Discuss The Archers  permalink

Out on a limb but never mind

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 51 - 100 of 371
  • Message 51

    , in reply to message 44.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Friday, 31st August 2012

    Frog my sympathy is limited because partly I don't believe in Vicky as a characters and partly due to the way the story has been set up and the timing.

    Irl have great sympathy for families who have to make this choice. I feel even more sorry for people who do not have any choice because whatever the problem is doesn't show up until after birth.

    I have no faith in the sws handling this story well throughout its development. They have form and it ain't good.

    Report message1

  • Message 52

    , in reply to message 51.

    Posted by DracoM1 (U14252039) on Friday, 31st August 2012

    Spot on, as ever, anna.

    Report message2

  • Message 53

    , in reply to message 50.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Friday, 31st August 2012

    Damson I agree that children with Downs are all different. I think the huge issue in V & M's case is M's age and his reluctance to commit.

    If V wants the child she needs to face the fact that she will probably do most of the caring without Mike because even if they don't split he is unlikely to reach a grand old age. The stress will have its toll.

    I don't think she has thought about this at all and should before she makes the decision and not just brush it all aside.

    Report message3

  • Message 54

    , in reply to message 53.

    Posted by Malahide (U14258229) on Friday, 31st August 2012

    >I don't think she has thought about this at all and should before she makes the decision and not just brush it all aside.<

    Who knows what the SWs have in store for us? This story is being played out gradually, give Vicky time to think and she'll probably take Mike and his feelings more into account. Remember she came round to agreeing to the amnio after intial reluctance.

    Report message4

  • Message 55

    , in reply to message 50.

    Posted by My Mum is turning in her grave (U13137565) on Friday, 31st August 2012

    MyMumetc - Try telling someone who has felt a child kicking and moving inside her that life begins at birth.

    Amid all this speculation about what a baby with DS will be like as an adult, have you thought what a "normal" child would be like? Did you think that you could see far into the future as to what will become of them when you're gone? This thread seems to imply that when the DS child reaches adulthood the only solution will be to have him/her put in a home, where he could be mistreated. What a terrible view of life you have.

    My DS son (who is severely learning disabled) is now in a house in supported living where he manages (with help) to do the washing up, watches his bloody awful TV (X factor), does his paintings, goes to college, dresses himself, shaves, socialises, does his washing, makes his own bed, does the shopping and only sees his mum at the weekends, where she pampers him a bit, because she misses having such a cheerful happy person around her who makes her laugh.

    It was very hard going when we first started out, and I admit I was worried for the future - and then I stopped and thought, my older son is "normal" and I have had more trouble with him than with Second Damson and I cannot see the future for him either. What is the difference? An extra chromosone. With children with DS you get heartbreak and and joy, as you do with normal children, who could fall off their bike and be damaged for life. in a similar way.

    Damson 
    Damson

    I think you are mistaken in my views. As I have said (probably else thread) I spent some years working with adults who had learning difficulties of varying abilities. I strove to enable all of them to achieve as much independance as possible and certainly don't believe that residential care is the only future. There have been major changes in provision and attitudes during my life time thank goodness. I worked with older adults who had been 'decanted' from the only home they had known - long stay hospitals and younger ones whose parents were as supportive as you are. My enduring memoy is of three middle aged women who lived in a hostel. I taught them how to use public transport independently and years later I met two of them on a bus trip they had palnned and executed by themselves. Teaching these students gave me far more pleasure and sense of achievement than the postgraduate students I taught later.

    I have a son who is disabled in a different way - he has paranoid schizophrenia. I honestly don't know what I would have done if I had known before he was born what his life would be like. Right now he is back living with me and seems to have a sense of purpose in caring for me. He has tried to live indepedantly - he managed a year at university as a mature student - but is unable to cope. he is fine while taking his medication regularly but doesn't want to be reminded. He has had to be sectioned twice - the most difficult times in my life - signing my child into a locked ward and not knowing how long he would stay there. Unfortunately when I am gone my eldest child will have no choice but to take on that responsibility as his next of kin.

    (he has just left to get a new presciption - he 'forgot' yesterday)

    My views on abortion have nothing to do with whether a there is a possibility of disability. As I said above once a child is born every life is of equal value but I do believe humanity begins at birth.

    PS I have the same issues over music as you have.

