Discuss The Archers  permalink

How very dare you Willyum

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 50 of 118
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Perkin Warbeck is not a cannibal (U14797366) on Sunday, 21st October 2012

    going round, acting like the lord, flashing your cash. One day a toffee apple, the next day a sports car

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Arrow-shower (U14738997) on Sunday, 21st October 2012

    Willyum is 'orrible,though and as we all know, pride comes before a fall!

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by borchesterbouncer (U14738918) on Sunday, 21st October 2012

    Yes a toffee apple can really spoil a boy. Bought my twenty two year old one last week and he was stuck up all evening.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by JumboJosephII (U14232752) on Sunday, 21st October 2012

    How long before we discover that he was fathered by Jimmy Savile. smiley - smiley

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Perkin Warbeck is not a cannibal (U14797366) on Sunday, 21st October 2012

    SO, because she can't afford things, NO one else is allowed to have money?

    Its not like willyum heard her say that he couldn't have a toffee apple

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Arrow-shower (U14738997) on Sunday, 21st October 2012

    euch

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Bernard Hinault (U10655887) on Sunday, 21st October 2012

    No-carry on William. Let's face it, to misquote Glen Hoddle-the karma is working from another lifetime. Ed Grundy is a former small time criminal and anti-social behaviour specialist, who not only crashed a car and nearly permanently disfigured the lovely Emma, but then started Ugandan relations with his brother's wife (the luvverly Emmur again!!!). Ooh, I forgot the several months as a smackhead. He deserves a few more decades sackloth and ashes, so bring it on Wills!!!

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Peggy Monahan (U2254875) on Sunday, 21st October 2012

    going round, acting like the lord, flashing your cash. One day a toffee apple, the next day a sports car 

    I dp sp hope this is ironic. If not what godawful situation are we in that a father can't buy his son (and his son's half-sister) a treat on a day out. After lunch, he checked Willliam had eaten his lunch.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Earldunda (U14196337) on Sunday, 21st October 2012

    No-carry on William. Let's face it, to misquote Glen Hoddle-the karma is working from another lifetime. Ed Grundy is a former small time criminal and anti-social behaviour specialist, who not only crashed a car and nearly permanently disfigured the lovely Emma, but then started Ugandan relations with his brother's wife (the luvverly Emmur again!!!). Ooh, I forgot the several months as a smackhead. He deserves a few more decades sackloth and ashes, so bring it on Wills!!!  Ed almost doesn't deserve Emma.....................

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by JudithL (U14272244) on Sunday, 21st October 2012

    How was Will supposed to know that Emma couldn't afford toffee apples? The bloke can't do anything right, in the eyes of Emma and some listeners anyway.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Sunday, 21st October 2012

    William, quite rightly, told the truth. That is that a man does not have to ask the permission of his child's mother about every thing to do with their child. Particularly if she slung him out. I also respected him for being so nice to Keira.

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by Perkin Warbeck is not a cannibal (U14797366) on Sunday, 21st October 2012

    going round, acting like the lord, flashing your cash. One day a toffee apple, the next day a sports car 

    I dp sp hope this is ironic. If not what godawful situation are we in that a father can't buy his son (and his son's half-sister) a treat on a day out. After lunch, he checked Willliam had eaten his lunch.  
    It was ironic.

    Willyum has as much right to buy his son a treat as his mother has. Of course, you don't want a kid to be spoilt or not to eat properly, but Willyum didn't to anything wrong in this instance IMHO

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Sunday, 21st October 2012

    He probably does know that she can't afford to buy toffee apples for her children, but he can afford to buy them for his (and hers as well) and I don't see why he shouldn't. The thing he didn't know was that she had taken them to the event but had told them they couldn't have anything when they got there.

    As he said, George is his child too and he really shouldn't have to ask Emma's permission to buy his son a toffee-apple!

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by JustJanie - Fairweather Strider (U10822512) on Sunday, 21st October 2012

    I think she had good reason to be annoyed about the guinea pig, less about the karate suit and none at all about the toffee apple. Silly Emma. And twice silly; if she was wondering whether or not Will knows she and Ed are struggling for money, well, she's just told him, hasn't she?

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Sunday, 21st October 2012

    Too bluddy right she has, JJ! I hadn't quite taken that in.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by Bernard Hinault (U10655887) on Sunday, 21st October 2012

    Well, the thing is, is that while Ed was being a one-man, smack-head crime and adultery wave in Ambridge, William was solidly working away on his career, learning the job from George Barford and showing reliability to his employer. Despite all the rubbish heaped on him by his brother and ex-wife, he hasn't Ed-like gone off the rails and has rebuilt his life. No, Emma's behaviour (and Ed's) is entirely rooted in self-loathing rooted in suppressed guilt about what they did to William.

