Discussion:
nosy B! Spoiler, 16th August
(too old to reply)
Chris McMillan
2017-08-17 18:12:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Come back Martha (Woodford), all is forgiven!!

Sincerely Chris
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-08-17 18:57:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris McMillan
Come back Martha (Woodford), all is forgiven!!
Sincerely Chris
Yes, Soosan is very well played, and probably written: I really dislike
her. Any redeeming qualities seem to be long gone.

Perhaps time for Jill/Peggy (I forget which it was) to tell her some
home truths about herself, in a similar way to how she did Lynda some
years ago.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Find out what works. Then do it. That's my system. I'm always surprised it
isn't more popular. - Scott Adams, 2015
Penny
2017-08-17 19:45:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 19:57:42 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Chris McMillan
Come back Martha (Woodford), all is forgiven!!
Sincerely Chris
Yes, Soosan is very well played, and probably written: I really dislike
her. Any redeeming qualities seem to be long gone.
Perhaps time for Jill/Peggy (I forget which it was) to tell her some
home truths about herself, in a similar way to how she did Lynda some
years ago.
I was rather surprised Lynda didn't tell her off for leaping to conclusions
and gossiping about it in the shop.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Sally Thompson
2017-08-17 21:31:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penny
On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 19:57:42 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Chris McMillan
Come back Martha (Woodford), all is forgiven!!
Sincerely Chris
Yes, Soosan is very well played, and probably written: I really dislike
her. Any redeeming qualities seem to be long gone.
Perhaps time for Jill/Peggy (I forget which it was) to tell her some
home truths about herself, in a similar way to how she did Lynda some
years ago.
I was rather surprised Lynda didn't tell her off for leaping to conclusions
and gossiping about it in the shop.
Yes, she certainly shouldn't have told anyone that Oliver's cards had been
rejected. I would have thought that was confidential information.
--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
Chris McMillan
2017-08-18 14:13:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penny
On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 19:57:42 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Chris McMillan
Come back Martha (Woodford), all is forgiven!!
Sincerely Chris
Yes, Soosan is very well played, and probably written: I really dislike
her. Any redeeming qualities seem to be long gone.
Perhaps time for Jill/Peggy (I forget which it was) to tell her some
home truths about herself, in a similar way to how she did Lynda some
years ago.
I was rather surprised Lynda didn't tell her off for leaping to conclusions
and gossiping about it in the shop.
+1, however that Kneel isn't afraid to speak his mind.
Sally Thompson
2017-08-17 21:31:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Chris McMillan
Come back Martha (Woodford), all is forgiven!!
Sincerely Chris
Yes, Soosan is very well played, and probably written: I really dislike
her. Any redeeming qualities seem to be long gone.
Perhaps time for Jill/Peggy (I forget which it was) to tell her some
home truths about herself, in a similar way to how she did Lynda some
years ago.
It was Jill. I remember it well because it was so unusual for TA.
--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
Penny
2017-08-18 09:16:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 17 Aug 2017 21:31:07 GMT, Sally Thompson
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Chris McMillan
Come back Martha (Woodford), all is forgiven!!
Sincerely Chris
Yes, Soosan is very well played, and probably written: I really dislike
her. Any redeeming qualities seem to be long gone.
Perhaps time for Jill/Peggy (I forget which it was) to tell her some
home truths about herself, in a similar way to how she did Lynda some
years ago.
It was Jill. I remember it well because it was so unusual for TA.
Susan was told off for gossiping relatively recently - possibly by Pat in
relation to Helen's storyline?
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Serena Blanchflower
2017-08-18 09:58:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penny
On 17 Aug 2017 21:31:07 GMT, Sally Thompson
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Chris McMillan
Come back Martha (Woodford), all is forgiven!!
Sincerely Chris
Yes, Soosan is very well played, and probably written: I really dislike
her. Any redeeming qualities seem to be long gone.
Perhaps time for Jill/Peggy (I forget which it was) to tell her some
home truths about herself, in a similar way to how she did Lynda some
years ago.
It was Jill. I remember it well because it was so unusual for TA.
Susan was told off for gossiping relatively recently - possibly by Pat in
relation to Helen's storyline?
It was by Pat, after Susan spread news of the new housing development
around the village.
--
Best wishes, Serena
Expect nothing. Live frugally on surprise (Alice Walker)
Vicky
2017-08-18 10:35:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penny
On 17 Aug 2017 21:31:07 GMT, Sally Thompson
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Chris McMillan
Come back Martha (Woodford), all is forgiven!!
Sincerely Chris
Yes, Soosan is very well played, and probably written: I really dislike
her. Any redeeming qualities seem to be long gone.
Perhaps time for Jill/Peggy (I forget which it was) to tell her some
home truths about herself, in a similar way to how she did Lynda some
years ago.
It was Jill. I remember it well because it was so unusual for TA.
Susan was told off for gossiping relatively recently - possibly by Pat in
relation to Helen's storyline?
Didn't she overhear Pat and someone talking about the sale of land and
she did her usual gossip spreading?
--
Vicky
Btms
2017-08-18 10:48:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vicky
Post by Penny
On 17 Aug 2017 21:31:07 GMT, Sally Thompson
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Chris McMillan
Come back Martha (Woodford), all is forgiven!!
Sincerely Chris
Yes, Soosan is very well played, and probably written: I really dislike
her. Any redeeming qualities seem to be long gone.
Perhaps time for Jill/Peggy (I forget which it was) to tell her some
home truths about herself, in a similar way to how she did Lynda some
years ago.
It was Jill. I remember it well because it was so unusual for TA.
Susan was told off for gossiping relatively recently - possibly by Pat in
relation to Helen's storyline?
Didn't she overhear Pat and someone talking about the sale of land and
she did her usual gossip spreading?
If this was so, then if Pat wanted to keep stuff private, she shouldn't
have been discussing it in a public place.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Penny
2017-08-18 11:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 10:48:06 -0000 (UTC), Btms <***@thetames.me.uk>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Btms
Post by Vicky
Post by Penny
On 17 Aug 2017 21:31:07 GMT, Sally Thompson
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Chris McMillan
Come back Martha (Woodford), all is forgiven!!
Sincerely Chris
Yes, Soosan is very well played, and probably written: I really dislike
her. Any redeeming qualities seem to be long gone.
Perhaps time for Jill/Peggy (I forget which it was) to tell her some
home truths about herself, in a similar way to how she did Lynda some
years ago.
It was Jill. I remember it well because it was so unusual for TA.
Susan was told off for gossiping relatively recently - possibly by Pat in
relation to Helen's storyline?
Didn't she overhear Pat and someone talking about the sale of land and
she did her usual gossip spreading?
If this was so, then if Pat wanted to keep stuff private, she shouldn't
have been discussing it in a public place.
It wasn't in a public place but in her own home. Susan was eaves-dropping
while using Pat's washing machine I think. "Oh but I don't gossip!" said
Susan...
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Btms
2017-08-18 11:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Btms
Post by Vicky
Post by Penny
On 17 Aug 2017 21:31:07 GMT, Sally Thompson
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Chris McMillan
Come back Martha (Woodford), all is forgiven!!
Sincerely Chris
Yes, Soosan is very well played, and probably written: I really dislike
her. Any redeeming qualities seem to be long gone.
Perhaps time for Jill/Peggy (I forget which it was) to tell her some
home truths about herself, in a similar way to how she did Lynda some
years ago.
It was Jill. I remember it well because it was so unusual for TA.
Susan was told off for gossiping relatively recently - possibly by Pat in
relation to Helen's storyline?
Didn't she overhear Pat and someone talking about the sale of land and
she did her usual gossip spreading?
If this was so, then if Pat wanted to keep stuff private, she shouldn't
have been discussing it in a public place.
It wasn't in a public place but in her own home. Susan was eaves-dropping
while using Pat's washing machine I think. "Oh but I don't gossip!" said
Susan...
Well gossip is a funny sort of thing. To my mind SOoozan is a gold star
gossip but she seems not to know this herself. I don't approve of her but
still think Pat might have been more cautious. Is repeating something you
hear or have knowledge of always gossip? And if it is, then why not
repeat it if you so choose? A part of me sees no reason for folk to treat
knowledge as a secret unless they have a professional responsibility to do
so.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Serena Blanchflower
2017-08-18 12:20:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Post by Penny
It wasn't in a public place but in her own home. Susan was eaves-dropping
while using Pat's washing machine I think. "Oh but I don't gossip!" said
Susan...
Well gossip is a funny sort of thing. To my mind SOoozan is a gold star
gossip but she seems not to know this herself. I don't approve of her but
still think Pat might have been more cautious. Is repeating something you
hear or have knowledge of always gossip? And if it is, then why not
repeat it if you so choose? A part of me sees no reason for folk to treat
knowledge as a secret unless they have a professional responsibility to do
so.
Surely gossip is one of those things where what one is entitled to do is
not the same as what it is polite to do.

Susan was clearly entitled to repeat what she'd heard; no one had
explicitly told her it was confidential but, equally, Pat was entitled
to feel affronted and to call Susan a gossip for doing so.

Pat had been having a private phone call, in her own home. I don't
think she was aware that Susan was in the house, although she had given
her permission to come in to do her washing. I can't remember whether
she became aware of Susan's presence before the news of the plans had
gone all round the village.