    Believe me I wish you and your son all the best for the future.


    Report message5

  • Message 56

    , in reply to message 55.

    Posted by damsonjamqueen (U2828847) on Friday, 31st August 2012

    Sorry MyMum etc - The second paragraph wasn't really directed at you, it was on the general thread and the negative views that seem to be held, not taking in the modern world. Things change and we none of us know what will happen to us and our children in the end.

    I used to help run a playgroup for special needs children, and one of the greatest thrills in my life was to see them doing their first ever paintings. I know what you mean about the middle-aged ladies.

    Damson

    Report message6

  • Message 57

    , in reply to message 56.

    Posted by My Mum is turning in her grave (U13137565) on Friday, 31st August 2012

    That's Ok damson.
    I really didn't want you to think I held those views!

    What i found so sad was the parents who had been told to 'put the baby away and foget about it'. those that didn't follow that advice had no help or support other than what were originally 'Junior training centres'. I did liaison with parents and they were pathetically grateful that anyone was taking an interest in them and their adult child and 'proving' that they were capable of learning.

    Fortunately times have changed, and parents are more confident in speaking up for their children.

    Report message7

  • Message 58

    , in reply to message 50.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Friday, 31st August 2012

    Yes Damson, my children have brought me untold joy and nigh on unbearable pain. They are not 'officially' disabled but have had physical problems of addiction. I have often thought my son, particularly, may have been spared much if I had not conceived him. His adult life has mostly been a trial to him and that causes a load of heartbreak and guilt for a parent.

    IMO your posts about your DS son are a good argument against abortion.
    He has even brought pleasure to posters on the MB! I also suspect he has been happier than my son who is not officially disabled.

    Report message8

  • Message 59

    , in reply to message 55.

    Posted by Dailyfix (U14602649) on Friday, 31st August 2012

    My Mum I agree with you. A mother must have rights over her own body which cannot be trumped by the fetus until it is independent. Any mother who has given birth will testify that is not something someone should be forced to do against their will. Vicky has the last say on this but I don't think she should expect Mike to support her making the decision without even consulting him but to bear the consequences. If she decides to keep the baby she should get all the support available but should be prepared to be a single mother either through marriage break up or early death of Mike through increased stress.
    An unwanted child is a terrible thing IMO I favour as free access to abortion as possible as early as possible I understand though that other views are valid and people have a right to disagree. I have more of a problem with people seeking to impose their views on others.
    It should always be Vicky's choice to make, if the roles were reversed and Mike wanted to keep the baby would anyone think he should have any right to stop the termination?

    Report message9

  • Message 60

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by beach-hut (U14737401) on Saturday, 1st September 2012

    if I was a Downs Syndrome baby, I could do a lot worse than having Vicky as my mummy and I think she'll actually be amazing.

    Dx 
    I agree. Vicki will fight to get what that child needs.
    Just read through and some great posts on here - thought provoking and humbling..thanks to those who have shared their experiences.

    Report message10

  • Message 61

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012


    As many MLers pointed out within seconds of the epi ending, the figures are not only easily available, but pretty startling - over 92% opt for terminations. But the script was carefully written to omit those stats, and made a professional consultant look stupidly ignorant, or ill-prepared, or evasive, or just a plain liar. It looked from that moment as if the TA team had withheld this info deliberately to facilitate a pre-determined plotline. What he SHOULD have said was 'Yes, there are stats, but the decision in each case is entirely a personal one to the couple involved, It must be yours. I'm not sure knowing the figures will be at all helpful to you. You are the ones to decide, not the stats.'  
    This question was asked on N and Q - when I last looked it was said that the consultant told a white lie - he did not know the *exact* stats so didn't tell them.

    Reason? Because giving stats can influence people - they do what *most* people do .

    I don't think Mike would have been happy with the "not helpful" .. I think he would have pursued it ..

    Now you may criticise the consultants decision - but that is not the point ..
    JPBS

    Report message11

  • Message 62

    , in reply to message 61.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    N and Q
    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...
    (msg 7)

    As to how it will pan out - who knows?
    JPBS

    Report message12

  • Message 63

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by malizon (U10119599) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    LFG,

    Pro-choice doesn't work like that apparently. It's only a woman's right to choose an abortion. If she's being 'awkward', then suddenly the father has to be consulted so he can force her to change her mind, for the better you understand?

