Discuss The Archers  permalink

Sorry but I will always....

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 51 - 100 of 197
  • Message 51

    , in reply to message 49.

    Posted by The Leech Pedlar (U15129703) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    Perhaps.

    At least it's a possible alternative.

    I'd still put Clarrie in the stocks. Just to cheer the other villagers up. : )

    Report message1

  • Message 52

    , in reply to message 48.

    Posted by PollyGlot (U4652497) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    'She was the only person infected and it was her poor hygiene that resulted in the contamination. E clarrie by name E clarrie by nature.'

    A false cause argument. There is no proof she caused the outbreak. Correlation and causation are not the same. But because Clarrie has such a low opinion of herself she can't accept that she might not be to blame.

    Yet it seems to me that if they want her back at Bridge Farm they must have doubts themselves. A good weapon if Clarrie feels inclined to see the light and sue them for defamation of character.

    Report message2

  • Message 53

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    I'm going back to the OP so that it doesn't look as if I am replying to any one later post.

    Apart from the listeners, the local EHO, and the people who work at Bridge Farm, who knows that Clarrie was blamed for the outbreak?

    So why would the press make any connection? Someone would have to tell them. I doubt that Susan would, since she is meant to be a friend of Clarrie's and she'd have to go out of her way to do it, and somehow I don't see the Bridge Farm Archers or Clarrie herself doing it.

    How would they even know, unless they went and asked, who was working there now?

    I know that it is thoroughly implausible that nobody ever seems to have asked who was the vector for the outbreak, but they didn't.

    I actually find it rather disgusting for anyone who has ever suffered from diarrhea and not had an e.Coli test before returning to work to condemn somebody else as Unclean for doing exactly the same. Holier-than-thou tends to irritate me.

    Report message3

  • Message 54

    , in reply to message 44.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    The point of similarity is that bath contains e-coli from bum. In the case of toddlers - yes fist goes into mouth and they are infected. In the case of Clarrie e-coli from suspension gets on other part of her body eg neck, forehead.

    If she touched her forehead or neck *after* she washed her hands then her hands would be contaminated in spite of washing them.

    That is the reason for a more stringent rule in the case of e-coli .. it only takes a small amount of the pathogen.

    As for customers - they would know very well that whatever the cause of the infection in BF - it had been eliminated now and BF had learned from their mistake. THe probability of a further infection would be *less*.

    However I don't know of a food producer like BF being infected - as said previously it is mostly producers who *blatantly* disobey hygiene rules and are subsequently prosecuted we hear about .. Or in the case of petting farms - who have been careless . So I don't think we have a similar case for comparison ..
    JPBS

    Report message4

  • Message 55

    , in reply to message 47.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    But the rules for e-coli *are* different from a normal tummy bug. Typhoid too. The guidelines from the FSA are not clear. They say "wait 48 hours". THen as a separate para ... if you have e-coli or typhoid you must be tested.

    I think the difference between the latter and the "normal" tummy bug is that it takes less of these pathogens to produce an infection.

    We don't know what would have happened if Clarrie had stayed home an extra day. She returned to work in all good faith anyway .. she *thought* it had been 48 hours - she forgot about the isolated lapse
    JPBS

    Report message5

  • Message 56

    , in reply to message 53.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    No-one would know definitely but a rumour must have got round - else why would the shop customer call her "that dirty woman"?

    She condemned herself unfortunately - by resigning ..

    However the above is just tittle tattle - I don't think a paper would dare print it - and they wouldn't be able to see her medical records as CG said.

    And as I've said previously - BF is last years story - I think the local paper is more interested in the mega-dairy now
    JPBS

    Report message6

  • Message 57

    , in reply to message 55.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    Since it is not possible for the sufferer to know whether their runny tummy was caused by E.coli or a bad reaction to chilli or too much fat all at once, all diarrhoea should clearly be treated as being E.coli if there is to be no risk of infection.

    The regulations say only that you must wait 48 hours before going back to work after the end of an attack of diarrhoea, which would be frankly useless if E.coli is still present ten days later and more, as it had to be in Clarrie's case for her to be discovered as the vector for the disease.

    Report message7

  • Message 58

    , in reply to message 53.

    Posted by PollyGlot (U4652497) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    'So why would the press make any connection? Someone would have to tell them'

    Didn't Pat say in an interview that the person responsible was no longer working at BF.

    As Clarrie is the only one to have left - and the village would know it - it would be common knowledge pretty sharpish. And the surrounding villages would get to know.