Susan would certainly have known that this was private information, not
intended for her ears. Given that she only heard it because Pat had
been kind enough to offer her the use of her washing machine, I think it
was a major abuse of Pat's hospitality, to then tell everyone what she'd
heard.
--
Best wishes, Serena
Why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, ... you've seen
what food processors do to food, right?
Btms
2017-08-18 13:04:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[]
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Pat had been having a private phone call, in her own home. I don't
think she was aware that Susan was in the house, although she had given
her permission to come in to do her washing. I can't remember whether
she became aware of Susan's presence before the news of the plans had
gone all round the village.
This was bad luck for Pat. You mean she heard nobody around?
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Susan would certainly have known that this was private information, not
intended for her ears. Given that she only heard it because Pat had
been kind enough to offer her the use of her washing machine, I think it
was a major abuse of Pat's hospitality, to then tell everyone what she'd
heard.
Well it wasn't very nice of Sooozan but the boundary of where exchanging
local news and views crosses into something called gossip and the
perpetrator is named and shamed is less clear to me. Here is an example; a
couple I know both have previous relationships. It was said to me that
the couple are not actually married as I had assumed. Is this gossip?
Or, just a fact. I received it has the latter but the people involved may
well not like the idea that this was even mentioned. There was no
pejorative tone from the person who mentioned this.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Sally Thompson
2017-08-18 14:17:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
[]
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Pat had been having a private phone call, in her own home. I don't
think she was aware that Susan was in the house, although she had given
her permission to come in to do her washing. I can't remember whether
she became aware of Susan's presence before the news of the plans had
gone all round the village.
This was bad luck for Pat. You mean she heard nobody around?
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Susan would certainly have known that this was private information, not
intended for her ears. Given that she only heard it because Pat had
been kind enough to offer her the use of her washing machine, I think it
was a major abuse of Pat's hospitality, to then tell everyone what she'd
heard.
Well it wasn't very nice of Sooozan but the boundary of where exchanging
local news and views crosses into something called gossip and the
perpetrator is named and shamed is less clear to me. Here is an example; a
couple I know both have previous relationships. It was said to me that
the couple are not actually married as I had assumed. Is this gossip?
Or, just a fact. I received it has the latter but the people involved may
well not like the idea that this was even mentioned. There was no
pejorative tone from the person who mentioned this.
IKWYM. I was recently told something about a friend (P) which I hadn't
known, by someone (M) who doesn't really know her. M could only have got
this information from someone she /does/ know, who also knows said friend.
I wondered whether just to tell friend P that perhaps she shouldn't share
secrets with the mutual friend, but decided in the end to say nothing. It
wasn't anything detrimental to P, just something she might not want to feel
was common knowledge.
--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
Btms
2017-08-18 14:25:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by Btms
[]
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Pat had been having a private phone call, in her own home. I don't
[]
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by Btms
This was bad luck for Pat. You mean she heard nobody around?
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Susan would certainly have known that this was private information, not
intended for her ears. Given that she only heard it because Pat had
been kind enough to offer her the use of her washing machine, I think it
was a major abuse of Pat's hospitality, to then tell everyone what she'd
heard.
Well it wasn't very nice of Sooozan but the boundary of where exchanging
local news and views crosses into something called gossip and the
perpetrator is named and shamed is less clear to me. Here is an example; a
couple I know both have previous relationships. It was said to me that
the couple are not actually married as I had assumed. Is this gossip?
Or, just a fact. I received it has the latter but the people involved may
well not like the idea that this was even mentioned. There was no
pejorative tone from the person who mentioned this.
IKWYM. I was recently told something about a friend (P) which I hadn't
known, by someone (M) who doesn't really know her. M could only have got
this information from someone she /does/ know, who also knows said friend.
I wondered whether just to tell friend P that perhaps she shouldn't share
secrets with the mutual friend, but decided in the end to say nothing. It
wasn't anything detrimental to P, just something she might not want to feel
was common knowledge.
That is a vg example of what I mean. And if it were a Sooozan who had
disclosed this info, then .......
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Vicky
2017-08-18 20:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 18 Aug 2017 14:17:45 GMT, Sally Thompson
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by Btms
[]
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Pat had been having a private phone call, in her own home. I don't
think she was aware that Susan was in the house, although she had given
her permission to come in to do her washing. I can't remember whether
she became aware of Susan's presence before the news of the plans had
gone all round the village.
This was bad luck for Pat. You mean she heard nobody around?
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Susan would certainly have known that this was private information, not
intended for her ears. Given that she only heard it because Pat had
been kind enough to offer her the use of her washing machine, I think it
was a major abuse of Pat's hospitality, to then tell everyone what she'd
heard.
Well it wasn't very nice of Sooozan but the boundary of where exchanging
local news and views crosses into something called gossip and the
perpetrator is named and shamed is less clear to me. Here is an example; a
couple I know both have previous relationships. It was said to me that
the couple are not actually married as I had assumed. Is this gossip?
Or, just a fact. I received it has the latter but the people involved may
well not like the idea that this was even mentioned. There was no
pejorative tone from the person who mentioned this.
IKWYM. I was recently told something about a friend (P) which I hadn't
known, by someone (M) who doesn't really know her. M could only have got
this information from someone she /does/ know, who also knows said friend.
I wondered whether just to tell friend P that perhaps she shouldn't share
secrets with the mutual friend, but decided in the end to say nothing. It
wasn't anything detrimental to P, just something she might not want to feel
was common knowledge.
Well, Liz Carr, an actress and disability campaigner, in the cast of
Silent Witness, is a friend and she posted on her fb, for friends only
to see, a few days ago that she'd been attacked. A man with scissors
in both hands went for her. She is in an electric wheelchair and was
accompanied by her PA, who pushed the man off and told Liz to go to
safety. Liz was wounded in the scalp and the PA, who fought the man
off bravely, had cuts and a broken finger, but the man ran off and
they found safety.

The police were called and after the two women has been checked in
hospital they went home and Liz posted eventually to say how brave the
PA was and how scared she'd been. She said she didn't want the media
to get the story, and they'd be interested as she was well-known, but
fb posts to friends only are not supposed to be accessible to others.
She does have a lot of friends though and within 48 hours the Daily
Mail had the story and she was doorstepped by a reporter, and the rest
of the papers had it after that. Friends do like to gossip, although
it was true in this case.

They might have got it anyway as police or first aiders might have
talked but there were quotes of how she felt supposedly from friends,
so it was possible that one gossiped.
--
Vicky
Fenny
2017-08-18 23:13:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vicky
fb posts to friends only are not supposed to be accessible to others.
FB posts to friends can be shared to others if one of those friends
comments on it. I constantly see posts from not-friends when a mutual
friend comments on it.

Anyone who thinks that any Friends post on FB is not going past the
list of their friends is sadly mistaken.
--
Fenny
Btms
2017-08-19 07:00:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fenny
Post by Vicky
fb posts to friends only are not supposed to be accessible to others.
FB posts to friends can be shared to others if one of those friends
comments on it. I constantly see posts from not-friends when a mutual
friend comments on it.
Anyone who thinks that any Friends post on FB is not going past the
list of their friends is sadly mistaken.
Or repeat it elsewhere, like umra?
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Vicky
2017-08-19 08:50:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Post by Fenny
Post by Vicky
fb posts to friends only are not supposed to be accessible to others.
FB posts to friends can be shared to others if one of those friends
comments on it. I constantly see posts from not-friends when a mutual
friend comments on it.
Anyone who thinks that any Friends post on FB is not going past the
list of their friends is sadly mistaken.
Or repeat it elsewhere, like umra?
Btms if you mean because I repeated it, then now it is no longer being
kept from the media as they already have it and she has made a
statement too, so I assume my post is ok.
--
Vicky
Btms
2017-08-19 09:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vicky
Post by Btms
Post by Fenny
Post by Vicky
fb posts to friends only are not supposed to be accessible to others.
FB posts to friends can be shared to others if one of those friends
comments on it. I constantly see posts from not-friends when a mutual
friend comments on it.
Anyone who thinks that any Friends post on FB is not going past the
list of their friends is sadly mistaken.
Or repeat it elsewhere, like umra?
Btms if you mean because I repeated it, then now it is no longer being
kept from the media as they already have it and she has made a
statement too, so I assume my post is ok.
Just reinforcing the fact the tinternet should never be considered as
private/confidential. You seem to think there is a duty or requirement not
to repeat stuff. Or once one person does so, then it is ok for others to
follow suit.

It is just the same with sharing verbal information and my point way back
is that as Soozan is a prime example of spreading news laced with her own
agenda, the person who talks in her hearing might be equally responsible
for spreading gossip and duff gen.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Vicky
2017-08-19 10:18:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Just reinforcing the fact the tinternet should never be considered as
private/confidential. You seem to think there is a duty or requirement not
to repeat stuff. Or once one person does so, then it is ok for others to
follow suit.
If you read my original post about it you'll have seen that she
specifically said she was venting to friends on fb and didn't want a
media circus. In this case I think friends had a duty not to go to the
press. And it probably wasn't a witness, as someone suggested, as they
quoted "a friend" .
Post by Btms
It is just the same with sharing verbal information and my point way back
is that as Soozan is a prime example of spreading news laced with her own
agenda, the person who talks in her hearing might be equally responsible
for spreading gossip and duff gen.
--
Vicky
Serena Blanchflower
2017-08-19 08:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fenny
Post by Vicky
fb posts to friends only are not supposed to be accessible to others.
FB posts to friends can be shared to others if one of those friends
comments on it. I constantly see posts from not-friends when a mutual
friend comments on it.
Anyone who thinks that any Friends post on FB is not going past the
list of their friends is sadly mistaken.
Not entirely. It depends on what security level the original poster
chose for their post. The posts you see, which friends have commented
on, will have been set to be either public or visible to friends of
friends. If they'd been set to friends only, you wouldn't see them and
wouldn't know that one of your friends had commented. You can see what
the security level is for a post by the icon next to it.
--
Best wishes, Serena
Christians shouldn't just be pulling people out of the river. We should
be going upstream to find out who's pushing them in. (Desmond Tutu)
Fenny
2017-08-19 08:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 09:22:01 +0100, Serena Blanchflower
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Post by Fenny
Post by Vicky
fb posts to friends only are not supposed to be accessible to others.
FB posts to friends can be shared to others if one of those friends
comments on it. I constantly see posts from not-friends when a mutual
friend comments on it.
Anyone who thinks that any Friends post on FB is not going past the
list of their friends is sadly mistaken.
Not entirely. It depends on what security level the original poster
chose for their post. The posts you see, which friends have commented
on, will have been set to be either public or visible to friends of
friends. If they'd been set to friends only, you wouldn't see them and
wouldn't know that one of your friends had commented. You can see what
the security level is for a post by the icon next to it.
Yes, but there's absolutely nothing to stop them from quoting it in a
post of their own. FB has NO privacy. There is NOTHING that prevents
anything going outside Friends only. Even restricting your friends
list and saying that something is confidential doesn't mean that it
won't go further.
--
Fenny
Btms
2017-08-19 08:29:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Fenny <***@removethis.onetel.net> wrote:

[] snipped
Post by Fenny
Yes, but there's absolutely nothing to stop them from quoting it in a
post of their own. FB has NO privacy. There is NOTHING that prevents
anything going outside Friends only. Even restricting your friends
list and saying that something is confidential doesn't mean that it
won't go further.
Like life in general.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Serena Blanchflower
2017-08-19 08:38:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fenny
Yes, but there's absolutely nothing to stop them from quoting it in a
post of their own. FB has NO privacy. There is NOTHING that prevents
anything going outside Friends only. Even restricting your friends
list and saying that something is confidential doesn't mean that it
won't go further.
Any more than there is anything to prevent someone from forwarding a
private email you sent them, or passing on information you gave them in
person.