    Report message13

  • Message 64

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by malizon (U10119599) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    She is a star and I want Mike to get his act together. I am VERY angry with him. Once she said she she wanted to continue he should have just shut up.

    If he can't support her he should just get out of the way. If it were me I would divorce him and take him for every penny!!! 
    Mike is the father of this child and will have to support him/her. He will have to go on working as long as he possibly can, and, if the baby has severe difficulties, which can happen, he will have the worry about him/her being cared for in the future. He has every right to have an opinion on this.

    It is a heart-breaking situation, and I can completely understand why Vicki does not want to have an abortion. However, she is genuinely asking a great deal of Mike, who was simply not expecting to be a father to any child at this stage in his life.

    If Vicki wants to keep the child and Mike can not cope, then she will have to go it alone, but I don't see a reason for her to be punitive towards Mike.  


    I'm still reading through this thread but I hope to god I'm not the first to mention VASCETOMY. Vicky was only controlling her fertility temporarily. It was up to Mike to sort himself out ages ago.

    Report message14

  • Message 65

    , in reply to message 59.

    Posted by malizon (U10119599) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    My Mum I agree with you. A mother must have rights over her own body which cannot be trumped by the fetus until it is independent. Any mother who has given birth will testify that is not something someone should be forced to do against their will. Vicky has the last say on this but I don't think she should expect Mike to support her making the decision without even consulting him but to bear the consequences. If she decides to keep the baby she should get all the support available but should be prepared to be a single mother either through marriage break up or early death of Mike through increased stress.
    An unwanted child is a terrible thing IMO I favour as free access to abortion as possible as early as possible I understand though that other views are valid and people have a right to disagree. I have more of a problem with people seeking to impose their views on others.
    It should always be Vicky's choice to make, if the roles were reversed and Mike wanted to keep the baby would anyone think he should have any right to stop the termination? 


    Err, it's very much wanted or do we listen to a different show?

    Report message15

  • Message 66

    , in reply to message 65.

    Posted by Dailyfix (U14602649) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    Vicky wants it and should have the final say as the mother. She has to be prepared to go it alone if she chooses to ignore Mike's objections it is her choice to make.
    I was making a more general point that those people who try to restrict abortion rights are advocating unwanted children which have consequences of human misery and negative impacts on society IMO other opinions are available of course.

    Report message16

  • Message 67

    , in reply to message 64.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    No you are not not thre first to mention "the snip". Posters have been mentioning it ever since Vicky was criticised for getting pregnant - apparently it was all her own fault
    JPBS

    Report message17

  • Message 68

    , in reply to message 61.

    Posted by beach-hut (U14737401) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012


    As many MLers pointed out within seconds of the epi ending, the figures are not only easily available, but pretty startling - over 92% opt for terminations. But the script was carefully written to omit those stats, and made a professional consultant look stupidly ignorant, or ill-prepared, or evasive, or just a plain liar. It looked from that moment as if the TA team had withheld this info deliberately to facilitate a pre-determined plotline. What he SHOULD have said was 'Yes, there are stats, but the decision in each case is entirely a personal one to the couple involved, It must be yours. I'm not sure knowing the figures will be at all helpful to you. You are the ones to decide, not the stats.'  
    This question was asked on N and Q - when I last looked it was said that the consultant told a white lie - he did not know the *exact* stats so didn't tell them.

    Reason? Because giving stats can influence people - they do what *most* people do .

    I don't think Mike would have been happy with the "not helpful" .. I think he would have pursued it ..

    Now you may criticise the consultants decision - but that is not the point ..
    JPBS 
    I agree. To have the stats there and then would have put pressure on Vicki. Same with the sex of the baby I think in that neither bit of knowledge helps with the decision.

    Report message18

  • Message 69

    , in reply to message 68.

    Posted by DracoM1 (U14252039) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    Which is /precisely/ what I tried to suggest in my alternative script for the consultant in reply to Mike's question.

    The upshot is that the script /as delivered/ on air made the consultant look evasive and ignorant.

    Not exactly a consummation devoutly to be wished in such a delicate situation, I would have thought?