    'How would they even know, unless they went and asked, who was working there now?'

    But this is precisely what local reporters do.

    Report message8

  • Message 59

    , in reply to message 57.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    CG - The regulations** *additionally* say you should be tested in the case of e-coli and typhoid. But they don't say how you can tell.

    I agree it would be sensible to add that for agricultural workers a test should be mandatory after a tummy bug .. but it doesn't say that.

    There were newspaper reports also - of sufferers from e-coli (from the outbreak elsewhere in Europe) still carrying the pathogen.

    JPBS
    **FSA regulations - not sure if they are guidelines Rose gave.

    Report message9

  • Message 60

    , in reply to message 58.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    Pat gave her only interview on 2nd August, Clarrie resigned on 5th August, so I don't think that Pat could very well have mentioned that Clarrie had gone, could she? It would have been untrue.

    As far as we know no local reporter asked questions at Bridge Farm about who worked there.

    Report message10

  • Message 61

    , in reply to message 58.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    Polly - Am not sure if Pat did say that - Tom wanted her to but she refused ..

    In any case that would be tittle-tattle. I don't think they would publish it unless they were sure - not worth their while
    JPBS

    Report message11

  • Message 62

    , in reply to message 59.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    I've looked for regulations on employees with tummy bugs and "48 hour rule" - I can't find them ..
    JPBS

    Report message12

  • Message 63

    , in reply to message 61.

    Posted by PollyGlot (U4652497) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    Chris and Bunny

    Yep you are right.

    As for tittle tattle - it's the life-blood of the local newspapers isn't it? And not only the papers. If anything like that had happened around here we wouldn't have needed the newspapers, not for the real news. And you can bet your life it would have been discussed and sides taken. It wouldn't have been all one-sided as in this case. Clarrie would have had her supporters.

    Report message13

  • Message 64

    , in reply to message 63.

    Posted by PollyGlot (U4652497) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    www.food.gov.uk/mult...

    I found the above link Bunny.

    And in fact if you look at section 9 it states:

    'It is reasonable to presume that a single bout (e.g. one loose stool) or
    incidence of vomiting is not infectious if 24 hours have elapsed without any
    further symptoms and this is not accompanied by fever. In this case, as long
    as there is no other evidence to suggest an infectious cause, the person would only pose a very low risk of being infected and could resume work before the 48-hour limit.'

    There you have it!! Clarrie had 'one single bout' on the Sunday. Can we then assume that she is in the clear??

    Report message14

  • Message 65

    , in reply to message 64.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    She'd had a fairly thorough go from the middle of the night of 30th June, and that lasted at least 24 hours, possibly longer: she was reported as having felt unlike doing anything much on Saturday 2nd July. So there was "other evidence" even if she did only have one single bout during the 48 hours before she went back to work.

    Clarrie simply forgot when the last incident happened. Eddie remembered, and said so, but only to her, not to Pat. How Pat intuitively knew that Clarrie had broken the 48-hour rule is anybody's giuess: she was never told it.

    Report message15

  • Message 66

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    < I believe that in real life and in the current recession, a business like BF would have gone under and I think it would have been a much more interesting and realistic storyline to go down that route. Shame the SWs didn't think so and preferred to bring in the job and finance fairies! >


    Seconded.

    Report message16

  • Message 67

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    Agreed LL. A really meaty story with the BF crew having to face up to the reality of the business world would be far more interesting than this pap we are supposed to believe in.

    Report message17

  • Message 68

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    < WE've had the Grundy bankruptcy .. >

    Years ago. It would be really good if a clan member had to bite the dust too. And BF is the most likely candidate - a business built on sand if ever one was.

    Report message18

  • Message 69

    , in reply to message 54.

    Posted by cath (U2234232) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    >If she touched her forehead or neck *after* she washed her hands then her hands would be contaminated in spite of washing them.<

    Well duh if you touch parts of your body or anything that you haven't cleaned in the appropriate way then you should wash your hands again /before/ touching the food! It's elementary hygiene particularly in a food producing unit. So Clarrie's hygiene was at fault. (Though I have to say I find your scenario just a tad far fetched.)

    This thread reads like a classroom of children coming up with ever more improbable excuses as to why it wasn't them wot dunnit miss. Even though they're caught redhanded splotched with paint and a locked door.

    msg 53

    >I actually find it rather disgusting for anyone who has ever suffered from diarrhea and not had an e.Coli test before returning to work to condemn somebody else as Unclean for doing exactly the same. <

    Who done that CG? Do they work in food production, which rightly has very stringent rules? Is there any evidence of anyone on the MB having a go at Clarrie who's failed to abide by the rules themselves? I'm thoroughly mystified by that remark.

