Discuss The Archers  permalink

Surely, David must give evidence?

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 51 - 100 of 209
  • Message 51

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by RAFromSw (U14574822) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    ........I mean, would anyone -- if faced with the situation IRL -- be urging a witness not to give evdince which could pretty well put away a lot of nasty thugs?

    .........................

    Yes, absolutely if your own children / grandchildren / nephews / nieces were at risk.

    Report message1

  • Message 52

    , in reply to message 50.

    Posted by Redbookish (U1335018) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    "This life" anyone? 

    Oh yes, Ginslinger, I loved "This Life." And JPBS, and Sharpers -- of course, how could I forget "LA Law"?! Ahhhhh the 80s ....

    And then there's "North Square" which is still on 4OD. Great shots of lovely bits of Leeds in that, which is always a bonus.

    Report message2

  • Message 53

    , in reply to message 50.

    Posted by Hybro (U14605227) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    With Judge John Deed - not sure judges are meant to get that hands on 
    Yes the same every episode. That's what always rather spoilt JJD for me. Well that and that he never resorted to calling up his old partner Bodie to sort the bad guys out the way they used to in the old days.

    Perhaps someone like him could get Ruth, Jill and Lizard on side.

    Report message3

  • Message 54

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    Mummypiggy, yes the whole village. The editorial team have form for the whole village or the whole family, with only one dissenting voice or sometimes as many as two, being on the side they favour of a situation.

    Nobody in the village said a dickie bird about Helen being off her rocker to think she was the right person to have a baby by baster, for instance, nor expressed doubt about the truth of her assertion that Henry was not the product of a one-night stand with a careless man. Her having that baby was a given Good Thing and not to be in any way questioned. Poor Tony was alone in his disquiet.

    Nobody in his family is in the least against the Megadairy, even Kate who certainly would be, so Adam is left to Stand Alone about it.

    In the same way nobody is going to be on David's side in this, because it has been decreed that he shall be the Brave Man Standing Alone.

    I am waiting for Kenton to turn up and offer to help -- someone in the family has to be the One Dissenting Voice. Whether he will be the slightest use or not I don't know, but I think he may be due for a bit of rehabilitation from his usual uselessness. But he is flying off to New Zealand shortly to visit his daughter in the middle of school term, so maybe not until he gets back, or only until he leaves. Maybe it will be Shula and Alistair instead.

    Report message4

  • Message 55

    , in reply to message 48.

    Posted by PollyGlot (U4652497) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    'I could never understand why Harrison Ford ended up with Callista Flockhart when he could have had me...'

    And Nigel but eighteen months dead. (Shakes head sadly) What a brazen hussy this Sharpers is, and flighty to boot. The widderlizzie is still in purple weeds.

    Report message5

  • Message 56

    , in reply to message 55.

    Posted by Ginslinger Redux (U14830013) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    Half mourning? Already?

    Report message6

  • Message 57

    , in reply to message 55.

    Posted by La Sharpissima (U1476061) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    The widderlizzie has never worn weeds. Of course if there was any justice in the world she would be wearing pyjamas with arrows on them and natty matching leg shackles. Unfortunately as there is a dearth of plod in Ambridge she is never likely to be brought to justice for the murdering car that she is.

    Report message7

  • Message 58

    , in reply to message 57.

    Posted by Ginslinger Redux (U14830013) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    Private prosecution?

    Report message8

  • Message 59

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    The whole story is nonsense, Red and interminably boring.

    Report message9

  • Message 60

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    < But TA is a drama, so the SWs need to create conflict and different points of view. Otherwise -- Yaaaawn. >

    On the contrary - this approach is the yawn one. A more complex approach would be interesting. But then the sws don't do complex.

    Report message10

  • Message 61

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by Parish Spinster (U2256426) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    These bad men clearly have a lot more at stake than the offence against Adam - or else why would they go to these ludicrous lengths. So say David doesn't give evidence, do we think that they will then send over a box of luxury frozen pizzas to express their thanks? No - they will think "Hey, this guy will do anything if we threaten his farm and his family - we've got him in the palm of our hand(s) now". So the next thing will be a call to ask to store something/someone dodgy in the outbuildings. David, naturally, refuses and it all starts all over again.....and so on ad infinitum. Aaarrggghhh.  And everything of value at Brookfield would be stolen as fast as it was noticed, because D&R are known to be soft touches.

    Was it stock or equipment the thieves were stealing when Adam disturbed them? I can't remember.

    Report message11

  • Message 62

    , in reply to message 61.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    Presumably it wasn't stock, because the polytunnels don't contain any, but there was never the slightest indication given as to what they had tried to steal, or if they succeeded what they had stolen.