Once you've told something to another person, regardless of the medium
you choose, you have little or no control over what they do with it or
who else they tell.
--
Best wishes, Serena
An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind (Gandhi)
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-08-19 09:56:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Post by Fenny
Yes, but there's absolutely nothing to stop them from quoting it in a
post of their own. FB has NO privacy. There is NOTHING that prevents
anything going outside Friends only. Even restricting your friends
list and saying that something is confidential doesn't mean that it
won't go further.
Any more than there is anything to prevent someone from forwarding a
private email you sent them, or passing on information you gave them in
person.
Once you've told something to another person, regardless of the medium
you choose, you have little or no control over what they do with it or
who else they tell.
Unless you invoke (prior to the revelation) legal constraints, I suppose
- still difficult to prove for verbal communication - or it falls under
the Official Secret Act, or similar. But that's getting rather far from
the type of gossip Soosan's guilty of.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Intelligence isn't complete without the full picture and the full picture is
all about doubt. Otherwise, you go the way of George Bush. - baroness Eliza
Manningham-Buller (former head of MI5), Radio Times 3-9 September 2011.
Penny
2017-08-19 09:22:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 09:25:08 +0100, Fenny <***@removethis.onetel.net>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Fenny
FB has NO privacy. There is NOTHING that prevents
anything going outside Friends only.
Private groups?
Daughters and I have one.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Btms
2017-08-19 09:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Fenny
FB has NO privacy. There is NOTHING that prevents
anything going outside Friends only.
Private groups?
Daughters and I have one.
But either of you may disclose your discussions if they choose.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Penny
2017-08-19 12:08:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 09:41:52 -0000 (UTC), Btms <***@thetames.me.uk>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Btms
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Fenny
FB has NO privacy. There is NOTHING that prevents
anything going outside Friends only.
Private groups?
Daughters and I have one.
But either of you may disclose your discussions if they choose.
Which wouldn't be facebook's fault (at the moment - aren't there government
moves to try and make such privacy illegal?)
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Mike
2017-08-19 12:19:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Btms
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Fenny
FB has NO privacy. There is NOTHING that prevents
anything going outside Friends only.
Private groups?
Daughters and I have one.
But either of you may disclose your discussions if they choose.
Which wouldn't be facebook's fault (at the moment - aren't there government
moves to try and make such privacy illegal?)
That's Big Brother Goooooogle for you....
--
Toodle Pip
Penny
2017-08-19 12:29:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 12:19:52 GMT, Mike <***@ntlworld.com> scrawled
in the dust...
Post by Mike
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Btms
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Fenny
FB has NO privacy. There is NOTHING that prevents
anything going outside Friends only.
Private groups?
Daughters and I have one.
But either of you may disclose your discussions if they choose.
Which wouldn't be facebook's fault (at the moment - aren't there government
moves to try and make such privacy illegal?)
That's Big Brother Goooooogle for you....
Not sure what it has to do with Google (who have introduced some form of
privacy to search results).
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Mike
2017-08-19 12:36:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penny
in the dust...
Post by Mike
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Btms
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Fenny
FB has NO privacy. There is NOTHING that prevents
anything going outside Friends only.
Private groups?
Daughters and I have one.
But either of you may disclose your discussions if they choose.
Which wouldn't be facebook's fault (at the moment - aren't there government
moves to try and make such privacy illegal?)
That's Big Brother Goooooogle for you....
Not sure what it has to do with Google (who have introduced some form of
privacy to search results).
Don't they ultimately have ownership? Their motto seems to be "What's yours
is mine and mine is my own"
--
Toodle Pip
Penny
2017-08-19 12:47:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 12:36:10 GMT, Mike <***@ntlworld.com> scrawled
in the dust...
Post by Mike
Post by Penny
in the dust...
Post by Mike
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Btms
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Fenny
FB has NO privacy. There is NOTHING that prevents
anything going outside Friends only.
Private groups?
Daughters and I have one.
But either of you may disclose your discussions if they choose.
Which wouldn't be facebook's fault (at the moment - aren't there government
moves to try and make such privacy illegal?)
That's Big Brother Goooooogle for you....
Not sure what it has to do with Google (who have introduced some form of
privacy to search results).
Don't they ultimately have ownership? Their motto seems to be "What's yours
is mine and mine is my own"
I think they recently added "do the right thing" to their original "Don't
be evil" motto. They can tell their users 'images may be subject to
copyright' but can't hope to control what notice, if any, the users take of
copyright.

There are simple ways to add code to pages you don't want indexed by google
and a lack of links to a page can mean the spiders just don't find it. Of
course many pages *want* to be found by google and will pay people to
'optimise' their search engine profile to bring them higher in results.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-08-19 12:44:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penny
in the dust...
[]
Post by Penny
Post by Mike
Post by Penny
Which wouldn't be facebook's fault (at the moment - aren't there government
moves to try and make such privacy illegal?)
That's Big Brother Goooooogle for you....
Not sure what it has to do with Google (who have introduced some form of
privacy to search results).
I think the latest lot of government moves are against _encryption_,
which at least one of the recent social networks (something more modern
than facebook, I think) implements. Of course it _overlaps_ with
privacy; from what you've all been discussing here, facebook allows
limitations to be placed on who can _access_ posts (if posts is the
right word), but those who do can read them. I think this newer network
(somethingchat is it?) encrypts - presumably actually in the end
computers, like https: - such that anyone who manages to access the
communication only sees the scrambled form of the text. _That_ is what
the government are concerned about, as it'd be very useful to criminals
and terrorists. (I'm sure facebook etc. let the government see what's on
_their_ servers, whatever privacy rules people have set, if the relevant
government waves suitable legislation [Patriot Act in the US], as what
is actually _stored_ is clear text - they just limit _access_ for
ordinary users.)

The thing Google - and I think other search engines - have implemented,
though I'm not sure how, is in response to an EC ruling that people can
ask for _some_ things about/by them not to appear in search results. (I.
e. the web pages or whatever still exist, but they don't show up in
search results; if you know the URL, you can still get at them.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

There is no honour to be had in not knowing a thing that can be known -
Danny Baker
Chris McMillan
2017-08-20 11:17:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Penny
in the dust...
[]
Post by Penny
Post by Mike
Post by Penny
Which wouldn't be facebook's fault (at the moment - aren't there government
moves to try and make such privacy illegal?)
That's Big Brother Goooooogle for you....
Not sure what it has to do with Google (who have introduced some form of
privacy to search results).
I think the latest lot of government moves are against _encryption_,
which at least one of the recent social networks (something more modern
than facebook, I think) implements. Of course it _overlaps_ with
privacy; from what you've all been discussing here, facebook allows
limitations to be placed on who can _access_ posts (if posts is the
right word), but those who do can read them. I think this newer network
(somethingchat is it?) encrypts -
Snapchat m'lud

Sincerely Chris
LFS
2017-08-19 15:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Fenny
FB has NO privacy. There is NOTHING that prevents
anything going outside Friends only.
Private groups?
Daughters and I have one.
It seems that even private groups are not private, judging by one I
belong to where someone unknown to any member asked to join. Secret
groups apparently are.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Serena Blanchflower
2017-08-19 17:42:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by LFS
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
FB has NO privacy.  There is NOTHING that prevents
anything going outside Friends only.
Private groups?
Daughters and I have one.
It seems that even private groups are not private, judging by one I
belong to where someone unknown to any member asked to join. Secret
groups apparently are.
If it's a private group, other people can see that the group exists, and
ask to join it, but they can't read anything that's said there. If the
group's secret, they won't even be told it exists and can only join it
if invited.
--
Best wishes, Serena
It was such a lovely day I thought it a pity to get up. (W. Somerset
Maugham)
BrritSki
2017-08-19 09:30:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fenny
Yes, but there's absolutely nothing to stop them from quoting it in a
post of their own. FB has NO privacy. There is NOTHING that prevents
anything going outside Friends only. Even restricting your friends
list and saying that something is confidential doesn't mean that it
won't go further.
Yebbut that's true of anything, not just social media or anything else.
If you tell me something I can repeat it elsewhere whatever you say
about secrecy etc. Fiction would be lost without it :)
Btms
2017-08-19 09:44:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BrritSki
Post by Fenny
Yes, but there's absolutely nothing to stop them from quoting it in a
post of their own. FB has NO privacy. There is NOTHING that prevents
anything going outside Friends only. Even restricting your friends
list and saying that something is confidential doesn't mean that it
won't go further.
Yebbut that's true of anything, not just social media or anything else.
If you tell me something I can repeat it elsewhere whatever you say
about secrecy etc. Fiction would be lost without it :)
The circulation list is much wider. I am surprised we don't hear Sooozan
spreading duff gen she has gathered from FB
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Chris McMillan
2017-08-19 10:23:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fenny
On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 09:22:01 +0100, Serena Blanchflower
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Post by Fenny
Post by Vicky
fb posts to friends only are not supposed to be accessible to others.
FB posts to friends can be shared to others if one of those friends
comments on it. I constantly see posts from not-friends when a mutual
friend comments on it.
Anyone who thinks that any Friends post on FB is not going past the
list of their friends is sadly mistaken.
Not entirely. It depends on what security level the original poster
chose for their post. The posts you see, which friends have commented
on, will have been set to be either public or visible to friends of
friends. If they'd been set to friends only, you wouldn't see them and
wouldn't know that one of your friends had commented. You can see what
the security level is for a post by the icon next to it.
Yes, but there's absolutely nothing to stop them from quoting it in a
post of their own. FB has NO privacy. There is NOTHING that prevents
anything going outside Friends only. Even restricting your friends
list and saying that something is confidential doesn't mean that it
won't go further.
Some posts no longer have a share button shown.

