Ambridge ups and downs 23 December 2013

Web Producer, The Archers

Tagged with:

Scales

Merry Christmas!

David Archer
One (anniversary) surprise deserves another

Kirsty Miller
What is Tom planning?

Eddie Grundy
Hides a good heart under that gruff exterior

Bah, humbug

Jess Titchener
It’s her party and she’ll cry if Rob wants her to

Leonie Snell
Pregnant by James? OMG...

Ed Grundy
A nephew is for life, not just for Christmas


Keri Davies is an Archers scriptwriter and web producer.

Meet more characters in our Who's Who

You can receive this light-hearted round-up in The Archers weekly email newsletter, along with other Archers-related news and features.

Getting a lift with JimOliver SterlingMade it up with JoeLynda Snell Appetising Ambridge in full effectRuth ArcherParty plansGetting a lift with JillGeorge GrundyHow will he ever understand?Shula Hebden LloydFirst Darrell, now Chutneygate!Henry ArcherAll he wanted was a hug

Tagged with:

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments.

  • Comment number 60. Posted by Nemo399

    on 3 Jan 2014 19:28

    Goodness! Surely that person who missed their vote knew they weren't living in Borsetshire?

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 60: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 60: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 59. Posted by RosieT

    on 3 Jan 2014 17:02

    " no-one, I suggest, ever bases their actions on something they hear on The Archers." Nemo399, there was a listener who got very hot under the collar ("The Archers cost me my vote!") because the programme had the Ambridge voting station closing at ten o'clock, but her voting station closed at 9pm,so she was too late.

    So there may be unthinking-challenged listeners, still basing their actions on the prog (What's the recipe today, Jill?)

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 59: 4
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 59: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 58. Posted by Daughter of Manannan

    on 3 Jan 2014 16:00

    Oops, for 'was went on' please read, 'was sent on '. I think I need a Typing Skills course.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 58: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 58: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 57. Posted by Daughter of Manannan

    on 3 Jan 2014 15:56

    "Ed could be charged with cruelty to animals - a summary offence carrying up to 6 months prison,a fine and possible ban on keeping animals."

    That's true, Carrick. Which means, when you think about it, that in shooting a dog 'to protect his cattle', as it is claimed, he was actually risking having the entire herd taken away from him.

    It seems that Thinking Skills course he was went on as a result of one of his earlier criminal acts really didn't do him a lot of good.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 57: 2
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 57: 1
    Loading…
  • Comment number 56. Posted by carrick-bend

    on 3 Jan 2014 12:56

    "This particular vet knows the family and knows the dog will be well cared for and loved. I can't see the problem with him recommending them as potential purchasers to a farmer he also knows and can vouch for."
    That's very nice and charitable of you, BB, but it's quite challenging to fit into this the facts that the prospective owner of the puppy is buying it as a Christmas present for a child on a guilt-ridden whim, to live under someone else's roof (who might just tolerate but certainly doesn't welcome a puppy) having c omitted an act which, as it hasn't, as he would have known it should have been, reported to the police is a criminal act)

    In UK Ed could be charged with cruelty to animals - a summary offence carrying up to 6 months prison,a fine and possible ban on keeping animals.As Baz would have been classed as property in law he could be charged with criminal damage which could get him up to 5 years.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 56: 3
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 56: 2
    Loading…
  • Comment number 55. Posted by Borsetshire Blue

    on 3 Jan 2014 12:12

    Why wouldn't the vet have approved? No vet would say never, ever, under any circumstances must a new pet be brought into the house at Christmas!
    This particular vet knows the family and knows the dog will be well cared for and loved. I can't see the problem with him recommending them as potential purchasers to a farmer he also knows and can vouch for.
    Anyway, I've very much enjoyed the Archers over last couple of weeks, thanks to all involved.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 55: 2
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 55: 2
    Loading…
  • Comment number 54. Posted by Daughter of Manannan

    on 3 Jan 2014 10:32

    It is of course true that unsuitable people do buy puppies, all too many of them, but for me the story does not 'reflect real life' in that the acquisition of this puppy, and at Christmas of all times, has been shown as being accepted as a perfectly reasonable thing to do by every character involved, and some who are not. Simply, not one character on TA has spoken out against it.