    Report message12

  • Message 63

    , in reply to message 60.

    Posted by maggiesaes (U2771771) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    Yes it IS one big yawn and I just don't care if he gives evidence or not now,just had enough.

    Report message13

  • Message 64

    , in reply to message 61.

    Posted by HtoHe (U2335032) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    message 61

    << And everything of value at Brookfield would be stolen as fast as it was noticed, because D&R are known to be soft touches. >>

    Sorry, PS; I've got to challenge this irrational assumption. Villains, especially big villains, are not a force of moral evolution attacking and weeding out people with insufficient moral fibre. They don't home in on people because they are 'soft touches'. They are likely to concentrate on the most lucrative targets, not the easiest. When Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks he is reputed to have said 'because that's where the money is' not 'because the staff always cave in when you wave a gun at them'.

    Report message14

  • Message 65

    , in reply to message 62.

    Posted by PollyGlot (U4652497) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    The ironic thing is that while the ‘baddies’ are doing nasty physical things to get David to retract, Ruth is doing nasty emotional things to the same end.

    The baddies beat Adam up. Ruth is also beating him up but the violence consists of moral blows… putting the boot him when he’s already down.

    Report message15

  • Message 66

    , in reply to message 65.

    Posted by HtoHe (U2335032) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    message 65

    << The ironic thing is that while the ‘baddies’ are doing nasty physical things to get David to retract, Ruth is doing nasty emotional things to the same end. >>

    Could that be because the baddies are ruthless and Ruth is, well, Ruth?


    I'll get me coat.

    Report message16

  • Message 67

    , in reply to message 64.

    Posted by Parish Spinster (U2256426) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    "Sorry, PS; I've got to challenge this irrational assumption. "

    I don't see why I'm described as irrational just because you don't agree with me.

    This isn't the Kray twins. It's likely to be local villans who are going to go for the line of least risk. Nothing to do with "moral fibre" (I checked, didn't mention that once in my post), just the securiy of knowing that they won't stand up for themselves.

    Report message17

  • Message 68

    , in reply to message 45.

    Posted by A Frend (U2249422) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    "Mutter.

    Not, I repeat, muttering at the SWs, they are using exactly the language which is likely to be used by the inhabitants of Ambridge though if we hear Usha using it I may blow a gasket or twenty!"

    It was only recently that TV courtroom dramas stopped judges banging gavels - another procedure erroneously imported from American TV.

    Report message18

  • Message 69

    , in reply to message 50.

    Posted by A Frend (U2249422) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    Loved This Life - far superior to Silk which was very disappointing.

    Report message19

  • Message 70

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by Sturmey Archer (U2328688) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    "Hey, this guy will do anything if we threaten his farm and his family - we've got him in the palm of our hand(s) now". So the next thing will be a call to ask to store something/someone dodgy in the outbuildings. David, naturally, refuses and it all starts all over again.....and so on ad infinitum. Aaarrggghhh. 

    Absolutely correct!

    (Cockney Voice on Phone): "…David Archer?"
    Daveeeeeed (for it is he) : "…yes? Who is this?"
    (CVoP): "…you're Daveeed, it don't ma'a 'oo I am. Well, Dave, we offa a protekshun servis! Aaar rates are pri'ee good (aside) speshuly for rich geezas); yer kna farm stuff breaks orl the time, traila tyres get shot out, tractors overturn…"
    Daveeeeed (gasps in horror): "…No! Stop! don't go on, I'll pay! How much? Whose name shall I put on the cheque?"
    (CVoP): "…Nah! Nah! Dave! D'ya fink we're stoopid or sumfink?" (thinks to self) "self, we gotta be corshus 'ere, we'll have 'im make it aht to wifey, then 'ee won't no 'oo I am) "…make it aht to Doris Fugswife; we'll give ya the hadress la'a!
    (cont. on charge sheet 94)

    - sa

    Report message20

  • Message 71

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Rwth of the Cornovii (U2570790) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    However much I love my family, friends and lover, they should know if I haven't already told them so that I would not and never will give in to any blackmail on their account. I've always viewed the onus being on the blackmailer to prove I'd have something to gain if I do give in, so I won't. They have a stick to beat you with, and they are as much on the other end of it as you are on your end.

    If I was kidnapped, I'd expect my N & D to assume I was already dead and not to do anything to comfort the malefactor, except where it might help to catch them and preferably set fire to their knickers.

    Report message21

  • Message 72

    , in reply to message 67.