Sincerely Chris
Mike
2017-08-19 10:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fenny
On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 09:22:01 +0100, Serena Blanchflower
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Post by Fenny
Post by Vicky
fb posts to friends only are not supposed to be accessible to others.
FB posts to friends can be shared to others if one of those friends
comments on it. I constantly see posts from not-friends when a mutual
friend comments on it.
Anyone who thinks that any Friends post on FB is not going past the
list of their friends is sadly mistaken.
Not entirely. It depends on what security level the original poster
chose for their post. The posts you see, which friends have commented
on, will have been set to be either public or visible to friends of
friends. If they'd been set to friends only, you wouldn't see them and
wouldn't know that one of your friends had commented. You can see what
the security level is for a post by the icon next to it.
Yes, but there's absolutely nothing to stop them from quoting it in a
post of their own. FB has NO privacy. There is NOTHING that prevents
anything going outside Friends only. Even restricting your friends
list and saying that something is confidential doesn't mean that it
won't go further.
And I suspect that cut and paste the text still works on the most secure
message dunnit?
--
Toodle Pip
Mike
2017-08-19 10:51:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Serena Blanchflower <***@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote: (as a footer anyway)

Best wishes, Serena
Christians shouldn't just be pulling people out of the river. We should
be going upstream to find out who's pushing them in. (Desmond Tutu)

Very apt with all these sea bound refugees and wannabe immigrants I think!
--
Toodle Pip
Vicky
2017-08-19 08:48:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 00:13:18 +0100, Fenny
Post by Fenny
Post by Vicky
fb posts to friends only are not supposed to be accessible to others.
FB posts to friends can be shared to others if one of those friends
comments on it. I constantly see posts from not-friends when a mutual
friend comments on it.
Anyone who thinks that any Friends post on FB is not going past the
list of their friends is sadly mistaken.
Are you sure that is not because the post is set to friends of
friends?
--
Vicky
Sally Thompson
2017-08-19 08:00:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vicky
On 18 Aug 2017 14:17:45 GMT, Sally Thompson
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by Btms
[]
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Pat had been having a private phone call, in her own home. I don't
think she was aware that Susan was in the house, although she had given
her permission to come in to do her washing. I can't remember whether
she became aware of Susan's presence before the news of the plans had
gone all round the village.
This was bad luck for Pat. You mean she heard nobody around?
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Susan would certainly have known that this was private information, not
intended for her ears. Given that she only heard it because Pat had
been kind enough to offer her the use of her washing machine, I think it
was a major abuse of Pat's hospitality, to then tell everyone what she'd
heard.
Well it wasn't very nice of Sooozan but the boundary of where exchanging
local news and views crosses into something called gossip and the
perpetrator is named and shamed is less clear to me. Here is an example; a
couple I know both have previous relationships. It was said to me that
the couple are not actually married as I had assumed. Is this gossip?
Or, just a fact. I received it has the latter but the people involved may
well not like the idea that this was even mentioned. There was no
pejorative tone from the person who mentioned this.
IKWYM. I was recently told something about a friend (P) which I hadn't
known, by someone (M) who doesn't really know her. M could only have got
this information from someone she /does/ know, who also knows said friend.
I wondered whether just to tell friend P that perhaps she shouldn't share
secrets with the mutual friend, but decided in the end to say nothing. It
wasn't anything detrimental to P, just something she might not want to feel
was common knowledge.
Well, Liz Carr, an actress and disability campaigner, in the cast of
Silent Witness, is a friend and she posted on her fb, for friends only
to see, a few days ago that she'd been attacked. A man with scissors
in both hands went for her. She is in an electric wheelchair and was
accompanied by her PA, who pushed the man off and told Liz to go to
safety. Liz was wounded in the scalp and the PA, who fought the man
off bravely, had cuts and a broken finger, but the man ran off and
they found safety.
The police were called and after the two women has been checked in
hospital they went home and Liz posted eventually to say how brave the
PA was and how scared she'd been. She said she didn't want the media
to get the story, and they'd be interested as she was well-known, but
fb posts to friends only are not supposed to be accessible to others.
She does have a lot of friends though and within 48 hours the Daily
Mail had the story and she was doorstepped by a reporter, and the rest
of the papers had it after that. Friends do like to gossip, although
it was true in this case.
They might have got it anyway as police or first aiders might have
talked but there were quotes of how she felt supposedly from friends,
so it was possible that one gossiped.
Yes, I read this story on the BBC news. I think it was at a railway
station? Since she's well known it could have been a witness to the attack,
not necessarily a Facebook friend.
--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
LFS
2017-08-19 15:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by Vicky
On 18 Aug 2017 14:17:45 GMT, Sally Thompson
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by Btms
[]
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Pat had been having a private phone call, in her own home. I don't
think she was aware that Susan was in the house, although she had given
her permission to come in to do her washing. I can't remember whether
she became aware of Susan's presence before the news of the plans had
gone all round the village.
This was bad luck for Pat. You mean she heard nobody around?
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Susan would certainly have known that this was private information, not
intended for her ears. Given that she only heard it because Pat had
been kind enough to offer her the use of her washing machine, I think it
was a major abuse of Pat's hospitality, to then tell everyone what she'd
heard.
Well it wasn't very nice of Sooozan but the boundary of where exchanging
local news and views crosses into something called gossip and the
perpetrator is named and shamed is less clear to me. Here is an example; a
couple I know both have previous relationships. It was said to me that
the couple are not actually married as I had assumed. Is this gossip?
Or, just a fact. I received it has the latter but the people involved may
well not like the idea that this was even mentioned. There was no
pejorative tone from the person who mentioned this.
IKWYM. I was recently told something about a friend (P) which I hadn't
known, by someone (M) who doesn't really know her. M could only have got
this information from someone she /does/ know, who also knows said friend.
I wondered whether just to tell friend P that perhaps she shouldn't share
secrets with the mutual friend, but decided in the end to say nothing. It
wasn't anything detrimental to P, just something she might not want to feel
was common knowledge.
Well, Liz Carr, an actress and disability campaigner, in the cast of
Silent Witness, is a friend and she posted on her fb, for friends only
to see, a few days ago that she'd been attacked. A man with scissors
in both hands went for her. She is in an electric wheelchair and was
accompanied by her PA, who pushed the man off and told Liz to go to
safety. Liz was wounded in the scalp and the PA, who fought the man
off bravely, had cuts and a broken finger, but the man ran off and
they found safety.
The police were called and after the two women has been checked in
hospital they went home and Liz posted eventually to say how brave the
PA was and how scared she'd been. She said she didn't want the media
to get the story, and they'd be interested as she was well-known, but
fb posts to friends only are not supposed to be accessible to others.
She does have a lot of friends though and within 48 hours the Daily
Mail had the story and she was doorstepped by a reporter, and the rest
of the papers had it after that. Friends do like to gossip, although
it was true in this case.
They might have got it anyway as police or first aiders might have
talked but there were quotes of how she felt supposedly from friends,
so it was possible that one gossiped.
Yes, I read this story on the BBC news. I think it was at a railway
station? Since she's well known it could have been a witness to the attack,
not necessarily a Facebook friend.
I read a report of this in the Evening Standard but there was very
little detail and it did sound as if it might have come from a witness.
I thought of mentioning it to Vicky as I know Liz is a friend of hers: I
wouldn't have thought of that if the report had sounded as if it came
from anyone close to Liz.

I hope they are both OK. It must have been a a very nasty experience.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Vicky
2017-08-19 17:07:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by LFS
I read a report of this in the Evening Standard but there was very
little detail and it did sound as if it might have come from a witness.
I thought of mentioning it to Vicky as I know Liz is a friend of hers: I
wouldn't have thought of that if the report had sounded as if it came
from anyone close to Liz.
I hope they are both OK. It must have been a a very nasty experience.
I think they are physically recovering, and luckily were not badly
hurt, but the shock obviously has more lasting effects. We've all
said how the climate of how to treat disabled people has worsened in
the last couple of years. The benefit porn programmes on tv seem to
have affected this, as do announcements by ministers and MPs.

Personally we've noticed B has been attacked, pushed and generally
treated worse since he became unsteady enough to need a walking stick.
Perhaps because he's relatively young people seem very unhelpful, push
past him in shops or expect him to get out of their way.
Interestingly, shaving his head and getting a few bits of facial metal
(not a look I really liked) improved matters somewhat, as he looked
more assertive and a bit scary.

I've just been watching on the BBC iplayer No More Boys and Girls, an
attempt to work wwith a class of 7 year-olds to make the messages they
get in school more gender neutral. It showed how perceptions of how
girls and boys perform affect actual performance, that is the
teacher's language and expectations as well as the children's. It also
showed the serious affect on later life chances.
--
Vicky
Chris McMillan
2017-08-20 11:32:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vicky
I've just been watching on the BBC iplayer No More Boys and Girls, an
attempt to work wwith a class of 7 year-olds to make the messages they
get in school more gender neutral. It showed how perceptions of how
girls and boys perform affect actual performance, that is the
teacher's language and expectations as well as the children's. It also
showed the serious affect on later life chances.
Very interesting!

Sincerely Chris
Peter Percival
2017-08-20 12:25:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vicky
I've just been watching on the BBC iplayer No More Boys and Girls, an
attempt to work wwith a class of 7 year-olds to make the messages they
get in school more gender neutral. It showed how perceptions of how
girls and boys perform affect actual performance, that is the
teacher's language and expectations as well as the children's. It also
showed the serious affect on later life chances.
Did the children consent to being used in the experiment?

University departments wouldn't even think about doing such an
experiment without consulting their ethics committee. Do you know who
was carrying it out?
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
krw
2017-08-19 21:15:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vicky
Well, Liz Carr, an actress and disability campaigner, in the cast of
Silent Witness, is a friend and she posted on her fb, for friends only
to see, a few days ago that she'd been attacked.
The BBC website certainly reported the attack.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
tiny.cc/KRWpics
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-08-18 18:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<1084103948.524753209.479014.poppy-***@news.eternal-september.
org>, Btms <***@thetames.me.uk> writes:
[]
Post by Btms
Well it wasn't very nice of Sooozan but the boundary of where exchanging
local news and views crosses into something called gossip and the
perpetrator is named and shamed is less clear to me. Here is an example; a
couple I know both have previous relationships. It was said to me that
the couple are not actually married as I had assumed. Is this gossip?
Or, just a fact. I received it has the latter but the people involved may
well not like the idea that this was even mentioned. There was no
pejorative tone from the person who mentioned this.
I think you have something there: the manner in which the information is
related. Soosan _usually_ seems to do so in a knowing and/or snide way -
usually emphasising, as others have said, the (real or imaginary) bad
sides of, or bad news about, the person being discussed.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you help someone when they're in trouble, they will remember you when
they're in trouble again.
Btms
2017-08-18 19:09:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
In message
[]
Post by Btms
Well it wasn't very nice of Sooozan but the boundary of where exchanging
local news and views crosses into something called gossip and the
perpetrator is named and shamed is less clear to me. Here is an example; a
couple I know both have previous relationships. It was said to me that
the couple are not actually married as I had assumed. Is this gossip?
Or, just a fact. I received it has the latter but the people involved may
well not like the idea that this was even mentioned. There was no
pejorative tone from the person who mentioned this.
I think you have something there: the manner in which the information is
related. Soosan _usually_ seems to do so in a knowing and/or snide way -
usually emphasising, as others have said, the (real or imaginary) bad
sides of, or bad news about, the person being discussed.
She does indeed but I feel Sooozan is motivated by a rather chippy nature.
She is envious of those with more material goodies/status and gains comfort
from seeing them fall from their perch or come a cropper. I am not sure I
feel I can judge her too harshly for wanting better and resenting those who
she sees as having what she wants.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-08-18 19:35:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<1266021297.524775544.454472.poppy-***@news.eternal-september.
org>, Btms <***@thetames.me.uk> writes:
[]
Post by Btms
She does indeed but I feel Sooozan is motivated by a rather chippy nature.
Yes.
Post by Btms
She is envious of those with more material goodies/status and gains comfort
from seeing them fall from their perch or come a cropper. I am not sure I
feel I can judge her too harshly for wanting better and resenting those who
she sees as having what she wants.
I think I can. (Not for the wanting, but for the resenting.) I don't
think I am very good at envy. I don't resent either (say) footballers,
or those who have inherited wealth, for having a lot more (tens or
hundreds of times) money than I have had - even where it's due to
something I don't consider worth what the market has decided it is
worth. [Of course, if people _behave_ badly, I on the whole don't
respect them, but that can apply equally well to the not-rich.*] If
people keep to themselves, I don't mind how much (or little) money they
have.