    This is also what, to my mind, makes it irresponsible.

    What might have made it acceptable, for me at any rate, would have been to have at least a couple of characters commenting that buying a puppy for Christmas was a stupid thing to do, esp given that all adults in the house are working and too busy to care for it correctly and that Ed can't even afford to buy cattle food, never mind pay for the care of the animal. If the breeder had been refusing to part with a puppy in time for Christmas because he believed that was absolutely the wrong time to let one go, rather than some silly story about first refusal; if say, Neil had at least attempted to make a stand and ask Ed how the hell he intended to ensure it was cared for and paid for, that sort of thing.

    But no, apparently even the vet approved, and helped them to find a puppy! No vet I've ever known would have done so.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 54: 3
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 54: 1
    Loading…
  • Comment number 53. Posted by Nemo399

    on 3 Jan 2014 08:11

    This is a fictional puppy on a fictional radio drama serial and no-one, I suggest, ever bases their actions on something they hear on The Archers. It may indeed be (I don't know) that a minor mishap, such the puppy eating something it shouldn't (and some dogs have a habit of doing this, often while they're running around in the open, and unless they're muzzled they can't be stopped!) are going to be in the script as a cautionary tale---or maybe simply to reflect real life. Either way, if I was going to worry about the Grundy's puppy scenario (which I'm not!) I'd be concerned about whether it was sensible to put a large puppy, with its sharp teeth and boisterous behaviour, in the vicinity of a young child. I'd worry about what the puppy might do the child---not what the child might do to the puppy! To me, that would be the priority. But I think the story line is fine and I'm with Cath on this one.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 53: 3
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 53: 2
    Loading…
  • Comment number 52. Posted by Daughter of Manannan

    on 3 Jan 2014 07:13

    Thank you Basia, you are right of course that I wouldn't suggest anything so ridiculous.

    My puppies (and dogs, for that matter) have never been 'left in a bare room', they are with me almost all of the time. The puppies are crated overnight, but puppies naturally sleep at night and very soon settle to this - most go into their crate and settle of their own volition mid-evening and have to be dragged out and into the garden for a last toileting before I return them, shut the crate door and go to bed myself. During they day they are never crated for more than an hour at a time. and that when they are tired from play or a walk and ready to sleep in any case. Crates provide a secure environment which most dogs love, I have told this tale elsewhere:

    "My old lab loved his puppy crate so much that when he outgrew it he still insisted on climbing in and hunching up, however uncomfortable it was. In the end we took it away. Years later we visited a friend who had just bought a tiny yorkie puppy, and the old boy took one look at the pup's crate and laid down with just his head in it - which was all that would fit - and refused to budge until we went home hours later... "

    The rest of the time the key is vigilance, as I said. If I need to go to the loo, and I'm alone in the house, then puppy either goes in his crate or he comes with me.

    With a happy, secure, adult dog a crate is rarely necessary, all that is needed is to keep all food items genuinely out of reach ('I thought it was' isn't good enough, sorry), since you won't have valuable or easily broken stuff at dog height in any case if you have any sense; if an adult dog eats/chews inappropriate items it is almost always because it is bored or insecure.

    Dogs are social animals, they need company, They also need adequate stimulation and exercise, and puppies need protection and vigilance. If you can't provide all of those things you shouldn't have a dog, and that means you, Ed and Emma.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 52: 3
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 52: 1
    Loading…
  • Comment number 51. Posted by BasiainBrooklyn

    on 3 Jan 2014 05:36

    ' The idea that pets have to be ring fenced from all potential risks in life is absurd and impossible to my way of thinking. Sure, wrap your pets in cotton wool, secure them from all risk and let them live in a bare room on their own with nowhere to jump or play. They'll be physically safe. But miserable and unhappy to my way of thinking and if I were condemned to that sort of regime I'd be rather be dead. Being alive in the first place is a risk but at least there are a few pleasures involved. '

    I don't see where anyone has suggested anything as ridiculous as this scenario Cath, but equally everyone knows that a young puppy requires extra vigilance and some simple precautions in puppy-proofing the areas is likely to be in. It's not brain surgery.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 51: 2
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 51: 1
    Loading…
More comments

More Posts

Previous

Next