    Posted by HtoHe (U2335032) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    message 67

    << I don't see why I'm described as irrational just because you don't agree with me >>

    But I didn’t describe you as irrational, PS – what I described as irrational was the assumption that the villains would target someone further because they had given in once. As I said last night, the intimidation of a witness is an ad hoc, defensive measure taken as a matter of necessity, perhaps even out of panic. The amount of pressure applied will be increased until the tactic is successful (or until it’s too late, in which case it will have failed) because the consequences of failure are unacceptable. If the demands continue after the trial the whole picture changes. It’s no longer ‘do this one thing and that’s it’ and becomes ‘do whatever we say or we’ll persecute you indefintely’. Only an idiot (admittedly some villains are idiots, but that's a different matter) would imagine the latter would succeed just because the former did. They'd be far more likely to remember how hard they had to work to make him toe the line when it really mattered and leave well enough alone.

    << This isn't the Kray twins. >>

    Let’s hope it’s not. As things are, the intimidation is likely to continue until the trial is over – which is uncomfortable enough. Psychopaths like the Krays might punish people who didn’t do as they were told even after the trial – and regardless of the verdict.

    << It's likely to be local villans who are going to go for the line of least risk. >>

    That’s where the logical flaw lies. What you say is true to the extent that everyone likes to minimize risk; but it’s not true that a villain will target someone just because they can be intimidated if absolutely necessary.

    << Nothing to do with "moral fibre" >>

    Exactly my point. The villains’ behaviour is not connected to the moral fibre of the victims to any great degree. The possibility that they might cave in easily is at best a bonus, not a reason for targetting them.

    Report message22

  • Message 73

    , in reply to message 72.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    The sort of targeting indicated "because of lack of moral fibre" is the sort inflicted by Matt and Co on poor Darrell.

    OK -its a bit more subtle than that .. but he can't object to what they are asking him to do because otherwise he would be out of work .. AND out of benefit
    JPBS

    Report message23

  • Message 74

    , in reply to message 73.

    Posted by HtoHe (U2335032) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    message 73

    << The sort of targeting indicated "because of lack of moral fibre" is the sort inflicted by Matt and Co on poor Darrell.

    OK -its a bit more subtle than that .. but he can't object to what they are asking him to do because otherwise he would be out of work .. AND out of benefit >>

    And, once he's crossed a certain line he's 'one of them', whether he likes it or not JPB_S. And, of course, the most obvious difference is that there's no need to threaten Darrell's family. That wouldn't happen, if at all, unless D crossed the line in the opposite direction and turned informer. Until then he's free (or rather less than free as you point out) to walk away if he doesn't like the situation. I was in a similar situation myself many years ago when I was working for a gang of night cleaners who were helping themselves to stock every morning before going home. I never got involved and, to give the police due credit, they quickly accepted that I was playing no active part in the thefts when they made arrests (and even, I think, took steps to make it clear to the others that I hadn't grassed them up).

    Report message24

  • Message 75

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by nesta vipers (U2256451) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    I go on twitter, but would never tweet about TA

    For one thing it's not anonymous & for another it doesn't seem to have the depth for the Mrs Angry rant type of response that the prog elicits

    Someone said about children? In fact I think one tends to have more of a sense of doing right when one is a parent (I mean, that isn't to say single people don't, more that if your morals are a bit elastic it sort of concentrates the mind!) because it makes you aware that there is an important audience for your behaviour, & one that might be vulnerable/ susceptible to learning right/wrong

    I should like something quite bad to happen to the, at Brookfield, but I don't want to see any cows hurt

    Cheers nesta

    Report message25

  • Message 76

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by nesta vipers (U2256451) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    It's more or less an admission of their guilt if they try to stop David 'testifying' (keep thinking of The Crucible for some reason)

    We know a lot of criminals are daft but to nobble complete outsiders to their milieu is stretching it a bit - jury nobbling much more likely

    TA doesn't do legal,stuff v well I'm afraid

    Cheers nesta

    Report message26

  • Message 77

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by Margaret (U14756851) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012


    "I mean, would anyone -- if faced with the situation IRL -- be urging a witness not to give evdince which could pretty well put away a lot of nasty thugs?"

    Redbookish - I would like to think that IRL I would stand up and be counted. People are however often pretty cowardly. Just look at how people slide off without giving their names as witnesses when approached after an incident. And yet, they would be the first to be indignant if they were let down by these sort of attitudes if they should be caught up in something which needed the honest witness of an independent person.