    >Holier-than-thou tends to irritate me.<

    Ha ha ha.

    Report message19

  • Message 70

    , in reply to message 48.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    Leech - the issue is not that eClarrie GOT infected - could happen to anyone. It is that she then manufactured food whilst still infected. Her choice.

    Too much chance of bringing in stray flora to infect the produc 

    Why are bacteria Flora? know that is the normal term. But more like Fauna, surely?

    Report message20

  • Message 71

    , in reply to message 64.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    Polly - what you sent me is different from the one I remember ..

    However if you look at page 11 you will see what I mean ...

    My idea of *how* she came to infect the ice-cream is conjecture - but it is conjecture based on what I have read in the literature and on what we *know* of Clarrie. If normal handwashing plus obeying the 48 hour rule is sufficient how come the rules insist on extra tests for those with e-coli infections? (Which is what she had of course - and which was never explained ..)
    JPBS

    Report message21

  • Message 72

    , in reply to message 44.

    Posted by LindaLee (U2777941) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    < And I think LindaL at msg 23 upthread got it spot on. >

    Thank you, Cath!

    Report message22

  • Message 73

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    But Linda - we have nothing with which to compare the situation at BF .

    The only examples I know of where a food based infection has resulted in severe illness are cases where the rules have been blatantly disobeyed . We've all read about them - raw food mixed with cooked, food sold past its date, dirty premises etc.

    In those cases noone would be prepared to give them a second chance - however the BF case is not the same as the above .. What the BF situation might teach customers is that if BF could have problems then so could anyone! It might just put customers off buying yoghurt and ice-cream for a bit ... Once they returned to purchasing it - they might very well believe that BF had learned from their mistake(s).

    But I've never heard of a case like BF's - and in fact the food hygiene people said as much - most premises they visit where problems have arisen have been filthy dirty ..
    JPBS

    Report message23

  • Message 74

    , in reply to message 71.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    If normal handwashing plus obeying the 48 hour rule is sufficient how come the rules insist on extra tests for those with e-coli infections? (Which is what she had of course - and which was never explained ..)
    JPBS 


    Once you KNOW that a food handler has been infected with a virulent strain of E Coli it would be madness to let them return to work until you KNOW it has gone. They might become a carrier.

    But if they follow the 48 hour rule AND good hygiene; unlikely it will ever be known.

    I also thing the bug bred at the gymkhana from ice cream scoops stored all day in warm water.

    Report message24

  • Message 75

    , in reply to message 74.

    Posted by cath (U2234232) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    >But if they follow the 48 hour rule AND good hygiene; unlikely it will ever be known.<

    I think that's the whole point. When you devise rules to prevent a catastrophe ever happening (and an outbreak of E coli 0157 /is/ a catastrophe) you don't just set up one of set of rules you set up as many hoops as you can in the expectation that one of them will prevent the catastrophe.

    So you have the 48 hour rule and the requirement to tell your employer that you've been ill - not enough to stop an infection of E coli which lasts a lot longer in the gut but it's a signal that something's gone wrong somewhere and, coupled with the length of time and virulence of the illness, that should start alarm bells jangling in the employer's mind and suggest a stool test.

    If that doesn't work then you rely on the person maintaining good hygiene - scrupulous cleaning, gloves (not touching your face with hand or glove, washing hands/changing gloves if you do so by mistake).

    This SL was manufactured to ensure that the hoops didn't work and the bug got through.

    Report message25

  • Message 76

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by barwick_green (U2668006) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    Think of clarrie's mucky habits spreading food poison. Would you really ask her back to your food making establishment?  Clatty Clarrie? Not a chance she'd be taken back in real life.

    Report message26

  • Message 77

    , in reply to message 75.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    So you have the 48 hour rule and the requirement to tell your employer that you've been ill - not enough to stop an infection of E coli which lasts a lot longer in the gut 

    IIUC the squits continue until the level of bacteria in the gut falls off due to lack of food and to the body's defences. Then the 48 hour period is sufficient for the vast majority to die or be excreted, after which normal hygiene will suffice.

    Report message27

  • Message 78

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by barwick_green (U2668006) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    < WE've had the Grundy bankruptcy ..

    JPBS
    [Ed: that's enough bankruptcies ..>

    Moike Tugger too by the way.