* For some reason, typing that reminds me of something I heard on the
rajo about some very rich part of Florida: there, there are the haves,
and the have-yachts ...
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Can you open your mind without it falling out?
Btms
2017-08-19 07:09:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
In message
[]
Post by Btms
She does indeed but I feel Sooozan is motivated by a rather chippy nature.
Yes.
Post by Btms
She is envious of those with more material goodies/status and gains comfort
from seeing them fall from their perch or come a cropper. I am not sure I
feel I can judge her too harshly for wanting better and resenting those who
she sees as having what she wants.
I think I can. (Not for the wanting, but for the resenting.) I don't
think I am very good at envy........snipped to context.
Maybe you are satisfied with your lot? Soozan isn't. I don't like her but
I can see she feels hard done by through birth and makes herself feel
better at the thought of those who are "lucky" in her eyes, having their
good feelings and success taken away. Any info that looks likely to reward
Soozan with the pleasure derived from schadenfreude is grasped by her. Of
course it is unpleasant but I don't know know how I would feel if I looked
at the world through her lens.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Fenny
2017-08-19 08:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Maybe you are satisfied with your lot? Soozan isn't. I don't like her but
I can see she feels hard done by through birth and makes herself feel
better at the thought of those who are "lucky" in her eyes, having their
good feelings and success taken away. Any info that looks likely to reward
Soozan with the pleasure derived from schadenfreude is grasped by her. Of
course it is unpleasant but I don't know know how I would feel if I looked
at the world through her lens.
Having heard last night, Emma has clearly inherited this from her
mother.
--
Fenny
Vicky
2017-08-19 08:53:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
In message
[]
Post by Btms
She does indeed but I feel Sooozan is motivated by a rather chippy nature.
Yes.
Post by Btms
She is envious of those with more material goodies/status and gains comfort
from seeing them fall from their perch or come a cropper. I am not sure I
feel I can judge her too harshly for wanting better and resenting those who
she sees as having what she wants.
I think I can. (Not for the wanting, but for the resenting.) I don't
think I am very good at envy........snipped to context.
Maybe you are satisfied with your lot? Soozan isn't. I don't like her but
I can see she feels hard done by through birth and makes herself feel
better at the thought of those who are "lucky" in her eyes, having their
good feelings and success taken away. Any info that looks likely to reward
Soozan with the pleasure derived from schadenfreude is grasped by her. Of
course it is unpleasant but I don't know know how I would feel if I looked
at the world through her lens.

--
Vicky
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-08-19 10:02:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
Post by Btms
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
In message
[]
Post by Btms
She does indeed but I feel Sooozan is motivated by a rather chippy nature.
Yes.
Post by Btms
She is envious of those with more material goodies/status and gains comfort
from seeing them fall from their perch or come a cropper. I am not sure I
feel I can judge her too harshly for wanting better and resenting those who
she sees as having what she wants.
I think I can. (Not for the wanting, but for the resenting.) I don't
think I am very good at envy........snipped to context.
Maybe you are satisfied with your lot? Soozan isn't. I don't like her but
I guess I am, most of the time. (Largely, I think, because I've found
that not being isn't constructive - at least, where it involves envy
rather than trying to rectify the situation by my own actions. However,
I do realise it's easier for me to say that sort of thing than it is for
those less fortunate.)
Post by Btms
I can see she feels hard done by through birth and makes herself feel
better at the thought of those who are "lucky" in her eyes, having their
good feelings and success taken away. Any info that looks likely to reward
Soozan with the pleasure derived from schadenfreude is grasped by her. Of
Oh, I do enjoy a bit of SF from time to time, but not usually in the way
she does - more when someone has been uppity, or pretending knowledge
they haven't got (in a subject, not about someone).
Post by Btms
course it is unpleasant but I don't know know how I would feel if I looked
at the world through her lens.
I'm glad I was born with a different prescription for mine (-:.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Intelligence isn't complete without the full picture and the full picture is
all about doubt. Otherwise, you go the way of George Bush. - baroness Eliza
Manningham-Buller (former head of MI5), Radio Times 3-9 September 2011.
Chris McMillan
2017-08-19 10:23:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
In message
[]
Post by Btms
She does indeed but I feel Sooozan is motivated by a rather chippy nature.
Yes.
Post by Btms
She is envious of those with more material goodies/status and gains comfort
from seeing them fall from their perch or come a cropper. I am not sure I
feel I can judge her too harshly for wanting better and resenting those who
she sees as having what she wants.
I think I can. (Not for the wanting, but for the resenting.) I don't
think I am very good at envy........snipped to context.
Maybe you are satisfied with your lot? Soozan isn't. I don't like her but
I can see she feels hard done by through birth and makes herself feel
better at the thought of those who are "lucky" in her eyes, having their
good feelings and success taken away. Any info that looks likely to reward
Soozan with the pleasure derived from schadenfreude is grasped by her. Of
course it is unpleasant but I don't know know how I would feel if I looked
at the world through her lens.
Horrobins are like Grundies. They must not prosper: where that leaves
Willyerm is another matter.

Sincerely Chris
Vicky
2017-08-18 21:02:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
I feel Sooozan is motivated by a rather chippy nature.
She is envious of those with more material goodies/status and gains comfort
from seeing them fall from their perch or come a cropper. I am not sure I
feel I can judge her too harshly for wanting better and resenting those who
she sees as having what she wants.
Well she was ready to believe the worst about Helen when she was
arrested, and considering she herself had been in prison she might
have been less nasty.
--
Vicky
Btms
2017-08-19 07:00:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vicky
Post by Btms
I feel Sooozan is motivated by a rather chippy nature.
She is envious of those with more material goodies/status and gains comfort
from seeing them fall from their perch or come a cropper. I am not sure I
feel I can judge her too harshly for wanting better and resenting those who
she sees as having what she wants.
Well she was ready to believe the worst about Helen when she was
arrested, and considering she herself had been in prison she might
have been less nasty.
I think that was different. She is always willing to believe the worst of
others - the gossiping is what she does with information about others. Of
course all the better if its linked to negative stuff about others.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Marjorie
2017-08-22 08:17:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
[]
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Pat had been having a private phone call, in her own home. I don't
think she was aware that Susan was in the house, although she had given
her permission to come in to do her washing. I can't remember whether
she became aware of Susan's presence before the news of the plans had
gone all round the village.
This was bad luck for Pat. You mean she heard nobody around?
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Susan would certainly have known that this was private information, not
intended for her ears. Given that she only heard it because Pat had
been kind enough to offer her the use of her washing machine, I think it
was a major abuse of Pat's hospitality, to then tell everyone what she'd
heard.
Well it wasn't very nice of Sooozan but the boundary of where exchanging
local news and views crosses into something called gossip and the
perpetrator is named and shamed is less clear to me. Here is an example; a
couple I know both have previous relationships. It was said to me that
the couple are not actually married as I had assumed. Is this gossip?
Or, just a fact. I received it has the latter but the people involved may
well not like the idea that this was even mentioned. There was no
pejorative tone from the person who mentioned this.
I know a couple who present as a very conventional married couple in
their 70s and have been together for decades, although they were both
married to others many years ago (she was widowed when young). They
share the same surname. Someone told me that they may not actually be
married; in a discussion about wedding anniversaries, they had
persistently avoided naming theirs or saying how long they'd been married.

I didn't disapprove of the close mutual friend telling me this, but it's
not something I would pass on to others for no reason. An important
issue for me (when defining "gossip") is that I don't know for sure that
it's true; I also wouldn't pass on something as personal as this if
there's no need to know.
--
Marjorie

To reply, replace dontusethisaddress with marje
Btms
2017-08-22 09:57:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Marjorie <***@springequinox.co.uk> wrote:

[]
Post by Marjorie
I know a couple who present as a very conventional married couple in
their 70s and have been together for decades, although they were both
married to others many years ago (she was widowed when young). They
share the same surname. Someone told me that they may not actually be
married; in a discussion about wedding anniversaries, they had
persistently avoided naming theirs or saying how long they'd been married.
g
I didn't disapprove of the close mutual friend telling me this, but it's
not something I would pass on to others for no reason. An important
issue for me (when defining "gossip") is that I don't know for sure that
it's true; I also wouldn't pass on something as personal as this if
there's no need to know.
I agree but the couple I refer to actually use different surnames and so
what I was told may well be common knowledge. We have lived in the village
for six years plus now but though we know many folk, we are not in anyone's
social circle* so quite possibly it is not at all private to them as it
seems with the example you give. However, as I don't know if they are open
about it, I would not repeat it. In small communities such as mine I think
one has to be careful both with information about self and that of others.


*we never are for some reason. Never quite seem to fit the group.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Vicky
2017-08-18 20:35:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:20:40 +0100, Serena Blanchflower
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Post by Btms
Post by Penny
It wasn't in a public place but in her own home. Susan was eaves-dropping
while using Pat's washing machine I think. "Oh but I don't gossip!" said
Susan...
Well gossip is a funny sort of thing. To my mind SOoozan is a gold star
gossip but she seems not to know this herself. I don't approve of her but
still think Pat might have been more cautious. Is repeating something you
hear or have knowledge of always gossip? And if it is, then why not
repeat it if you so choose? A part of me sees no reason for folk to treat
knowledge as a secret unless they have a professional responsibility to do
so.
Surely gossip is one of those things where what one is entitled to do is
not the same as what it is polite to do.
Susan was clearly entitled to repeat what she'd heard; no one had
explicitly told her it was confidential but, equally, Pat was entitled
to feel affronted and to call Susan a gossip for doing so.
Pat had been having a private phone call, in her own home. I don't
think she was aware that Susan was in the house, although she had given
her permission to come in to do her washing. I can't remember whether
she became aware of Susan's presence before the news of the plans had
gone all round the village.
Susan would certainly have known that this was private information, not
intended for her ears. Given that she only heard it because Pat had
been kind enough to offer her the use of her washing machine, I think it
was a major abuse of Pat's hospitality, to then tell everyone what she'd
heard.
Susan is hardly the recipient of uninvited and chance overheard
information usually. Look how hard she has been trying to find out the
exact terms of who got what in Caroline's will. She is a nosy parker.
--
Vicky
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-08-18 20:40:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@4ax.com>, Vicky
<***@gmail.com> writes:
[]
Post by Vicky
Susan is hardly the recipient of uninvited and chance overheard
information usually. Look how hard she has been trying to find out the
exact terms of who got what in Caroline's will. She is a nosy parker.
Has anyone ever tried to use her _deliberately_ - either to spread
misinformation, or some truth they want circulated?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