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by bebopalula (U8847542) on Sunday, 21st October 2012

    So true Bernard Hinault , so true. Top post

    Bebop

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by Earldunda (U14196337) on Sunday, 21st October 2012

    And unless she, unusually, sees some sense, that dunderhead pin-brained Emma is about to spend £150 "All on herself" because she "Never gets what she wants to do", and "Always puts the children first".

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Sunday, 21st October 2012

    He went off the rails briefly, Bernard, and went missing for two or three days, and Brian found him a job with another shoot for a few months. He came back when he felt better. Unlike Ed he didn't then have to be weaned off drink and drugs.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by Dailyfix (U14602649) on Sunday, 21st October 2012

    I agree, the logic of some posters is a mystery to me. Should George be penalized further because his mother chose a superior sex life over a stable financially secure home with the father of her child? George has been the main victim of her selfishness as his father has done a good job of rebuilding his life as you say. I imagine that when George hits the teenage years his anger will come out and I expect it to be directed at Ed and/or Emma.
    William is a bad father for buying his son treats which he should deny him on the grounds that his mother and her boyfriend who has no choice but to live with are losers? To me that is a double whammy for George spend most of your life in poverty through no fault of your own then be subjected to the same when with your father in case you realise what you are missing? Nice.

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by flameofthewest (U14483084) on Sunday, 21st October 2012

    Just to clarify, by "go off the rails", you mean "tried to strangle his brother". Whilst I agree with Bernard's post, it is difficult to discount this incident. I know he was sorely provoked, and felt terrible about it afterwards, but it does show a worrying tendency towards violence in extreme circumstances. However, if Ed is to be forgiven for the car crash, perhaps Will should be forgiven for this also.

    Returning to recent events, what should happen is Emma and Will should sit down and have a sensible discussion about the financial arrangements for George's care. I think this could actually happen, but not until we've had a lot more incidents like today's.

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Sunday, 21st October 2012

    I was saying that whilst Ed went off the rails, so did William. The phrase was not mine originally in this thread.

    I was not in the least surprised when after several weeks of being put through the wringer, William lost his temper when he went to see his ex-wife and son, and found his brother in occupation of a place where he had not expected him. If Ed is to be forgiven for the car crash, and have his other little twocking adventures forgotten as well as forgiven (why does Alice like him, after what he did? or did she never find out that it was he who was responsible for Chandler's injury?) then I would think that William lashing out at someone he held responsible for his unhappy condition is also due to be forgiven.

    It won't be of course, because people don't like his voice.

    As for Emma not being a complete twerpie and doing things like attacking Will for daring to buy his son a toffee apple or whatevr it was that she found so intolerable of him, unless she stops being so self-absorbed she won't be sensible enough to discuss anything without being offensive.

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by Peggy Monahan (U2254875) on Sunday, 21st October 2012

    Returning to recent events, what should happen is Emma and Will should sit down and have a sensible discussion about the financial arrangements for George's care. I think this could actually happen, but not until we've had a lot more incidents like today's. 

    And as long as Ed is safely out of the way.

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Sunday, 21st October 2012

    Yes, and Ed mustn't be allowed to alter the arrangements afterwards to suit what *he* thinks ought to happen rather than what Emma and Will have sorted out. He has form for that, and it really ought not to be his decision.

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by lsd25 (U14674472) on Monday, 22nd October 2012

    Ed and Emma must be in really serious financial trouble if the price of two toffee apples constitutes 'splashing the cash'

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by granny-em (U14672671) on Monday, 22nd October 2012

    My ex husband had loads more money than me and I was always delighted when he bought stuff for our son.
    I was poorer but just happy not to be living with the * * *. (The ex not our son.)

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by Lakey_Hill (U14391672) on Monday, 22nd October 2012

    Ed and Emma need to save up their money for important things, and can't get George and Keira too used to sweets and treats. They need to understand that no means no, and it is really hard if it is the main carers (Ed and Emma) who are always saying no, and William who is always saying yes.

    If William really wants to be helpful, he should put his treat money to things that Ed and Emma really need for George, not karate kits and guinea pigs.

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by SredniVashtar07 (U9755761) on Monday, 22nd October 2012

    going round, acting like the lord, flashing your cash. One day a toffee apple, the next day a sports car  Yes, the principal is the same.

