Discussion:
spoiler 4/8/19
Add Reply
Vicky Ayech
2019-08-05 08:29:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
a
s
p
a
c
e
f
o
r
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
s
t
i
l
l
l
i
s
t
e
n
and have not yet

The word occuring to me this morning is contrived. Once again the plot
is twisted around to fit the issues they want to cover. First the
signally of doom and gloom for weeks as we all knew Grundies never get
anything good so Emma can't get the house. All tangled with Tim. Then
the timing was just right for panic and no chance to sort a sensible
solution.

When we got our mortgages in the 70s they only took the husband's
salary into account and only 2.5 times his salary. Now they take the
wife's and Emma is still earning, but with the jobs they do the
morgage company must know those jobs are precarious. They people who
got mortages to buy their home in the 70s were in more secure jobs.

Neil could have guaranteed the payments instead of rushing to the bank
to get `15k for his princess, instead of talking to Susan, who might
have grabbed Emma, given her a shake and made her sensible again so
she didn't take a begging bowl around the village. And she might then
have prevented the attack on Ed that led to him saying it is not
working. Neil meant well but was it the best way?

I think if Clarrie and Susan had been told, instead of Eddie ..does he
know? Or just Neil? The mums might have sorted it. Mums know best.
John Finlay
2019-08-05 09:15:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Vicky Ayech
a
s
p
a
c
e
f
o
r
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
s
t
i
l
l
l
i
s
t
e
n
and have not yet
The word occuring to me this morning is contrived. Once again the plot
is twisted around to fit the issues they want to cover. First the
signally of doom and gloom for weeks as we all knew Grundies never get
anything good so Emma can't get the house. All tangled with Tim. Then
the timing was just right for panic and no chance to sort a sensible
solution.
When we got our mortgages in the 70s they only took the husband's
salary into account and only 2.5 times his salary. Now they take the
wife's and Emma is still earning, but with the jobs they do the
morgage company must know those jobs are precarious. They people who
got mortages to buy their home in the 70s were in more secure jobs.
Neil could have guaranteed the payments instead of rushing to the bank
to get `15k for his princess, instead of talking to Susan, who might
have grabbed Emma, given her a shake and made her sensible again so
she didn't take a begging bowl around the village. And she might then
have prevented the attack on Ed that led to him saying it is not
working. Neil meant well but was it the best way?
I think if Clarrie and Susan had been told, instead of Eddie ..does he
know? Or just Neil? The mums might have sorted it. Mums know best.
I also have an issue with the village fete organisation - am I to assume
that Lynda (unknown to the lads) booked the Hollerton Silver Band on
spec (lots of money) on the assumption that the lads would screw up (in
their own words) at the last minute, she also smuggled them in with
their instuments and music (unseen by the lads) to the stage or
performance arena where they then suddenly played to save the day? No!
This makes "far fetched" seem "far fetched". Pah!
Penny
2019-08-05 09:41:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 10:15:49 +0100, John Finlay <***@hotmail.com>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by John Finlay
Post by Vicky Ayech
a
s
p
a
c
e
f
o
r
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
s
t
i
l
l
l
i
s
t
e
n
and have not yet
The word occuring to me this morning is contrived. Once again the plot
is twisted around to fit the issues they want to cover. First the
signally of doom and gloom for weeks as we all knew Grundies never get
anything good so Emma can't get the house. All tangled with Tim. Then
the timing was just right for panic and no chance to sort a sensible
solution.
When we got our mortgages in the 70s they only took the husband's
salary into account and only 2.5 times his salary. Now they take the
wife's and Emma is still earning, but with the jobs they do the
morgage company must know those jobs are precarious. They people who
got mortages to buy their home in the 70s were in more secure jobs.
Neil could have guaranteed the payments instead of rushing to the bank
to get `15k for his princess, instead of talking to Susan, who might
have grabbed Emma, given her a shake and made her sensible again so
she didn't take a begging bowl around the village. And she might then
have prevented the attack on Ed that led to him saying it is not
working. Neil meant well but was it the best way?
I think if Clarrie and Susan had been told, instead of Eddie ..does he
know? Or just Neil? The mums might have sorted it. Mums know best.
I also have an issue with the village fete organisation - am I to assume
that Lynda (unknown to the lads) booked the Hollerton Silver Band on
spec (lots of money) on the assumption that the lads would screw up (in
their own words) at the last minute, she also smuggled them in with
their instuments and music (unseen by the lads) to the stage or
performance arena where they then suddenly played to save the day? No!
This makes "far fetched" seem "far fetched". Pah!
Let's face it, the organisation of the Ambridge village fete has always
been farcical. I've never been on a village fete committee but I do know
they meet months before the 'day' (probably 12 months). I think Ambridge
started muttering about it within our hearing a little earlier than usual
this year but it still wasn't more than 2 months. I'm amazed they managed
to book anything, let alone a last minute brass band. It seems likely Lynda
had not cancelled the booking she had already made - they could have had a
band-off ;)