    Report message19

  • Message 70

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Monnowman (U14485243) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    Yep, as a parent of a child with Down's Syndrome (we prefer that term to "Down's Syndrome child/person") and occasional Archers listener I was impressed how sensitively the writers handled the storyline.

    In particular the way the consultant revealed the results of the tests showing the baby had Down's was almost a textbook example of how it should be done. Too often, doctors in these situations have out of date attitudes and information and end up traumatising the parents. "You can get rid of it, you know" is not as uncommon a phrase as we'd hope.

    Almost, because the consultant could have been a bit warmer and reassuring and because her speeches sounded like she was reading from the Down's Syndrome Association literature! The latter is hardly a complaint though smiley - smiley

    Report message20

  • Message 71

    , in reply to message 70.

    Posted by Lemon Sabotage (U9577550) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    Poor Anton Lesser!
    Several people seem to think that his beautiful voice belongs to a woman.

    Report message21

  • Message 72

    , in reply to message 70.

    Posted by My Mum is turning in her grave (U13137565) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    the consultant was played by a man, Anton Lesser

    Report message22

  • Message 73

    , in reply to message 71.

    Posted by pollyanna (U7304225) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    I didn't think he sounded like a woman, I thought he sounded like an actor who believed that was how Consultants spoke: as if explaining something to an reasonably intelligent ten year old instead of having a dialogue with two adults. Beautiful voice or not.

    Report message23

  • Message 74

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by barwick_green (U2668006) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    if I was a Downs Syndrome baby, I could do a lot worse than having Vicky as my mummy and I think she'll actually be amazing.

    Dx 
    The woman lives in a soft-focus world full of teddy bears and tinsel. Having a baby would alter her universe, even a healthy one, and as a mother in these circumstances she#s be a disaster once the novelty rapidly wears off.

    She should get herself a Pekingese.

    Report message24

  • Message 75

    , in reply to message 69.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    Which is /precisely/ what I tried to suggest in my alternative script for the consultant in reply to Mike's question.

    The upshot is that the script /as delivered/ on air made the consultant look evasive and ignorant.

    Not exactly a consummation devoutly to be wished in such a delicate situation, I would have thought?  
    I think you suggested that the consultant should have said "You don't need to know.." (??) or some such.. and *I* said that I didn't think this would have satisfied Mike - who was very insistent about it ..
    JPBS

    Report message25

  • Message 76

    , in reply to message 68.

    Posted by pollyanna (U7304225) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    [. To have the stats there and then would have put pressure on Vicki. Same with the sex of the baby I think in that neither bit of knowledge helps with the decision.
    ]

    But it was not for the consultant to decide whether this information would feel like 'pressure' to Vicky. His professional duty is to provide them with as much information as they ask for.. . Mike asked for a piece of information and the Consultant should have given it. Whether the information would help Vicky and Mike reach their decision was for them to decide once they had got it, not for the Consultant to decide on their behalf.

    The question of the sex of the child is a bit different. The consultant said that information was not available at present but that it would be in a week or so and I assume that he was telling the truth. If however he was lying also about that, taking it upon himself to preventing Vicky from having this information because he felt it might sway her decision, then on t his count also he was entirely wrong: he cannot know whether the knowing the sex of the fetus will influence her decison so he has to assume it wont, not play 'god' about what she can be told about what is going on in her own body.

    Report message26

  • Message 77

    , in reply to message 60.

    Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012



    Seconded.

    Report message27

  • Message 78

    , in reply to message 74.

    Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    if I was a Downs Syndrome baby, I could do a lot worse than having Vicky as my mummy and I think she'll actually be amazing.

    Dx 
    The woman lives in a soft-focus world full of teddy bears and tinsel. Having a baby would alter her universe, even a healthy one, and as a mother in these circumstances she#s be a disaster once the novelty rapidly wears off.

    She should get herself a Pekingese.  


    I don't see Vicky like that - until she was in her early forties she held down a responsible job in health care, presumably was pretty good at it, and managed to cope with running a home and a life as a single woman. She's not some stupid dependent fluffy wuffy airhead, even if she has a strange passion for teddy bears. I think she can be quite a tough nut when needed to be,

    Report message28

  • Message 79

    , in reply to message 47.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    Well its refreshing to see at least one thread with some positive responses to this storyline! I've been appalled to see the attitudes of most listeners, who clearly regard a disabled person as less than human. One poster even compared the baby to the male calves which Vicky wanted to save!!