While no one was paying attention, weather reports became accurate and the
news became fiction. Did not see that coming. - Scott Adams, 2015
Penny
2017-08-18 21:31:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 21:40:23 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Vicky
Susan is hardly the recipient of uninvited and chance overheard
information usually. Look how hard she has been trying to find out the
exact terms of who got what in Caroline's will. She is a nosy parker.
Has anyone ever tried to use her _deliberately_ - either to spread
misinformation, or some truth they want circulated?
I recall a wicked plan formulated in our village pub one night at the time
when the Methodist Chapel was retired and was up for sale, to spread a
rumour that a local architect was going to buy it and turn it into a
casino. It was suggested we only needed to be overheard discussing it in
the farm shop.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-08-18 21:48:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penny
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 21:40:23 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Vicky
Susan is hardly the recipient of uninvited and chance overheard
[]
Post by Penny
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Has anyone ever tried to use her _deliberately_ - either to spread
misinformation, or some truth they want circulated?
I recall a wicked plan formulated in our village pub one night at the time
when the Methodist Chapel was retired and was up for sale, to spread a
rumour that a local architect was going to buy it and turn it into a
casino. It was suggested we only needed to be overheard discussing it in
the farm shop.
And did it happen?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"... four Oscars, and two further nominations ... On these criteria, he's
Britain's most successful film director." Powell or Pressburger? no; Richard
Attenborough? no; Nick Park!
Penny
2017-08-19 09:26:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 22:48:57 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Penny
I recall a wicked plan formulated in our village pub one night at the time
when the Methodist Chapel was retired and was up for sale, to spread a
rumour that a local architect was going to buy it and turn it into a
casino. It was suggested we only needed to be overheard discussing it in
the farm shop.
And did it happen?
Not that I heard.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Sally Thompson
2017-08-19 08:00:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Vicky
Susan is hardly the recipient of uninvited and chance overheard
information usually. Look how hard she has been trying to find out the
exact terms of who got what in Caroline's will. She is a nosy parker.
Has anyone ever tried to use her _deliberately_ - either to spread
misinformation, or some truth they want circulated?
Lol. When we were building this house there was a neighbour who was a
terribly nosy gossip and always "happened" to be on the plot in the early
hours when deliveries were made. Once we twigged, we used him for just that
purpose.
--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-08-19 10:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Vicky
Susan is hardly the recipient of uninvited and chance overheard
information usually. Look how hard she has been trying to find out the
exact terms of who got what in Caroline's will. She is a nosy parker.
Has anyone ever tried to use her _deliberately_ - either to spread
misinformation, or some truth they want circulated?
Lol. When we were building this house there was a neighbour who was a
terribly nosy gossip and always "happened" to be on the plot in the early
hours when deliveries were made. Once we twigged, we used him for just that
purpose.
With success? (What sort of misinformation did you propagate that way -
assuming you can say of course!?)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Intelligence isn't complete without the full picture and the full picture is
all about doubt. Otherwise, you go the way of George Bush. - baroness Eliza
Manningham-Buller (former head of MI5), Radio Times 3-9 September 2011.
Sally Thompson
2017-08-19 10:39:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Vicky
Susan is hardly the recipient of uninvited and chance overheard
information usually. Look how hard she has been trying to find out the
exact terms of who got what in Caroline's will. She is a nosy parker.
Has anyone ever tried to use her _deliberately_ - either to spread
misinformation, or some truth they want circulated?
Lol. When we were building this house there was a neighbour who was a
terribly nosy gossip and always "happened" to be on the plot in the early
hours when deliveries were made. Once we twigged, we used him for just that
purpose.
With success? (What sort of misinformation did you propagate that way -
assuming you can say of course!?)
Oh, it was successful! Only the sort of "what we are planning next" sort of
stuff. What we wanted to keep to ourselves, we did:-)
--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
Serena Blanchflower
2017-08-19 08:25:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Vicky
Susan is hardly the recipient of uninvited and chance overheard
information usually. Look how hard she has been trying to find out the
exact terms of who got what in Caroline's will. She is a nosy parker.
Has anyone ever tried to use her _deliberately_ - either to spread
misinformation, or some truth they want circulated?
I'm pretty sure the answer is yes, and not all that long ago, but I
can't, for the life of me, remember what it was. I have a feeling it
was the Bridge Farm family but I don't know what the story was - or
whether it was true.

I do remember that Jenny announced Ruairi's arrival in the family by
taking him into the shop, and introducing him to whoever was in there.
I can't remember whether Susan was on duty at the time though.
--
Best wishes, Serena
I love deadlines. I especially like the whooshing sound they make as
they go flying by.
Flop
2017-08-19 08:32:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
By coincidence, both my cards were rejected yesterday.

They look rather similar and, being stupid, I used one card with the
wrong PIN.

In my haste, for some strange reason, when I tried the other card and
the other PIN, that was rejected too.

I began to panic. But then.....
--
Flop
Penny
2017-08-19 09:34:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 09:32:19 +0100, Flop <***@flop.knot.me.uk> scrawled in
the dust...
Post by Flop
By coincidence, both my cards were rejected yesterday.
They look rather similar and, being stupid, I used one card with the
wrong PIN.
In my haste, for some strange reason, when I tried the other card and
the other PIN, that was rejected too.
I began to panic. But then.....
Gosh, do people have different pins for different cards? I suppose that
might have saved me a fee for a cash advance when I used the wrong card in
an ATM.

I had cards and cheque books stolen in a burglary some years ago. I
notified the bank of cheque numbers after which payment should be rejected
and the only one they let through - £98 spent in a London supermarket - had
the wrong card number written on the back.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Chris McMillan
2017-08-19 10:23:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Flop
By coincidence, both my cards were rejected yesterday.
They look rather similar and, being stupid, I used one card with the
wrong PIN.
In my haste, for some strange reason, when I tried the other card and
the other PIN, that was rejected too.
I began to panic. But then.....
OP methinks, Flop. Or the other thing, what happens to joint accounts at a
death? Would Oliver need to get new cards to continue using it? And he's
forgotten to do so?

Sincerely Chris
Kate B
2017-08-19 10:28:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris McMillan
Post by Flop
By coincidence, both my cards were rejected yesterday.
They look rather similar and, being stupid, I used one card with the
wrong PIN.
In my haste, for some strange reason, when I tried the other card and
the other PIN, that was rejected too.
I began to panic. But then.....
OP methinks, Flop. Or the other thing, what happens to joint accounts at a
death? Would Oliver need to get new cards to continue using it? And he's
forgotten to do so?
We have two joint accounts (plus our own single ones). One is the
everyday household expenses and one is an emergency pot, not to be
touched. We've been assured by both banks that when one of us pops their
clogs, the other will have seamless access to the joint account. When
the bank is notified of the death, the single accounts are frozen but
not the joint. Its name changes in due course, that's all.
--
Kate B
London
Penny
2017-08-19 12:12:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 11:28:37 +0100, Kate B <***@nospam.demon.co.uk>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Kate B
Post by Chris McMillan
Post by Flop
By coincidence, both my cards were rejected yesterday.
They look rather similar and, being stupid, I used one card with the
wrong PIN.
In my haste, for some strange reason, when I tried the other card and
the other PIN, that was rejected too.
I began to panic. But then.....
OP methinks, Flop. Or the other thing, what happens to joint accounts at a
death? Would Oliver need to get new cards to continue using it? And he's
forgotten to do so?
We have two joint accounts (plus our own single ones). One is the
everyday household expenses and one is an emergency pot, not to be
touched. We've been assured by both banks that when one of us pops their
clogs, the other will have seamless access to the joint account. When
the bank is notified of the death, the single accounts are frozen but
not the joint. Its name changes in due course, that's all.
That is certainly what happened for me (twice). Half the sum in the joint
account at the date of death was counted for probate purposes but there was
no loss of access.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Marjorie
2017-08-22 08:27:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Kate B
Post by Chris McMillan
Post by Flop
By coincidence, both my cards were rejected yesterday.
They look rather similar and, being stupid, I used one card with the
wrong PIN.
In my haste, for some strange reason, when I tried the other card and
the other PIN, that was rejected too.
I began to panic. But then.....
OP methinks, Flop. Or the other thing, what happens to joint accounts at a
death? Would Oliver need to get new cards to continue using it? And he's
forgotten to do so?
We have two joint accounts (plus our own single ones). One is the
everyday household expenses and one is an emergency pot, not to be
touched. We've been assured by both banks that when one of us pops their
clogs, the other will have seamless access to the joint account. When
the bank is notified of the death, the single accounts are frozen but
not the joint. Its name changes in due course, that's all.
That is certainly what happened for me (twice). Half the sum in the joint
account at the date of death was counted for probate purposes but there was
no loss of access.
Same here - I had actually checked beforehand with the Bank to make sure
I wouldn't be denied access, and all that happened was that the money in
the joint account automatically became mine when my husband died. The
house, too, was jointly owned and became mine. I didn't even have to get
probate, as all other assets were by then in my name. Easy peasy.
--
Marjorie

To reply, replace dontusethisaddress with marje
LFS
2017-08-19 15:33:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kate B
Post by Chris McMillan
Post by Flop
By coincidence, both my cards were rejected yesterday.
They look rather similar and, being stupid, I used one card with the
wrong PIN.
In my haste, for some strange reason, when I tried the other card and
the other PIN, that was rejected too.
I began to panic. But then.....
OP methinks, Flop. Or the other thing, what happens to joint accounts at a
death? Would Oliver need to get new cards to continue using it? And he's
forgotten to do so?
We have two joint accounts (plus our own single ones). One is the
everyday household expenses and one is an emergency pot, not to be
touched. We've been assured by both banks that when one of us pops their
clogs, the other will have seamless access to the joint account. When
the bank is notified of the death, the single accounts are frozen but
not the joint. Its name changes in due course, that's all.
My mum decided to make all her bank and building society accounts joint
with me so that I would be able to sort out probate more easily when she
popped her clogs - one of the many instances of practical forethought on
her part for which I continue to be grateful.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Vicky
2017-08-19 17:08:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by LFS
Post by Chris McMillan
Post by Flop
By coincidence, both my cards were rejected yesterday.
They look rather similar and, being stupid, I used one card with the
wrong PIN.
In my haste, for some strange reason, when I tried the other card and
the other PIN, that was rejected too.
I began to panic. But then.....
OP methinks, Flop. Or the other thing, what happens to joint accounts at a
death? Would Oliver need to get new cards to continue using it? And he's
forgotten to do so?
My mum decided to make all her bank and building society accounts joint
with me so that I would be able to sort out probate more easily when she
popped her clogs - one of the many instances of practical forethought on
her part for which I continue to be grateful.
YANAOU :)
--
Vicky
Penny
2017-08-19 18:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 16:33:39 +0100, LFS <***@gmail.com>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by LFS
My mum decided to make all her bank and building society accounts joint
with me so that I would be able to sort out probate more easily when she
popped her clogs - one of the many instances of practical forethought on
her part for which I continue to be grateful.
That's an interesting thought - could also reduce tax on the estate.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Chris McMillan
2017-08-20 11:17:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kate B
Post by Chris McMillan
Post by Flop
By coincidence, both my cards were rejected yesterday.
They look rather similar and, being stupid, I used one card with the
wrong PIN.
In my haste, for some strange reason, when I tried the other card and
the other PIN, that was rejected too.
I began to panic. But then.....
OP methinks, Flop. Or the other thing, what happens to joint accounts at a
death? Would Oliver need to get new cards to continue using it? And he's
forgotten to do so?
We have two joint accounts (plus our own single ones). One is the
everyday household expenses and one is an emergency pot, not to be
touched. We've been assured by both banks that when one of us pops their
clogs, the other will have seamless access to the joint account. When
the bank is notified of the death, the single accounts are frozen but
not the joint. Its name changes in due course, that's all.
So it must be scenario No 1. Thanks, Kate. Which of course is one in the
eye for Madam Carter - but how Oliver will deal with it is the plot
question.