As for the ridiculous cookery competition by dodgy video link... were we
supposed to be able to hear whatever inappropriate remarks Ian made when he
lost? Do I care?
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Vicky Ayech
2019-08-05 10:20:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by John Finlay
Post by Vicky Ayech
a
s
p
a
c
e
f
o
r
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
s
t
i
l
l
l
i
s
t
e
n
and have not yet
ow best.
Post by Penny
Post by John Finlay
I also have an issue with the village fete organisation - am I to assume
that Lynda (unknown to the lads) booked the Hollerton Silver Band on
spec (lots of money) on the assumption that the lads would screw up (in
their own words) at the last minute, she also smuggled them in with
their instuments and music (unseen by the lads) to the stage or
performance arena where they then suddenly played to save the day? No!
This makes "far fetched" seem "far fetched". Pah!
Let's face it, the organisation of the Ambridge village fete has always
been farcical. I've never been on a village fete committee but I do know
they meet months before the 'day' (probably 12 months). I think Ambridge
started muttering about it within our hearing a little earlier than usual
this year but it still wasn't more than 2 months. I'm amazed they managed
to book anything, let alone a last minute brass band. It seems likely Lynda
had not cancelled the booking she had already made - they could have had a
band-off ;)
As chair person for some years of the East Barnet Local Association of
Guides and Brownies SNIFFF...I was involved with organising fetes for
the school and brownies and the village one and also jumble sales. One
year I was responsible for the Best Baby competition and because of
some misunderstanding and error the local paper made when gatherting
information about the whole affair they reported me as organising the
whole fete, not just the baby bit. People got very huffy about that.
:) We had meetings to arrange who did what but I don't recall that
many or even that long before hand.It is a long time ago though.
Post by Penny
As for the ridiculous cookery competition by dodgy video link... were we
supposed to be able to hear whatever inappropriate remarks Ian made when he
lost? Do I care?
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2019-08-05 18:04:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by John Finlay
Post by Vicky Ayech
a
s
p
a
c
e
f
o
r
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
s
t
i
l
l
l
i
s
t
e
n
and have not yet
[]
Post by Penny
Post by John Finlay
Post by Vicky Ayech
Neil could have guaranteed the payments instead of rushing to the bank
That, assuming the bank accepted it, would have been a _far_ more
sensible arrangement.
[]
Post by Penny
Post by John Finlay
Post by Vicky Ayech
I think if Clarrie and Susan had been told, instead of Eddie ..does he
know? Or just Neil? The mums might have sorted it. Mums know best.
(-: [Clarrie, maybe. Though I think she'd have first have had to hold
Susan back from going and attacking Ian (and Ed).]
Post by Penny
Post by John Finlay
I also have an issue with the village fete organisation - am I to assume
that Lynda (unknown to the lads) booked the Hollerton Silver Band on
spec (lots of money) on the assumption that the lads would screw up (in
their own words) at the last minute, she also smuggled them in with
their instuments and music (unseen by the lads) to the stage or
performance arena where they then suddenly played to save the day? No!
This makes "far fetched" seem "far fetched". Pah!
Indeed.

