atkinson seemed like he was merely dressing up as Maigret for Hallowe’en, or perhaps donning the outfit as part of a comedy sketch lampooning the image of the classic detective. His hat and pipe remained nothing but props called up from the costume department. He never seemed to inhabit the character, and the time dragged ever so slowly by.

President Trump: Can He Really Win? (C4, Wednesday) went out before the news broke that Trump, as president, would not rule out nuking Europe. Of all the clumsy statements, crude jokes and offensive remarks he’s made, this latest must be the most unsettling. While he wasn’t quite as foolish as to say he’d use nuclear weapons in Europe, he refused to say he wouldn’t.

Those seeking to defend him might say that such a blunt, and perhaps unnecessary, question would not be put to Obama or Hillary Clinton. Hey, they’re just trying to antagonise him! But the fact that it wouldn’t only proves how wild and unpredictable Trump is. If a journalist asked Obama about his views on nuking Europe he’d be laughed out of the room, but the question can be put to Trump because, with him, no gargantuan horror seems impossible. He makes the unthinkable seem all too thinkable, and when we’re talking about nuclear weapons that’s a terribly dangerous position as the only thing that has prevented their use since 1945 is the knowledge of their horror. A nuclear war is just too awful to contemplate. But not if you’re Trump! He probably thinks the radiation will stop politely at his precious Mexican wall.

Matt Frei joined the campaign trail to ask if a Trump presidency is a real possibility or just something we like to consider so that the foreign political news can be made a tad more interesting. As Trump yelled he’d pay legal fees for any of his supporters who’d throw a punch at protesters, dismissed Clinton as evil, and whipped his angry supporters up even further, it was a depressing and very troubling programme.

And yet, you think you’re troubled by him? The few sensible folk left in the Republican Party are even more concerned because if Trump gets to the White House they’ll be constantly afraid his Presidency will make them look like crazed pantomime villains – and if he loses then the same applies except we can add “deluded and divided” to that description. The party can’t win.

Finally, the Line of Duty (Thursday, BBC2) remains brilliant and shocking but gave me cause for concern his week. The re-appearance of Lindsay Denton was a nice twist but as we began re-treading the case from Series 2 I was reminded of Broadchurch and its second series flop which tried the same tactic.