Sincerely Chris
carolet
2017-08-19 12:10:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Vicky
Susan is hardly the recipient of uninvited and chance overheard
information usually. Look how hard she has been trying to find out the
exact terms of who got what in Caroline's will. She is a nosy parker.
Has anyone ever tried to use her _deliberately_ - either to spread
misinformation, or some truth they want circulated?
Yes.

A while back Anisha and Jazzer had a drinking competition which Anisha
seemed to have won. She then found that she had a acquired a bad
reputation as a result. I think certain customers didn't want her
looking at their animals.

Anisha went into the shop and confidentially admitted to Susan that
she'd been drinking water, pretending it was vodka. She soon regained
her reputation.
--
CaroleT
Serena Blanchflower
2017-08-19 12:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by carolet
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Vicky
Susan is hardly the recipient of uninvited and chance overheard
information usually. Look how hard she has been trying to find out the
exact terms of who got what in Caroline's will. She is a nosy parker.
Has anyone ever tried to use her _deliberately_ - either to spread
misinformation, or some truth they want circulated?
Yes.
A while back Anisha and Jazzer had a drinking competition which Anisha
seemed to have won. She then found that she had a acquired a bad
reputation as a result. I think certain customers didn't want her
looking at their animals.
Anisha went into the shop and confidentially admitted to Susan that
she'd been drinking water, pretending it was vodka. She soon regained
her reputation.
Thank you. I think that's probably the one I was trying to remember.
--
Best wishes, Serena
I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box
when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it. (Terry Pratchett)
krw
2017-08-18 12:43:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
I don't approve of her but
still think Pat might have been more cautious. Is repeating something you
hear or have knowledge of always gossip? And if it is, then why not
repeat it if you so choose? A part of me sees no reason for folk to treat
knowledge as a secret unless they have a professional responsibility to do
so.
If Tom and Pat had not been shouting the odds then Susan would not have
heard it. This is a bad habit imported from Enders and should be sent
back there.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
tiny.cc/KRWpics
Penny
2017-08-18 13:46:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 11:22:01 -0000 (UTC), Btms <***@thetames.me.uk>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Btms
Is repeating something you
hear or have knowledge of always gossip? And if it is, then why not
repeat it if you so choose? A part of me sees no reason for folk to treat
knowledge as a secret unless they have a professional responsibility to do
so.
If you've checked out the facts - preferably from the horses mouth who
don't seem worried by the thought of others knowing - and still feel it
should be shared around then fine.

What Susan was doing last night was speculating wildly about Oliver's
financial situation based upon a problem with one small transaction and
then speculating further on the effect it might have upon the Grundys and
others. It's not just gossip but malicious gossip.

We had a lovely lady running our village farm shop in Kent. I'm sure she
didn't consider herself a gossip and saw no harm in what she did but did
have a habit of repeating what she heard in the shop without engaging brain
to figure out if it was likely let alone factual. I took her to task one
day when, shortly after my good friend's elder disabled child had married
and moved into one of the Housing Association (was council) bungalows with
her husband, she told me she'd heard my good friend's disabled son -
severely brain-damaged and with many physical problems - was also going to
get a bungalow in the village. I imagine the person she heard it from was
actually just having a moan about the availability of these bungalows and
felt it somehow unfair that this young woman had managed to get one close
to her mother (who still fills the gaps left by professional 'carers').

So gossip is a bit like facebook - there's a lot of carp out there and some
folk share it all with the world without even thinking of checking the
source.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Btms
2017-08-18 14:05:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Btms
Is repeating something you
hear or have knowledge of always gossip? And if it is, then why not
repeat it if you so choose? A part of me sees no reason for folk to treat
knowledge as a secret unless they have a professional responsibility to do
so.
If you've checked out the facts - preferably from the horses mouth who
don't seem worried by the thought of others knowing - and still feel it
should be shared around then fine.
What Susan was doing last night was speculating wildly about Oliver's
financial situation based upon a problem with one small transaction and
then speculating further on the effect it might have upon the Grundys and
others. It's not just gossip but malicious gossip.
We had a lovely lady running our village farm shop in Kent. I'm sure she
didn't consider herself a gossip and saw no harm in what she did but did
have a habit of repeating what she heard in the shop without engaging brain
to figure out if it was likely let alone factual. I took her to task one
day when, shortly after my good friend's elder disabled child had married
and moved into one of the Housing Association (was council) bungalows with
her husband, she told me she'd heard my good friend's disabled son -
severely brain-damaged and with many physical problems - was also going to
get a bungalow in the village. I imagine the person she heard it from was
actually just having a moan about the availability of these bungalows and
felt it somehow unfair that this young woman had managed to get one close
to her mother (who still fills the gaps left by professional 'carers').
So gossip is a bit like facebook - there's a lot of carp out there and some
folk share it all with the world without even thinking of checking the
source.
Agreed but I think I feel negative towards Soozan because I sense she is
always looking for the bad in folk. So. If it was a n other repeating or
speculating, then I might not be so disapproving myself. But otoh folk do
gossip with half baked facts very often.

I had an interesting experience before we moved. House was seen on the
market & neighbour asked if we were moving. I said we were looking around
a particular area but no plans. In fact we had agreed to buy this house.
A friend , who likes to see herself as a non gossip, later claimed to know
where we had been house hunting and named the place I had given to the
neighbour. So, I knew they were all busy speculating and gossiping. I
just named a town to fob him off. Never had looked at a house there.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Mike
2017-08-18 14:14:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Btms
Is repeating something you
hear or have knowledge of always gossip? And if it is, then why not
repeat it if you so choose? A part of me sees no reason for folk to treat
knowledge as a secret unless they have a professional responsibility to do
so.
If you've checked out the facts - preferably from the horses mouth who
don't seem worried by the thought of others knowing - and still feel it
should be shared around then fine.
What Susan was doing last night was speculating wildly about Oliver's
financial situation based upon a problem with one small transaction and
then speculating further on the effect it might have upon the Grundys and
others. It's not just gossip but malicious gossip.
We had a lovely lady running our village farm shop in Kent. I'm sure she
didn't consider herself a gossip and saw no harm in what she did but did
have a habit of repeating what she heard in the shop without engaging brain
to figure out if it was likely let alone factual. I took her to task one
day when, shortly after my good friend's elder disabled child had married
and moved into one of the Housing Association (was council) bungalows with
her husband, she told me she'd heard my good friend's disabled son -
severely brain-damaged and with many physical problems - was also going to
get a bungalow in the village. I imagine the person she heard it from was
actually just having a moan about the availability of these bungalows and
felt it somehow unfair that this young woman had managed to get one close
to her mother (who still fills the gaps left by professional 'carers').
So gossip is a bit like facebook - there's a lot of carp out there and some
folk share it all with the world without even thinking of checking the
source.
"Ooh, Oliver's card was declined so he tried his other account and that was
refused too! Oliver must be skint so what will he live on eh? With Caroline
having given all that money away, Oliver is going to be in debt so, he
can't afford to eat and his laundry needs aren't being attended to either.
Oliver probably isn't washing properly because he won't be able to afford
heating the hot water now, so he will be hungry, dirty and unkempt. Oliver
will have to go on the Parish, I had better have a word with Alan and Shula
and Kneel....."
--
Toodle Pip
Chris McMillan
2017-08-18 14:13:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Btms
Post by Vicky
Post by Penny
On 17 Aug 2017 21:31:07 GMT, Sally Thompson
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Chris McMillan
Come back Martha (Woodford), all is forgiven!!
Sincerely Chris
Yes, Soosan is very well played, and probably written: I really dislike
her. Any redeeming qualities seem to be long gone.
Perhaps time for Jill/Peggy (I forget which it was) to tell her some
home truths about herself, in a similar way to how she did Lynda some
years ago.
It was Jill. I remember it well because it was so unusual for TA.
Susan was told off for gossiping relatively recently - possibly by Pat in
relation to Helen's storyline?
Didn't she overhear Pat and someone talking about the sale of land and
she did her usual gossip spreading?
If this was so, then if Pat wanted to keep stuff private, she shouldn't
have been discussing it in a public place.
It wasn't in a public place but in her own home. Susan was eaves-dropping
while using Pat's washing machine I think. "Oh but I don't gossip!" said
Susan...
Yes, her own had packed up and she'd got wet half washed things