I also want to know if the "what does this lever do" was genuinely
something that had been forgotten, or whether it was a manual release.
[]
Post by Penny
As for the ridiculous cookery competition by dodgy video link... were we
supposed to be able to hear whatever inappropriate remarks Ian made when he
lost? Do I care?
I certainly don't. (Though I feel a bit Scrooge-ish for saying so; these
various TV cookery competitions hold no interest for me whatever -
certainly not the nasty one, and even the nice one, though I understand
a lot of people derive warm feelings from the niceness evident in the
nice one, hence the Scrooge feelings.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Wisdom is the ability to cope. - the late (AB of C) Michael Ramsey,
quoted by Stephen Fry (RT 24-30 August 2013)
Sam Plusnet
2019-08-05 20:30:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by John Finlay
Post by Vicky Ayech
a
s
p
a
c
e
f
o
r
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
s
t
i
l
l
l
i
s
t
e
n
and have not yet
The word occuring to me this morning is contrived. Once again the plot
is twisted around to fit the issues they want to cover. First the
signally of doom and gloom for weeks as we all knew Grundies never get
anything good so Emma can't get the house. All tangled with Tim. Then
the timing was just right for panic and no chance to sort a sensible
solution.
When we got our mortgages in the 70s they only took the husband's
salary into account and only 2.5 times his salary. Now they take the
wife's and Emma is still earning, but with the jobs they do the
morgage company must know those jobs are precarious. They people who
got mortages to buy their home in the 70s were in more secure jobs.
Neil could have guaranteed the payments instead of rushing to the bank
to get `15k for his princess, instead of talking to Susan, who might
have grabbed Emma, given her a shake and made her sensible again so
she didn't take a begging bowl around the village. And she might then
have prevented the attack on Ed that led to him saying it is not
working. Neil meant well but was it the best way?
I think if Clarrie and Susan had been told, instead of Eddie ..does he
know? Or just Neil? The mums might have sorted it. Mums know best.
I also have an issue with the village fete organisation - am I to assume
that Lynda (unknown to the lads) booked the Hollerton Silver Band on
spec (lots of money) on the assumption that the lads would screw up (in
their own words) at the last minute, she also smuggled them in with
their instuments and music (unseen by the lads) to the stage or
performance arena where they then suddenly played to save the day? No!
This makes "far fetched" seem "far fetched". Pah!
Let's face it, the organisation of the Ambridge village fete has always
been farcical. I've never been on a village fete committee but I do know
they meet months before the 'day' (probably 12 months). I think Ambridge
started muttering about it within our hearing a little earlier than usual
this year but it still wasn't more than 2 months. I'm amazed they managed
to book anything, let alone a last minute brass band. It seems likely Lynda
had not cancelled the booking she had already made - they could have had a
band-off ;)
As for the ridiculous cookery competition by dodgy video link... were we
supposed to be able to hear whatever inappropriate remarks Ian made when he
lost? Do I care?
I do hate having exams sprung on me with no notice, but as there is only
one question here I'm going to cross my fingers and opt for

"No"
--
Sam Plusnet
(did I get the right answer?)
Mike
2019-08-05 11:47:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Finlay
Post by Vicky Ayech
a
s
p
a
c
e
f
o
r
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
s
t
i
l
l
l
i
s
t
e
n
and have not yet
The word occuring to me this morning is contrived. Once again the plot
is twisted around to fit the issues they want to cover. First the
signally of doom and gloom for weeks as we all knew Grundies never get
anything good so Emma can't get the house. All tangled with Tim. Then
the timing was just right for panic and no chance to sort a sensible
solution.
When we got our mortgages in the 70s they only took the husband's
salary into account and only 2.5 times his salary. Now they take the
wife's and Emma is still earning, but with the jobs they do the
morgage company must know those jobs are precarious. They people who
got mortages to buy their home in the 70s were in more secure jobs.
Neil could have guaranteed the payments instead of rushing to the bank
to get `15k for his princess, instead of talking to Susan, who might
have grabbed Emma, given her a shake and made her sensible again so
she didn't take a begging bowl around the village. And she might then
have prevented the attack on Ed that led to him saying it is not
working. Neil meant well but was it the best way?
I think if Clarrie and Susan had been told, instead of Eddie ..does he
know? Or just Neil? The mums might have sorted it. Mums know best.
I also have an issue with the village fete organisation - am I to assume
that Lynda (unknown to the lads) booked the Hollerton Silver Band on
spec (lots of money) on the assumption that the lads would screw up (in
their own words) at the last minute, she also smuggled them in with
their instuments and music (unseen by the lads) to the stage or
performance arena where they then suddenly played to save the day? No!
This makes "far fetched" seem "far fetched". Pah!
Well, I’m blowed! You are right of course.
--
Toodle Pip
Flop
2019-08-05 10:19:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Vicky Ayech
a
s
p
a
c
e
f
o
r
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
s
t
i
l
l
l
i
s
t
e
n
and have not yet
The word occuring to me this morning is contrived. Once again the plot
is twisted around to fit the issues they want to cover. First the
signally of doom and gloom for weeks as we all knew Grundies never get
anything good so Emma can't get the house. All tangled with Tim. Then
the timing was just right for panic and no chance to sort a sensible
solution.
When we got our mortgages in the 70s they only took the husband's
salary into account and only 2.5 times his salary. Now they take the
wife's and Emma is still earning, but with the jobs they do the
morgage company must know those jobs are precarious. They people who
got mortages to buy their home in the 70s were in more secure jobs.
Neil could have guaranteed the payments instead of rushing to the bank
to get `15k for his princess, instead of talking to Susan, who might
have grabbed Emma, given her a shake and made her sensible again so
she didn't take a begging bowl around the village. And she might then
have prevented the attack on Ed that led to him saying it is not
working. Neil meant well but was it the best way?
I think if Clarrie and Susan had been told, instead of Eddie ..does he
know? Or just Neil? The mums might have sorted it. Mums know best.
The whole storyline was botched.