    As I have said elsewhere its about time Ed & Emmur offloaded Georgie the Bratt onto his adoring PaPa on a full time basis - helping solve their financial woes and making Creepy Will's life a bit less easy.

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by doraflora (U14340255) on Monday, 22nd October 2012

    SO, because she can't afford things, NO one else is allowed to have money?

    Its not like willyum heard her say that he couldn't have a toffee apple 
    Could Emmur not have bought the toffee apples out of the £150. How much were the toffee apples £20 each or 50p?

    She could have reduced the amount of money she was spending on the expensive wedding present for the rich people by 50p in order to buy the said toffee apples and treat the bean saturated, shoeless children couldn't she?

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by Auntie Molly (U14110968) on Monday, 22nd October 2012

    Just to clarify, by "go off the rails", you mean "tried to strangle his brother". Whilst I agree with Bernard's post, it is difficult to discount this incident. I know he was sorely provoked, and felt terrible about it afterwards, but it does show a worrying tendency towards violence in extreme circumstances 

    For a behaviour to be classed as a "tendency" doesn't it need to happen more than once?

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Monday, 22nd October 2012

    In ML? Not if it is Will driven to distraction and subsequently suicidal because of what he had nearly done. If it is a one-off by him, then it is habitual.

    He felt and showed remorse in plenty about that single incident; as far as I have ever heard Ed has never said sorry for *any* of the things he has done to other people, and since he did the over and over I assume that he didn't feel much remorse either.

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Parish Spinster (U2256426) on Monday, 22nd October 2012

    I think that Ed and Emma deserve each other!

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by Parish Spinster (U2256426) on Monday, 22nd October 2012

    Just to clarify, by "go off the rails", you mean "tried to strangle his brother". Whilst I agree with Bernard's post, it is difficult to discount this incident. I know he was sorely provoked, and felt terrible about it afterwards, but it does show a worrying tendency towards violence in extreme circumstances 

    For a behaviour to be classed as a "tendency" doesn't it need to happen more than once?  
    It's funny how people don't describe Ed's knocking Caroline to the ground as a "tendency" to violence as well.....

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by charmingAnnielynn (U11952070) on Monday, 22nd October 2012

    If Emma is concerned about Will's treats undermining her authority to say no, then it would behoove her to actually speak up at the time - if Will says "I'll buy you an apple, son!", she could say "actually, I just said no, because he's already eaten", and (assuming Will is feeling sensible and helpful), he would have the opportunity to say "oh, mum says no, so it's no, Georgie! Lets go do xxx instead". It's an annoying scenario for the listeners when Emma and Will get upset over each other's behavior/situation without ever having a conversation about it. They're one as bad as the other! Will should be helping Emma co-parent instead of, as sometimes seems the case, trying win "favorite parent" status, and Emma should be glad that her son is able to get treats even while money is tight for her, instead of resenting it.

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by joe (U13868420) on Monday, 22nd October 2012

    But that would be /sensible/…

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by JustJanie - Fairweather Strider (U10822512) on Monday, 22nd October 2012

    << But that would be /sensible/… >>

    Yes, and I agree with all charmingAnnielynn says above. But I find it quite credible that Emma would unreasonably fly off the handle over a stupid toffee apple. I think the story writers do these little human touches rather well, unlike Joe's teeth.

    (Strikes me that 'Joe's Teeth!' could be a good imprecation.)

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by maggiesaes (U2771771) on Monday, 22nd October 2012

    So did I and he did check if he'd eaten his lunch and didn't ask if it was a bowl of gruel.
    Good for you Will-it WAS an afternoon of fun or supposed to be till witchy bitchy poo started on her daily whinge.

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by cowpatty (U14650862) on Monday, 22nd October 2012

    He went off the rails briefly, Bernard, and went missing for two or three days, and Brian found him a job with another shoot for a few months. He came back when he felt better. Unlike Ed he didn't then have to be weaned off drink and drugs.  He also tried to strangle his brother.....

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by flameofthewest (U14483084) on Monday, 22nd October 2012

    For a behaviour to be classed as a "tendency" doesn't it need to happen more than once? 
    Yes, "tendency" was probably a bad choice of word. I don't appear to have made it clear that I do like Will, and I think he is more sinned against than sinning. What I was trying to say is, once someone has done something like that, I would always be slightly nervous that they might do it again if sufficiently provoked. However, Will is more mature and settled than he was then, so a repeat performance is probably unlikely, as evidenced by the fact that he hasn't gone round and punched Keith Horrobin.