Sincerely Chris
Mike
2017-08-18 13:25:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Post by Vicky
Post by Penny
On 17 Aug 2017 21:31:07 GMT, Sally Thompson
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Chris McMillan
Come back Martha (Woodford), all is forgiven!!
Sincerely Chris
Yes, Soosan is very well played, and probably written: I really dislike
her. Any redeeming qualities seem to be long gone.
Perhaps time for Jill/Peggy (I forget which it was) to tell her some
home truths about herself, in a similar way to how she did Lynda some
years ago.
It was Jill. I remember it well because it was so unusual for TA.
Susan was told off for gossiping relatively recently - possibly by Pat in
relation to Helen's storyline?
Didn't she overhear Pat and someone talking about the sale of land and
she did her usual gossip spreading?
If this was so, then if Pat wanted to keep stuff private, she shouldn't
have been discussing it in a public place.
IIRC, it was a private place and Umrats discussed it at the time.
--
Toodle Pip
Btms
2017-08-18 13:25:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike
Post by Btms
Post by Vicky
Post by Penny
On 17 Aug 2017 21:31:07 GMT, Sally Thompson
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Chris McMillan
Come back Martha (Woodford), all is forgiven!!
Sincerely Chris
Yes, Soosan is very well played, and probably written: I really dislike
her. Any redeeming qualities seem to be long gone.
Perhaps time for Jill/Peggy (I forget which it was) to tell her some
home truths about herself, in a similar way to how she did Lynda some
years ago.
It was Jill. I remember it well because it was so unusual for TA.
Susan was told off for gossiping relatively recently - possibly by Pat in
relation to Helen's storyline?
Didn't she overhear Pat and someone talking about the sale of land and
she did her usual gossip spreading?
If this was so, then if Pat wanted to keep stuff private, she shouldn't
have been discussing it in a public place.
IIRC, it was a private place and Umrats discussed it at the time.
You mean umra was gossiping about gossiping. How shocking!
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Mike
2017-08-18 13:34:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Post by Mike
Post by Btms
Post by Vicky
Post by Penny
On 17 Aug 2017 21:31:07 GMT, Sally Thompson
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Chris McMillan
Come back Martha (Woodford), all is forgiven!!
Sincerely Chris
Yes, Soosan is very well played, and probably written: I really dislike
her. Any redeeming qualities seem to be long gone.
Perhaps time for Jill/Peggy (I forget which it was) to tell her some
home truths about herself, in a similar way to how she did Lynda some
years ago.
It was Jill. I remember it well because it was so unusual for TA.
Susan was told off for gossiping relatively recently - possibly by Pat in
relation to Helen's storyline?
Didn't she overhear Pat and someone talking about the sale of land and
she did her usual gossip spreading?
If this was so, then if Pat wanted to keep stuff private, she shouldn't
have been discussing it in a public place.
IIRC, it was a private place and Umrats discussed it at the time.
You mean umra was gossiping about gossiping. How shocking!
Gossip: possibly just one person giving away fact or false information to
another or anothers.

Discuss: two or more persons exchanging information, opinions or views.
--
Toodle Pip
Btms
2017-08-18 13:40:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike
Post by Btms
Post by Mike
Post by Btms
Post by Vicky
Post by Penny
On 17 Aug 2017 21:31:07 GMT, Sally Thompson
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Chris McMillan
Come back Martha (Woodford), all is forgiven!!
Sincerely Chris
Yes, Soosan is very well played, and probably written: I really dislike
her. Any redeeming qualities seem to be long gone.
Perhaps time for Jill/Peggy (I forget which it was) to tell her some
home truths about herself, in a similar way to how she did Lynda some
years ago.
It was Jill. I remember it well because it was so unusual for TA.
Susan was told off for gossiping relatively recently - possibly by Pat in
relation to Helen's storyline?
Didn't she overhear Pat and someone talking about the sale of land and
she did her usual gossip spreading?
If this was so, then if Pat wanted to keep stuff private, she shouldn't
have been discussing it in a public place.
IIRC, it was a private place and Umrats discussed it at the time.
You mean umra was gossiping about gossiping. How shocking!
Gossip: possibly just one person giving away fact or false information to
another or anothers.
Discuss: two or more persons exchanging information, opinions or views.
Maybe. Gossip isn't always malicious and discussions are not always
anodyne.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-08-18 18:47:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
[]
Post by Btms
Post by Mike
Gossip: possibly just one person giving away fact or false information to
another or anothers.
Discuss: two or more persons exchanging information, opinions or views.
Maybe. Gossip isn't always malicious and discussions are not always
anodyne.
Yes, but I think Mike may have hit on another aspect of what constitutes
gossip, that it's mainly one-way - one person passing something on. Of
course, if two gossips get together, they can exchange lots of things,
and make a mountain out of a molehill (or out of nothing even).

FWIW, I don't think her theory about Oliver is true - and, of course,
she could have accepted his Euros: even if not normal shop policy, I
think Oliver is one of the most trustworthy characters, and she could
have done it on a temporary basis with the proviso that he bought them
back later. But this would have been far too easy, preventing the
current storm in a teacup storyline.

(Of course, with my skill in grasping things in Ambridge, I've probably
doomed Oliver. But I do hope not, and that Soosan gets a come-uppance.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you help someone when they're in trouble, they will remember you when
they're in trouble again.
Btms
2017-08-18 19:09:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
In message
[]
Post by Btms
Post by Mike
Gossip: possibly just one person giving away fact or false information to
another or anothers.
Discuss: two or more persons exchanging information, opinions or views.
Maybe. Gossip isn't always malicious and discussions are not always
anodyne.
Yes, but I think Mike may have hit on another aspect of what constitutes
gossip, that it's mainly one-way - one person passing something on. Of
course, if two gossips get together, they can exchange lots of things,
and make a mountain out of a molehill (or out of nothing even).
I think gossip needs a qualifier. Like "salacious" or "malicious" -
though sometimes it merely means news of others.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
FWIW, I don't think her theory about Oliver is - [] snipped
Nor do I but the thought of Oliver being left a pauper would please her. I
do hope she ends up with egg on face because Oliver was Hunt Master. This
costs money and is not a role for someone without resources, even if the
resources are from the bank!

[]
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Marjorie
2017-08-22 11:36:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
In message
[]
Post by Mike
Gossip: possibly just one person giving away fact or false
information to
another or anothers.
Discuss: two or more persons exchanging information, opinions or views.
Maybe.  Gossip isn't always malicious and discussions are not always
anodyne.
Yes, but I think Mike may have hit on another aspect of what constitutes
gossip, that it's mainly one-way - one person passing something on. Of
course, if two gossips get together, they can exchange lots of things,
and make a mountain out of a molehill (or out of nothing even).
FWIW, I don't think her theory about Oliver is true - and, of course,
she could have accepted his Euros: even if not normal shop policy, I
think Oliver is one of the most trustworthy characters, and she could
have done it on a temporary basis with the proviso that he bought them
back later. But this would have been far too easy, preventing the
current storm in a teacup storyline.
It's a post office. He could have sold some of his euros.
--
Marjorie

To reply, replace dontusethisaddress with marje
krw
2017-08-22 11:59:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marjorie
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
In message
[]
Post by Mike
Gossip: possibly just one person giving away fact or false
information to
another or anothers.
Discuss: two or more persons exchanging information, opinions or views.
Maybe.  Gossip isn't always malicious and discussions are not always
anodyne.
Yes, but I think Mike may have hit on another aspect of what
constitutes gossip, that it's mainly one-way - one person passing
something on. Of course, if two gossips get together, they can
exchange lots of things, and make a mountain out of a molehill (or out
of nothing even).
FWIW, I don't think her theory about Oliver is true - and, of course,
she could have accepted his Euros: even if not normal shop policy, I
think Oliver is one of the most trustworthy characters, and she could
have done it on a temporary basis with the proviso that he bought them
back later. But this would have been far too easy, preventing the
current storm in a teacup storyline.
It's a post office. He could have sold some of his euros.
As he subsequently explained to Shula he has some money but in the wrong
accounts. I also do not believe he is in urgent cash need - and the
right answer is that getting Gray Gables to be profitable will serve to
aims - a) money flowing into his pocket and b) increasing the sales
value of GG.

Kathy, Roy and Ian need to be given an incentive to improve matters -
let them buy in, 10% each now at a good price gives Oliver money and
will mean they have a chance to buy the rest in partnership over the
next few years out of profits. Far more sense than selling to a third
party.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
tiny.cc/KRWpics
BrritSki
2017-08-22 17:06:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by krw
Post by Marjorie
It's a post office. He could have sold some of his euros.
As he subsequently explained to Shula he has some money but in the wrong
accounts.  I also do not believe he is in urgent cash need - and the
right answer is that getting Gray Gables to be profitable will serve to
aims - a) money flowing into his pocket and b) increasing the sales
value of GG.
Bu' bu' bu', he said he needed money to buy somewhere to live in the UK
and that he couldn't turn the Grundies out (nor did he want to live
there) and couldn't sell the place in Tuscany. I can see that might be a
problem - the market here is very slow and is not helped by the
pound-euro exchange rate effectively blocking Brits from the market.

OTOH, if Ollie *could* sell to someone, even at a reduced price, he'd
more than recoup his losses because of the ROE change since he moved out
there.
Marjorie
2017-08-24 16:47:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BrritSki
Post by krw
Post by Marjorie
It's a post office. He could have sold some of his euros.
As he subsequently explained to Shula he has some money but in the
wrong accounts.  I also do not believe he is in urgent cash need - and
the right answer is that getting Gray Gables to be profitable will
serve to aims - a) money flowing into his pocket and b) increasing the
sales value of GG.
Bu' bu' bu', he said he needed money to buy somewhere to live in the UK
and that he couldn't turn the Grundies out (nor did he want to live
there) and couldn't sell the place in Tuscany. I can see that might be a
problem - the market here is very slow and is not helped by the
pound-euro exchange rate effectively blocking Brits from the market.
OTOH, if Ollie *could* sell to someone, even at a reduced price, he'd
more than recoup his losses because of the ROE change since he moved out
there.
So all he has to do is get probate on Caroline's will, put Grey Gables
on the market, find a buyer, wait while they do surveys, energy
certificates, searches etc, get a contract drawn up, wait for the buyer
to come up with the cash, and hand over the keys. Then he'll be able to
buy those biscuits that Susan has kept under the counter for him.

I think his coffee will have got cold by then.
--
Marjorie

To reply, replace dontusethisaddress with marje
krw
2017-08-18 12:42:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penny
On 17 Aug 2017 21:31:07 GMT, Sally Thompson
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Chris McMillan
Come back Martha (Woodford), all is forgiven!!
Sincerely Chris
Yes, Soosan is very well played, and probably written: I really dislike
her. Any redeeming qualities seem to be long gone.
Perhaps time for Jill/Peggy (I forget which it was) to tell her some
home truths about herself, in a similar way to how she did Lynda some
years ago.
It was Jill. I remember it well because it was so unusual for TA.
Susan was told off for gossiping relatively recently - possibly by Pat in
relation to Helen's storyline?
She had something to say about Shula's partners a few years ago.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
tiny.cc/KRWpics
Chris McMillan
2017-08-18 14:13:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penny
On 17 Aug 2017 21:31:07 GMT, Sally Thompson
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Chris McMillan
Come back Martha (Woodford), all is forgiven!!
Sincerely Chris
Yes, Soosan is very well played, and probably written: I really dislike
her. Any redeeming qualities seem to be long gone.
Perhaps time for Jill/Peggy (I forget which it was) to tell her some
home truths about herself, in a similar way to how she did Lynda some
years ago.
It was Jill. I remember it well because it was so unusual for TA.
Susan was told off for gossiping relatively recently - possibly by Pat in
relation to Helen's storyline?
Less, Pat didn't mince her words!

Sincerely Chris
Loading...