Ed could have got away with not telling the mortgage lender that he had
been sacked. They are used to people going in and out of jobs. Their
criterion is whether the borrower (can) does pay. [Suppose Ed had won
the lottery and told Brian where to go.... no job but no problems with
funding].

(and what the h**l was the £15k for?)

And suppose that, say Neil, had a quiet word with Adam and pointed out:

1) Ed's 'crime' would only affect Home Farm (HF) if he was caught. Ed
was laid off on the *possibility* of HF being linked.

2) Not laying Ed off would have restricted the media from commenting on
the link if they did not know that Adam knew about the chemicals.

3) Ed would not have been sacked if HF did not have a record. So it is
HF's criminality which is the deciding factor.

4) If Ed can dispose of the chemicals (free stock clearance to any of
his previous customers), all is well and fine.

5) Ed can go to an Industrial Tribunal and get the details reported widely.

All of which means that Ed is missing a few pounds presuming that they
had budgeted to be able to pay the mortgage.
--
Flop

Truly the Good Lord gave us computers that we might learn patience
Vicky Ayech
2019-08-05 11:46:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Flop
Post by Vicky Ayech
a
s
p
a
c
e
f
o
r
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
s
t
i
l
l
l
i
s
t
e
n
and have not yet
The word occuring to me this morning is contrived. Once again the plot
is twisted around to fit the issues they want to cover. First the
signally of doom and gloom for weeks as we all knew Grundies never get
anything good so Emma can't get the house. All tangled with Tim. Then
the timing was just right for panic and no chance to sort a sensible
solution.
When we got our mortgages in the 70s they only took the husband's
salary into account and only 2.5 times his salary. Now they take the
wife's and Emma is still earning, but with the jobs they do the
morgage company must know those jobs are precarious. They people who
got mortages to buy their home in the 70s were in more secure jobs.
Neil could have guaranteed the payments instead of rushing to the bank
to get `15k for his princess, instead of talking to Susan, who might
have grabbed Emma, given her a shake and made her sensible again so
she didn't take a begging bowl around the village. And she might then
have prevented the attack on Ed that led to him saying it is not
working. Neil meant well but was it the best way?
I think if Clarrie and Susan had been told, instead of Eddie ..does he
know? Or just Neil? The mums might have sorted it. Mums know best.
The whole storyline was botched.
Ed could have got away with not telling the mortgage lender that he had
been sacked. They are used to people going in and out of jobs. Their
criterion is whether the borrower (can) does pay. [Suppose Ed had won
the lottery and told Brian where to go.... no job but no problems with
funding].
(and what the h**l was the £15k for?)
1) Ed's 'crime' would only affect Home Farm (HF) if he was caught. Ed
was laid off on the *possibility* of HF being linked.
2) Not laying Ed off would have restricted the media from commenting on
the link if they did not know that Adam knew about the chemicals.
3) Ed would not have been sacked if HF did not have a record. So it is
HF's criminality which is the deciding factor.
4) If Ed can dispose of the chemicals (free stock clearance to any of
his previous customers), all is well and fine.
5) Ed can go to an Industrial Tribunal and get the details reported widely.
All of which means that Ed is missing a few pounds presuming that they
had budgeted to be able to pay the mortgage.
You should write to the BBC and explain, and then apply as Editor/SW
I wish you'd been doing it around the Rob story too. That was
similarly botched.
Mike
2019-08-05 11:47:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Flop
Post by Vicky Ayech
a
s
p
a
c
e
f
o
r
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
s
t
i
l
l
l
i
s
t
e
n
and have not yet
The word occuring to me this morning is contrived. Once again the plot
is twisted around to fit the issues they want to cover. First the
signally of doom and gloom for weeks as we all knew Grundies never get
anything good so Emma can't get the house. All tangled with Tim. Then
the timing was just right for panic and no chance to sort a sensible
solution.
When we got our mortgages in the 70s they only took the husband's
salary into account and only 2.5 times his salary. Now they take the
wife's and Emma is still earning, but with the jobs they do the
morgage company must know those jobs are precarious. They people who
got mortages to buy their home in the 70s were in more secure jobs.
Neil could have guaranteed the payments instead of rushing to the bank
to get `15k for his princess, instead of talking to Susan, who might
have grabbed Emma, given her a shake and made her sensible again so
she didn't take a begging bowl around the village. And she might then
have prevented the attack on Ed that led to him saying it is not
working. Neil meant well but was it the best way?
I think if Clarrie and Susan had been told, instead of Eddie ..does he