    Humanist wrote:
    "I'm not hard hearted, I'm not un-maternal, I just know that I could not have coped with a disabled child."
    And funnily enough I would have said EXACTLY the same thing until I had two myself! (No warning in our case). Its amazing what you can cope with and what you can get used to and I think it will be the making of M&V. They will be shocked and upset at first, but will gradually realise that its not the end of the world and will love the baby even more than if s/he were normal.
    Also I think listeners underestimate Roy and Brenda. In my experience siblings are happy to help take care of disabled brothers/sisters and this doesn't usually mean hands-on care, more working with social services to make sure they are in good, appropriate residential or semi-independent placements.

    Its a pity Vicky cannot get some perspective by talking to others who have been through this, but then there aren't any disabled people in Borcetshire, are there???? (At least there never have been in the 25 years I've been listening) and in my opinion its ABOUT BLOOMIN' TIME THERE WERE SOME, so this baby is a good start.

    Report message29

  • Message 80

    , in reply to message 78.

    Posted by My Mum is turning in her grave (U13137565) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    She was certainly very tough with Ed over the fate of the bull calves - some would say downright nasty.

    Report message30

  • Message 81

    , in reply to message 79.

    Posted by Dinah Shore (U14984316) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    there aren't any disabled people in Borcetshire, are there????  Yes.

    There is Sundial house, a few miles away, a home for Children with Special Needs.

    Lynda is on the Committee. She and David both served when Sophie came and did her foul worst.

    Lynda could rake Mike and Vicky on a visit, to sow them what children with difficulties and other needs are capable of.

    Report message31

  • Message 82

    , in reply to message 81.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    Thanks Dinah, I must have missed that. Does anyone know when was the last time this Sundial house was actually referenced in the programme and were there any actual characters who lived there or were they just an amorphous, sympathy-needing mass??

    Report message32

  • Message 83

    , in reply to message 69.

    Posted by beach-hut (U14737401) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    Yes, agree it was odd and did appear evasive. I wonder why they had Mike ask the question? Obviously the consultant would have known it was in region of 92% (though maybe not latest figure). However, I think for V&M to hear that then would would IMO not have been helpful as it is very much a personal decision for them.
    Certainly got us talking about it and perhaps reflecting on such a high percentage opting to abort. I have known people feel very coerced at these consultations having been told that most people choose to terminate and thought odd if they did not immediately agree to that.

    Report message33

  • Message 84

    , in reply to message 69.

    Posted by carrick-bend (U2288869) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    <quote>The upshot is that the script /as delivered/ on air made the consultant look evasive and ignorant. <quote>
    Just spoken to a consultant friend who was head of department in a related field - he said that the consultant would have certainly have known the statistics - "They would be bread and butter to him" - and might well turn the question back on Mike, for example "What would be your biggest worry?", but that to lie and say he didn't know would have both damaged his credibility and Mike and Vicky's confidence in him, which wouldn't be good for anyone.

    Report message34

  • Message 85

    , in reply to message 84.

    Posted by Bette (U2222559) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    Considering how a simple google would turn up some credible statistics, If I had been Mike, I think I would have been furious at the fobbing-off by the consultant.

    But I am not Mike. I would have tried to find out beforehand.

    Report message35

  • Message 86

    , in reply to message 82.

    Posted by My Mum is turning in her grave (U13137565) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    Sundail house was never heard of again after facilitating david's involvement with Sophie. No children were heard or seen.

    Report message36

  • Message 87

    , in reply to message 84.

    Posted by DracoM1 (U14252039) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    So, c-b, as we surmised, could we be looking at an ever so tiny TA cop-out?

    Report message37

  • Message 88

    , in reply to message 87.

    Posted by carrick-bend (U2288869) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    Oh Dracs, I think we just possibly might be.

    Report message38

  • Message 89

    , in reply to message 84.

    Posted by cath (U2234232) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    >to lie and say he didn't know would have both damaged his credibility<

    Quite probably but of course that's not what the consultant said was it?

    He said he didn't have the accurate data to hand for the percentage of parents that went through with a pregnancy. So he may well have known it was say over 90% but what he said was he didn't know the accurate percentage. The 90 point something per cent.