    Report message28

  • Message 79

    , in reply to message 77.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    But OI - the RULES are that you have to wait till two consecutive tests are clear .. these are not my rules these are the rules required by the Food STandards Authority ..

    And these rules apply ONLY to e-coli and (I think) typhoid.

    Look at Polly's link page 11
    JPBS

    Report message29

  • Message 80

    , in reply to message 79.

    Posted by AP (U14268795) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    Taps are filthy things, you turn them on and infect them then wash your hands and pick up the infection again when you turn them off. Of course you can just pick up someone else's bugs instead when you turn them off .

    As for door handles, don't get me started on door handles................

    Report message30

  • Message 81

    , in reply to message 80.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    That is why some taps turn on automatically when you put your hands under them. Or sometimes there is a pressure pad you step on ..
    JPBS

    Report message31

  • Message 82

    , in reply to message 81.

    Posted by PollyGlot (U4652497) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    As I said earlier, there is no EVIDENCE whatsoever that Clarrie was to blame. Some of the posts on this MB since the beginning of this SL seem to show how easily witch hunts came into being. Horrifying really.

    Report message32

  • Message 83

    , in reply to message 82.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Saturday, 3rd March 2012

    There was a letter to The Telegraph from some food safety experts and microbiologists reckoning Clarrie probably wasn't the cause ..

    However Clarrie *did* receive a letter from the FSA saying it was almost certain she *was*. What is more a note was made on some kind of "record" belonging to her.
    JPBS

    Report message33

  • Message 84

    , in reply to message 79.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Sunday, 4th March 2012

    In reply to JustPresidentBunny_Socialist:

    But OI - the RULES are that you have to wait till two consecutive tests are clear .. these are not my rules these are the rules required by the Food STandards Authority ..

    And these rules apply ONLY to e-coli and (I think) typhoid.

    Look at Polly's link page 11
    JPBS 


    BunSoc the RULES can only be applied after an IDENTIFIED infection. AFAIK there is no such requirement after casual squits.

    Look at Polly's link page 11 

    gladly if you show me where it is.

    Report message34

  • Message 85

    , in reply to message 84.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Sunday, 4th March 2012

    Here it is:
    www.food.gov.uk/mult...

    Page 11.

    The other document I looked at quoted this rule just after the 48 hour rule.

    So how do you know which rule applies to you without being tested? Why apply the rule *after* a person has caused an infection -
    shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted ..??

    I suggested mandatory testing for someone with connections to the agri-industry with d and v .. otherwise it makes no sense.
    JPBS

    Report message35

  • Message 86

    , in reply to message 85.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Sunday, 4th March 2012

    BunSoc it's a balance between safety and keep calm and carry on.

    My life has today been disrupted by jobsworths who could not even explain whose benefit the rule they insisted on was supposed to be for.

    Report message36

  • Message 87

    , in reply to message 86.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Sunday, 4th March 2012

    BunSoc it's a balance between safety and keep calm and carry on.

    My life has today been disrupted by jobsworths who could not even explain whose benefit the rule they insisted on was supposed to be for.  
    Sorry about that OI - if you want a laugh LA last nights "The Now Show"

    www.bbc.co.uk/iplaye...

    There is a jobsworth on there from a bank plus plenty of other laughs (IMHO)
    JPBS

    Report message37

  • Message 88

    , in reply to message 81.

    Posted by GoneAwayForGood (U14551283) on Sunday, 4th March 2012

    That is why some taps turn on automatically when you put your hands under them. Or sometimes there is a pressure pad you step on ..
    JPBS 
    Long time ago, I happened to be washing my hands in the Ladies next to someone I knew to be a distinguished New Zealand bacteriologist. She commented to me "Don't know why we bother really because without anti-bacteriological solution and boiling water, you still have bacteria on your hands." I was rather surprised as I always wash my hands after the loo and before handling food (and always treat public loo taps and door handles very gingerly), and since have often wondered about what seemed to me a crazy remark that couldn't possibly be true. even given the source. This was back in the days when public loos didn't provide anti-bacterialogical handwash incidentally. A couple of weeks ago,it was sort of confirmed by Stephen Fry on QI who said that it is only scrubbing that gets rid of bacteria in the absence of boiling water. I don't know how bacteria move about but presumably some can get under your nails or whatever, however carefully you wash your hands and other bits and it is only chance and natural resistance that we're not all always coming down with something horrible.

