In message <***@mid.individual.net>, LFS
>On 09/07/2018 09:37, krw wrote:
>> Hi everyone
>> I am not actually up to date listening at the moment because frankly
>>it actually feels worse than when Rob was being a good husband to
>> Then the stories around elsewhere were not exactly stupid or ill
>>considered but at the moment we have:
>> Home Farm - I just don't believe the line that Brian would allow
>>dumping, sorry he might be big agro but he would not allow dumping.
I found no difficulty in believing that - especially when some decades
ago, when (a) attitudes [and the chance of detection] were different,
and (b) he was a young entrepreneur (or wide boy) - he would have taken
backhanders to allow dumping in a piece of land which, IIRR, he thought
wasn't any use anyway. (Too boggy/marshy or something.)
>>The consequent mess is also unbelievable - he knew what he was he
>>doing with the partnership and the terms thereof (Kate might not have
>>read them - he did). And we all knew a partnership would not work
Yes, I was surprised at his surprise. Though it might have been surprise
that Kate had actually got down (or got someone else to get down) and
actually digested the agreement.
>>because it did not work when Dan had one at Brookfield many years
>>ago, because some of us do remember such things. Jess Allard and
>>someone else - it all fell apart.
Ah, before my time (<1985 according to my UGC).
>> Freddie is stupid and I accept might do "smart" drugs but I do
I feared that I found that bit all too believable. I hate drugs, even
though I've never had a _close_ connection with anyone affected; it's
just that they seem able to destroy so much, and make some very nasty
people very powerful. Though I include ethanol among them.
>>believe he would have walked away from Ellis. Lily and Russ? Maybe
I could believe that he _can't_ now escape Ellis - such people are
clever, or at least a mixture of cunning and ruthless. (See above.)
>>20 years ago but she is supposed to be the second brainiest villager
I can believe it on an intellectual level (never having been in love of
that sort): it _does_ seem to be able to make people become very
irrational. Though latterly it does seem to be following the well-worn
(and tedious) path of the young woman being strung along.
>Yes. I think the editor has cast around for storylines to engage the
>young and discovered some very old teen mags for inspiration.
>> The Justin Elliott Development at Bridge Farm - well the Bridge Farm
>>idiots would never have sold the land - it was the first bit of
>>organic land and I still don't believe the local planning rules would
>>have permitted the development so far outside the village envelope,
(No comment; I don't have a mental map of the village.)
>>let alone Justin just changing his mind over what he will build as it
>>does not work like that.
Hmm. Dramatic licence to some extent - but also, I have very minor
experience in trying to get planning consent to include sequencing (you
can't do this until _after_ you've done that), and it's very hard.
Assuming anyone actually thought to even suggest such sequencing. If
they didn't, or attempts were made and weren't successful, then I could
easily believe it - not that he's changed his mind, only that he's not
going to build the cheap homes only the expensive ones, the cheap ones
remaining in the plans, just never getting started.
>A good example of a fabricated storyline but I am a little interested
>to see what Emma will make of her councillor role and I quite like the
>idea of Jim helping her.
Yes, his mischievous aspect does add some sparkle to the plots. As long
as it's used sparingly.
>> David and Ruth having a day out (not) bungee jumping. How old are
>>they? I keep seeing people on zip wires in north Wales on tv
>>programmes thinking well if I was younger maybe.
Yes, I found that a bit hard to believe - not for David, but for Ruth.
(Also, doesn't she have some health concern?)
>> Anisha buying into a partnership, shouldering 50% of an increased
>>overdraft and then apparently walking away to be an employee - I
I could just about believe the argument about it being a once-ever
opportunity (I know little enough about horses and stables for that to
be the case); however, I am somewhat surprised if she's allowed to have
got the partnership into debt/loan and can then duck out. Surely she has
some legal responsibility. (One assumes their partnership had _some_
legal setting up!)
>Yes, a ridiculous plotline.
>> Meanwhile in his dying minutes the editor kills off Nic largely
>>unheard for 5 years and also accuses her of attempting to
>>accidentally off Matt in the most unbelievable story since secret
>>agents visited the village.
Yes, that was rather _too_ neat a tying-up of loose ends!
>> Why in heaven's name do we have such a major story about Mia without
>>bothering to actually get her to speak? How can I take an interest in
>>a girl who has clearly become a "young carer" (and I applaud her for
>>that) and yet they cannot be bothered to employ some one who can
>>actually talk, take part and explain her point of view to the world.
Very good point.
>>There might (like caring Rob) actually be a story there which needs
>>telling from the girl's viewpoint - so why do it the wrong way round
>>and all in reported speech. This is as bad as dumping the wonderful
>>stories which could have revolved around Bethany as she developed but
Agreed. I wasn't looking forward to those stories, but they certainly do
seem to have been
>>which were dumped in Birmingham along with Hayley.
dumped, as you say. And I think we _all_ would like Hayley back.
>> Meanwhile what about Lexi's separation from her two children?
Another good point. (Though how old are they?)
>The Lexi/Adam/Ian is another which overstretches soap disbelief
>suspension boundaries and calls into question the quality of the
>research done - and is a waste of something that could have been very
Yes, I'd hoped it would go well.
>> It won't seem strange when aliens land and abduct Jolene (perhaps
>>that is what has happened to her, rather than taking an interest in
>>her daughter's wedding), Wayne, Carol, George, Mia, Ruari and Ben all
>>of whom continue to be unbelievably silent.
That carpenter fellow who lived in a shed/caravan - Darren was it?
Hazel, not that I at all want her back but her absence hangs over us,
just waiting to be popped up when someone lazy wants to: didn't she only
release (or whatever term is appropriate) the village shop (or the
building it's in) for a limited number of years, probably up now?
>> I really feel I have lost something.
It's not you that has lost it.
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
There's too much attention paid to how TV can be bad for you, but I think it's
good for us more often than it's bad - Professor Barrie Gunter of Sheffield
University (quoted in RT, 15-21 March 2003).