    There was no lie, white or otherwise. He was absolutely right not to say anything, this is a completely personal decision. What other people do is completely irrelevant and the consultant made sue that there was no distraction.

    Report message39

  • Message 90

    , in reply to message 89.

    Posted by carrick-bend (U2288869) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    He was absolutely right not to say anything, this is a completely personal decision. What other people do is completely irrelevant 
    Of course, but he would have known the statistics - to say he didn't was dishonest.

    Report message40

  • Message 91

    , in reply to message 90.

    Posted by cath (U2234232) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    >Of course, but he would have known the statistics - to say he didn't was dishonest.<

    I know the stats relevant to my work but I have to look them up for the exact figures as I don't keep them in my head. I'd be surprised if the same didn't go for the consultant. You may not like it but the one thing he wasn't going to be drawn into was a discussion of what other people do. He therefore pushed the question aside - truthfully - to concentrate on the important stuff. No lies.

    Report message41

  • Message 92

    , in reply to message 91.

    Posted by carrick-bend (U2288869) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    Oh well, we think slightly different things - I don't suppose it matters much.

    My friend the consultant said, when I'd asked him what he thought of the treatment of the scene "Were the writers trying to push their own angle on the story, by any chance?"

    Report message42

  • Message 93

    , in reply to message 91.

    Posted by Dinah Shore (U14984316) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    I know the stats relevant to my work but I have to look them up for the exact figures as I don't keep them in my head. I'd be surprised if the same didn't go for the consultant.  I'd be surprised if a consultant, seeing a couple to break the news that they were dreading, that they were not having a baby in perfect health, would NOT have all the facts and stats to give the couple.

    Otherwise, why not just send a letter/let them see an underling?

    The point of the *consultation* was to let Mike and Vicky have the facts, all the facts.


    I hope you would not go to consultations without having the knowledge, like that person who spoke to the Tuckers.

    Report message43

  • Message 94

    , in reply to message 92.

    Posted by cath (U2234232) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    >My friend the consultant said, when I'd asked him what he thought of the treatment of the scene "Were the writers trying to push their own angle on the story, by any chance?"<

    No, it looks as though they were assuming the consultant had been exposed to the Downs assocn training on tell it right. I noted that professionals from Birmingham have already participated in the training - it's an impartial ,non-judgemental way of breaking the news. Perhaps it's something you could mention to your friend as worth doing in his/her area?

    Report message44

  • Message 95

    , in reply to message 94.

    Posted by cath (U2234232) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    PS I was really impressed by the Downs assocn stuff. What a brilliant charity!

    Report message45

  • Message 96

    , in reply to message 94.

    Posted by carrick-bend (U2288869) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    Post #93 expresses what I think with great clarity.

    Report message46

  • Message 97

    , in reply to message 96.

    Posted by cath (U2234232) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    Post 93 doesn't take into account the fact that a person may know the rough figures but not have the accurate figures to hand.

    I had always taken you to be a pedant c-b, what with some of the very fine distinctions that have prompted you in the past to post so-called uces in the past and yet here you appear not to be able to distinguish between knowledge of rough figures and being able to quote accurate figures off the top of your head. I'm almost disappointed.

    Report message47

  • Message 98

    , in reply to message 97.

    Posted by DracoM1 (U14252039) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    A pre-meditaded and insulting posting

    Report message48

  • Message 99

    , in reply to message 96.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    c-b, I think that being economical with the truth is deemed acceptable when people deem that it is in the best interests of those they do not tell the truth.

    To quibble by saying "Oh, I don't know the exact figure to several places, so I will say 'I don't know' and not bother to give the information that was actually wanted" is dishonest. But obviously since the person saying this knows more about two people he's never seen before in his life than they know about themselves, that's ok.

    He didn't lie, he just didn't tell the truth, is not an acceptable defence in the case of an accusation of perjury, as far as I know.

    Report message49

  • Message 100

    , in reply to message 99.

    Posted by DracoM1 (U14252039) on Sunday, 2nd September 2012

    If two people in some distress go to a CONSULTANT, would they not expect to be told the truth?

    The problem is CG that his prevarications left him open to the charge of either a degree of malfeasance or of whole or partial ignorance that no / few consultants surely should be prepared to countenance.

    If it had been differently phrased, they could have got away with it.

    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.