    In my opinion it is the civic duty of every citizen to assist in justice being done. However, IRL I should also be quite assertive with the authorities to make sure that everything was being done to protect me and mine, and it does not come across in the script that this is happening. With such nasty incidents and intimidation there would surely be a more pro active postition taken by the police. Where are the regular visits from the force? Where are the increased patrols? Bearing in mind the impending prosecution, where is the investigation going regarding the sidekicks of the prosecuted? They are probably known to the police.

    My only cheer was when it was apparent that Soosan now knows. Great - now everyone will know, and should have known a long time ago. A good community would offer support - people dropping round more. And certainly looking out for suspicous activity.

    Adam's misgivings are natural - he is understandably feeling in some way responsible if his cousin and his family get hurt. Ian, being more of an outsider has the correct perspective. Lizzie is gutless and uncharitable towards her brother. Jill at last seems to be biting back at her daughter's attitude. As for Ruth - well, I might have a different perspective if I thought my home and family were being threatened, but I hope that I would stand firm with my husband who had principles and convictions.  
    me too, and my son aged 17 gave evidence after being threatened. I was so proud of him!

    Report message27

  • Message 78

    , in reply to message 76.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    Its a question of who "they" are nesta .. doubtless the gang who beat up Adam would say they knew nowt about their mates intimidating the witness. And the intimidators have not yet been caught .. much less been convicted.

    Even if they were convicted I don't think it would be acceptable evidence in any prosecution of the original thugs? What do our experts think?
    JPBS

    Report message28

  • Message 79

    , in reply to message 54.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    I am waiting for Kenton to turn up and offer to help -- someone in the family has to be the One Dissenting Voice. Whether he will be the slightest use or not I don't know, but I think he may be due for a bit of rehabilitation from his usual uselessness. But he is flying off to New Zealand shortly to visit his daughter in the middle of school term, 

    NZ has just started 3 weeks School Holidays. Presumably why Kenton going now - for the skiing.

    What WOULD people say if the S/Ws made such a boob!!!

    Report message29

  • Message 80

    , in reply to message 73.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    In reply to JustPresidentBunny_Socialist:

    The sort of targeting indicated "because of lack of moral fibre" is the sort inflicted by Matt and Co on poor Darrell. 


    Yes - though the idea that Matt is that sort of nasty criminal is probably the biggest character shift of them all?

    Report message30

  • Message 81

    , in reply to message 77.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    Good for your son Margaret. However, he was only taking a risk with himself. If he gi ves evidence David will be taking a risk and responsibility not only for himself but for 4 others. That's different.

    I would think it would depend how seriously one took the threat. It has been seen that the people are prepared to carry out a serious attack and they have little to lose by attacking others. People are dangerous once that happens.

    The posts claiming that they would not put their children first seem a little glib, naive and unrealistic to me. I don't actually believe that so many people would give evidence if their children had received direct threats on a phone. Cyncial moi?

    Report message31

  • Message 82

    , in reply to message 81.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    I would think it would depend how seriously one took the threat. It has been seen that the people are prepared to carry out a serious attack and they have little to lose by attacking others 

    The original people are presumably in jail on remand, so anyone attacking would be putting themselves at risk for others. And they must know their targets are likely to be protected.

    In reply to locki:

    Good for your son Margaret. However, he was only taking a risk with himself. If he gives evidence David will be taking a risk and responsibility not only for himself but for 4 others. That's different. 


    Danegeld.


    .

    Report message32

  • Message 83

    , in reply to message 82.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    'Danegeld'. I've just been reading about that this morning.

    Report message33

  • Message 84

    , in reply to message 83.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    In reply to locki:

    'Danegeld'. I've just been reading about that this morning. 


    It is always a temptation......


    I *could* go on but will leap to

    "We NEVER pay anyone Danegeld
    No matter how trifling the cost;
    For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
    And the nation that pays it is lost!"

    Report message34

  • Message 85

    , in reply to message 84.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    A nation may not pay but an individual ( a parent) might!

    Report message35

  • Message 86

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by jean (U15330184) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    You are so right, if he gives in it will never end. What I can't understand is why no one else in Ambridge can see this.

    Report message36

  • Message 87

    , in reply to message 86.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    Ian can, or something quite like it. But for some reason he had to say that his motive was that the time while Adam was in a coma was the worst time of his life, which is *not* the right reason for resisting blackmail and intimidation.

    Report message37

  • Message 88

    , in reply to message 85.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    As protection money has existed for centuries, I beieve it still does in some parts of the world, it is evident that people do pay to protect their own.

    Globally, many a challenger of the Mafia has met an untimely and gruesome death.

    Report message38

  • Message 89

    , in reply to message 87.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    Perhaps Dave should move to Sicily or Russia and sort them out.