    I seem to have missed Ed knocking Caroline to the ground. Can anyone elaborate?

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Monday, 22nd October 2012

    As far as I recall he brushed past her and knocked her over, rather than deliberately hitting her and knocking her down, so I don't think it was malice but just not caring about someone else's well-being, which was par for the course with Ed.

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by bebopalula (U8847542) on Monday, 22nd October 2012

    He also tried to strangle his brother.....

    This has already been discussed up thread cowpatty.

    Bebop

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Monday, 22nd October 2012

    Emma ensured Will could no longer fully 'co-parent'. She planned that Will could not be a parent at all and even denied his biological parentage. Emma takes autonomous decisions about George. Will should also be able to do this and buy him a toffee apple if he wishes to do so. Will was cast in the role of absent parent by Emma. She must take the consequences of him being unable to be a mundane, everyday parent.

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Monday, 22nd October 2012

    Ed and Emma need to save up their money for important things, and can't get George and Keira too used to sweets and treats. They need to understand that no means no, and it is really hard if it is the main carers (Ed and Emma) who are always saying no, and William who is always saying yes.

    If William really wants to be helpful, he should put his treat money to things that Ed and Emma really need for George, not karate kits and guinea pigs. 
    I agree with that .. I would NEVER buy my grandchildren sweet stuff unless I'd asked their parents first ..
    JPBS

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by Peggy Monahan (U2254875) on Monday, 22nd October 2012

    I agree with that .. I would NEVER buy my grandchildren sweet stuff unless I'd asked their parents first .. 

    Will isn't George's grandfather, he's his father.

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by acebass (U3133653) on Monday, 22nd October 2012

    Ed and Emma need to save up their money for important things, and can't get George and Keira too used to sweets and treats. They need to understand that no means no, and it is really hard if it is the main carers (Ed and Emma) who are always saying no, and William who is always saying yes.

    If William really wants to be helpful, he should put his treat money to things that Ed and Emma really need for George, not karate kits and guinea pigs. 
    Hope Emma never finds out about that bar of chocolate Ed bought recently, then

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 44.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Monday, 22nd October 2012

    Makes no difference .. Will doesn't know what has been discussed re toffee apples or treats .. he has no right to overrule the child's Mum ..

    And ass we al; know he is only doping it to ingratiate himself with GEorge ..
    JPBS

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Monday, 22nd October 2012

    He did not over-rule her; he seems to have thought that he had backed her up. "Did you eat your dinner?" he asked George, presumably because he thought that was what Emma had been refusing George a toffee apple about and why she was looking daggers at him but not being prepared to tell him what she was in a vile mood yet agin about.

    How was he supposed to know that she had refused George a treat on the pretext that he had already eaten? It is not something that parents usually do!

    If she wasn't going to allow her children to do or have anything, why dd Emma take them to a place where they would want things in the first place?

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by Fourteenbore (U2227836) on Monday, 22nd October 2012

    I would have thought a father out with his son was entitled to buy him the odd treat, and he didn't leave Kiera out. Emma ought to be pleased that her children can get the occasional treat that Cold Comfort Farm can't supply.
    Personally, I think toffee apples are a dreadful waste of toffee and apple, and wouldn't want anyone to give me one, but at least George is getting some vitamin C to supplement his baked beans.

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Monday, 22nd October 2012

    Will has every right to buy his son a toffee apple. Blimey.


    Poor Dads. Expected to do everything but have no say in anything.

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by Dailyfix (U14602649) on Monday, 22nd October 2012

    Ed and Emma need to save up their money for important things, and can't get George and Keira too used to sweets and treats. They need to understand that no means no, and it is really hard if it is the main carers (Ed and Emma) who are always saying no, and William who is always saying yes.

    If William really wants to be helpful, he should put his treat money to things that Ed and Emma really need for George, not karate kits and guinea pigs. 
    I agree with that .. I would NEVER buy my grandchildren sweet stuff unless I'd asked their parents first ..
    JPBS 
    I'm so glad my dear departed Grandmother was generous with the sweets especially as my parents weren't. I'm sure she never asked. I always think of her fondly when enjoying the many treats she introduced me to even though she died years ago. Luckily she also introduced me to a love of walking which was something else my parents were not into so in the long run they balanced out.
    I intend to treat my Grandchildren when I have them and would view it as outrageous and disrespectful if my children thought they should vet what I do with them. My mother always said "things are different at Grandma's house" and learning that was good for my kids.

    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 © 2014 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.