    Report message38

  • Message 89

    , in reply to message 88.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Sunday, 4th March 2012

    I think you will remove a large proportion of bacteria, which may be enough!

    Report message39

  • Message 90

    , in reply to message 89.

    Posted by joe (U13868420) on Sunday, 4th March 2012

    Unfortunately, we've had plenty of informed opinion confirming that e. coli O157 requires very few organisms to establish a viable population

    Report message40

  • Message 91

    , in reply to message 88.

    Posted by maggiesaes (U2771771) on Sunday, 4th March 2012

    I'm always a bit paranoid in public loos and make sure the door is open before I wash and dry my hands so I don't have to touch it after-just in case there have been those who didn't bother.

    Report message41

  • Message 92

    , in reply to message 85.

    Posted by PollyGlot (U4652497) on Sunday, 4th March 2012

    'So how do you know which rule applies to you without being tested? Why apply the rule *after* a person has caused an infection -
    shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted ..??'

    Absolutely Bunny. And I f this rule is so confusing why should Clarrie be expected to know exactly what it means.

    As for her getting a note to say she was reponsible and being put on some sort of register, this is pure vindictiveness the need, in a blame culture, to find a scapegoat.

    Report message42

  • Message 93

    , in reply to message 75.

    Posted by Auntie Molly (U14110968) on Sunday, 4th March 2012



    This SL was manufactured to ensure that the hoops didn't work and the bug got through. 


    it depended on Clarrie not being sufficiently concerned and conscientious about the possible implications of her illness to inform Pat about it.

    Ridiculous and unbelievable.

    Report message43

  • Message 94

    , in reply to message 93.

    Posted by Rose Sal Volatile Parade (U4705648) on Sunday, 4th March 2012

    Of course we now know, with the longer view we now have of the sws long-term mapping out of stories, and as the village meeting clearly showed, that every farm that at the moment has smaller dairy herds has been given a major problem however out of the blue and unlikely (the ecoli, the slurry tank, the grass system being so fantastik! and then so rubbish) so that the mega-dairy can have more than a fair hearing as an idea.

    Report message44

  • Message 95

    , in reply to message 64.

    Posted by The Leech Pedlar (U15129703) on Sunday, 4th March 2012

    'It is reasonable to presume that a single bout (e.g. one loose stool)  

    Borrow some super-glue off Neil.

    Report message45

  • Message 96

    , in reply to message 93.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Sunday, 4th March 2012


    it depended on Clarrie not being sufficiently concerned and conscientious about the possible implications of her illness to inform Pat about it.

    Ridiculous and unbelievable. 

    Hmm - I seem to remember Pat snapped her head off when she got to work that morning - possible reason for her not saying anything.

    As to cleaning off the bacteria - one of our posters taught paramedics/medics (?) and said tests indicated that a scrubbing/nail brush plus good soap did the trick. She had her students scrub their hands then test themselves.
    JPBS

    Report message46

  • Message 97

    , in reply to message 85.

    Posted by cath (U2234232) on Sunday, 4th March 2012

    >I suggested mandatory testing for someone with connections to the agri-industry with d and v <

    You couldn't do that, it would cost industry far too much in terms of absence days to catch something that ought not to arise in the first place.

    The system depends on people being aware of themselves and the risks they pose to food production and will work unless at least one person is careless. In this case that person was Clarrie. She wasn't clean, she wasn't using gloves and/or handled utensils that went into the ice cream and/or allowed faecal matter to drop into the ice cream.

    Report message47

  • Message 98

    , in reply to message 97.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Sunday, 4th March 2012

    >I suggested mandatory testing for someone with connections to the agri-industry with d and v <

    You couldn't do that, it would cost industry far too much in terms of absence days to catch something that ought not to arise in the first place.  

    I meant, of course someone preparing food and having to adhere to FSA requirements ..

    So HOW otherwise are you know which rule to obey - the 48hr rule or the rule requiring tests before going back to work ..?

    And I still do not believe Clarrie was unhygienic

    JPBS

    Report message48

  • Message 99

    , in reply to message 91.

    Posted by Auntie Molly (U14110968) on Sunday, 4th March 2012

    What if it's the type of door which shuts on its own and there's nothing to wedge it open with?

    Report message49

  • Message 100

    , in reply to message 99.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Sunday, 4th March 2012

    After I've washed my hands (in e.g. train toilet) I usually take a wodge of toilet paper or paper you dry your hands on and use that to press buttons etc for door.
    JPBS

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

This messageboard is now closed.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.