know? Or just Neil? The mums might have sorted it. Mums know best.
The whole storyline was botched.
Ed could have got away with not telling the mortgage lender that he had
been sacked. They are used to people going in and out of jobs. Their
criterion is whether the borrower (can) does pay. [Suppose Ed had won
the lottery and told Brian where to go.... no job but no problems with
funding].
(and what the h**l was the £15k for?)
1) Ed's 'crime' would only affect Home Farm (HF) if he was caught. Ed
was laid off on the *possibility* of HF being linked.
2) Not laying Ed off would have restricted the media from commenting on
the link if they did not know that Adam knew about the chemicals.
3) Ed would not have been sacked if HF did not have a record. So it is
HF's criminality which is the deciding factor.
4) If Ed can dispose of the chemicals (free stock clearance to any of
his previous customers), all is well and fine.
5) Ed can go to an Industrial Tribunal and get the details reported widely.
All of which means that Ed is missing a few pounds presuming that they
had budgeted to be able to pay the mortgage.
Does Ed have enough dosh to buy a few 12 bore cartridges?
--
Toodle Pip
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2019-08-05 18:24:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Flop
Post by Vicky Ayech
a
s
p
a
c
e
f
o
r
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
s
t
i
l
l
l
i
s
t
e
n
and have not yet
[]
Post by Flop
The whole storyline was botched.
Ed could have got away with not telling the mortgage lender that he had
been sacked. They are used to people going in and out of jobs. Their
If he signed, having known on the day he signed that he'd lost his job
some days before, I'm not so sure that applies.
Post by Flop
criterion is whether the borrower (can) does pay. [Suppose Ed had won
the lottery and told Brian where to go.... no job but no problems with
funding].
Not the same thing! (I think you mean told Adam where to go?)
Post by Flop
(and what the h**l was the £15k for?)
Emma's feeling - I assume this was what she was feeling, though she
never said it - that if they reduced the amount they were borrowing, the
mortgage provider would have been less stringent about their income.
(I've no idea if that might be the case.) Though judging from her
reaction when Neil told her about it, it sounded like she was hoping
he'd find the whole amount. Which is ridiculous.)
Post by Flop
1) Ed's 'crime' would only affect Home Farm (HF) if he was caught. Ed
was laid off on the *possibility* of HF being linked.
Good point.
Post by Flop
2) Not laying Ed off would have restricted the media from commenting on
the link if they did not know that Adam knew about the chemicals.
The media are good at mud-slinging though. (Look at what they do about
_alleged_ child-molesters.) I wouldn't have been surprised if some
gutter reporter made a connection between one sort of dodgy chemicals
and another, even if no such link was ever found.
Post by Flop
3) Ed would not have been sacked if HF did not have a record. So it is
HF's criminality which is the deciding factor.
Good point, but doesn't help Ed.
Post by Flop
4) If Ed can dispose of the chemicals (free stock clearance to any of
his previous customers), all is well and fine.
As an aside: I don't know quite what the chemicals were, but I think
they were weedkiller of some sort. The only effective herbicide I know
of is sodium chlorate - which you now can't get, as the EC banned it
("it stays in the soil" - that's what I _want_ from a weedkiller!).
Glyphosate - which is what _all_ the available alternatives are based on
- just _doesn't_ really work for long.
Post by Flop
5) Ed can go to an Industrial Tribunal and get the details reported widely.
And ensure that his future chance of employment at Home Farm is zero -
and probably adversely affecting his chances of employment anywhere else
in the area (except for very low and probably dodgy payments). Yes, if
all went totally well, he might get a lump sum compensation - but that
would go nowhere near what they'd need for a house. (And they wouldn't
go well: the dodgy activities would come to light, and he'd get* a
criminal record at the very least, which among many other things would
probably not help any future credit rating.

* Does Ed have a criminal record already? If only for TWOCing his
brother's car, driving it carelessly [under some substance influence],
and maybe other things?)
Post by Flop
All of which means that Ed is missing a few pounds presuming that they
had budgeted to be able to pay the mortgage.
What proportion of his/their income did his Home Farm bit represent?
3
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Wisdom is the ability to cope. - the late (AB of C) Michael Ramsey,
quoted by Stephen Fry (RT 24-30 August 2013)
Serena Blanchflower
2019-08-05 20:03:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[Suppose Ed had won the lottery and told Brian where to go.... no job
but no problems with funding].
And no need to take out a mortgage, either.
--
Best wishes, Serena
No society can legitimately call itself civilised if a sick person is
denied medical aid because of lack of means. (Aneurin Bevan)
Loading...