    Chris, I suppose Ian, like Ruth, can't help personalising their predicament. I'm sure many of us would in the same circumstances. Not sure how many would stick to their theoretical principles.

    Report message39

  • Message 90

    , in reply to message 86.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    But so far as we know the only people who want David to withdraw his evidence are
    Jill
    Ruth
    ... ?
    Don't know any others ..
    JPBS

    Report message40

  • Message 91

    , in reply to message 90.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    Elizabeth.
    Emma, I would bet: she wouldn't care about principles, she would just not like it being David's fault that she doesn't feel safe.

    Report message41

  • Message 92

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by LooseWheel (U2499574) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    I can understand Ruth being worried and frightened for the childrens' safety, and think it quite logical that given the situation they'd be sent away, but I'm with you Red on being completely nonplussed by all and sundry advising David not to give evidence, especially Jill. I agree with many other threads expressing disbelief at why the dopey duo have kept it all so secret - have they never heard of security in numbers? It's bizarre.
    LW x

    Report message42

  • Message 93

    , in reply to message 81.

    Posted by Rwth of the Cornovii (U2570790) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    The posts claiming that they would not put their children first seem a little glib, naive and unrealistic to me. I don't actually believe that so many people would give evidence if their children had received direct threats on a phone. Cyncial moi? 

    When O/H witnessed a bad Road Accident, he came home fuming. I told him to report it and to give evidence NO MATTER WHAT. I am not glib or unrealistic. Once people think they can pervert the course of justice, they will do it all the time. A prominent local politician silenced a lot of criticism by threatening to sue, "I'm consulting my legal advisers". I went on public record by saying their chance of reelection was slender if they meant to sue the pants off their pensioner constituents. I then pointed out in public that the said legal advisers were there to advise the City, not the councillors at our expense. They shut up very quickly.

    I'm disgusted with Ruth's script. I agree she should be backing him up and encouraging him to stand firm. They should have told the children straightaway, and they would have said the same thing. "Give evidence, don't let them beat up Uncle Adam and get away with it".

    Report message43

  • Message 94

    , in reply to message 91.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    Seems to be the Mums that are wanting to put their families first! Humm, does that tell us something?

    Women are unprincipled cowards? Or something else.......?

    Report message44

  • Message 95

    , in reply to message 88.

    Posted by Sturmey Archer (U2328688) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    I beieve it still does in some parts of the world, it is evident that people do pay to protect their own 

    Quite right! Are you familiar with ¹Dornford Yates' work? Written in the early and middle part of the 20th Century, and deals with, amongst many other things, some situations where "the good chaps" have to take The Law into their own hands, as The Law is about as useful as the proverbial "One Legged Man at an Arse-Kicking Contest". His stories are full of amazing characters, and the wimmin are not only gorgeous, but are thankful for the fact that that the heroes are all "Good Chaps"). Look especially for the Chandos books.

    - sa (who has a complete collection of Dornford Yates - all First Editions, and some paperbacks (USA market))

    ¹ - en.wikipedia.org/wik...

    Report message45

  • Message 96

    , in reply to message 94.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    Women want to appear tp be nicer, softer and more cuddly than men do?

    Report message46

  • Message 97

    , in reply to message 91.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    Has Emma said anything? I don't remember. All I remember is her being angry at not being told - and quite right too
    JPBS

    Report message47

  • Message 98

    , in reply to message 95.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    Sturmers, I have them all.

    I don't think that they are much help in dealing with minor criminals who want to stop someone from giving evidence.

    I think that Modesty Blaise and Willie Garvin would be a better bet.

    Report message48

  • Message 99

    , in reply to message 95.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    Hi Sturmley, I have just returned from my Mother's house clutching one of her old Dornford Yate's books. She died a couple of weeks ago and has a collection of them as she just adored them.

    You know what it's like when one is young, one resists the choices of one' s parents. However, now I am a mature adult I intend to read it and try to see what so attracted her to them. I have an idea they are rather snobbish.

    We once took my Mum on a tour of places featured in the books.

    I'm not sure if my Mum's books are First Editions. They are very old!

    Report message49

  • Message 100

    , in reply to message 96.

    Posted by _ShropshireLad_ (U10844552) on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012

    Women want to appear tp be nicer, softer and more cuddly than men do? 

    I suppose the idea is that women tend to overestimate risks in a situation like this, particularly when children are involved. Whereas men underestimate them, where their machismo or ability to protect is challenged.

    Probably some truth in that, obviously a generalisation or stereotype.

    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

BBC © 2014 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.