Discuss The Archers  permalink

An obvious solution to Ed and Emma's problems....

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 50 of 85
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by JudithL (U14272244) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    ..... for the time being at least.
    Why doesn't Emma send George to live with his Dad for a while until they get sorted out? At least Will can afford to feed him!
    Or is Emma too selfish for that?

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by acebass (U3133653) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    But if George goes to live with Will, won't Emma lose the maintenance, which probably goes toowards a lot more than just feeding George)?
    (Genuine enquiry, not a criticism of the idea, which I think an excellent one on many levels)

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by aquaticDougal (U3480367) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    Not sure selfish ... but certainly to proud.

    Even when help is obviously needed, both her & Ed are making decisions dictated not by what is best ..... but by how it would look to Willium.

    You both chose to remove him as far as possible from your lives. So why are you still now bothered one jot by his opinion??????
    Madness.
    If he doesn't matter ... he doesn't matter.

    Get on with it.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Parish Spinster (U2256426) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    ..... for the time being at least.
    Why doesn't Emma send George to live with his Dad for a while until they get sorted out? At least Will can afford to feed him!
    Or is Emma too selfish for that? 
    Ed wouldn't allow it - he can't bear the idea that Will might become more important to George than he is.

    Ed&Em are much more concened about their pride than solving their problems. I know their parents are aware that the have poblems, but I'd be surprised if they knew how bad it is.

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Dinah Shore (U14984316) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    Ed wouldn't allow it  Neither would Nasty Nick.

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Freddy Danby Appreciation Society (U2261191) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    I think you're right Acebass, they would lose Will's maintenance and would surely have to pay some to him if he had George. I can't see Will agreeing to let them off and why should he?

    FD

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    And would George want to live with his father and nic all the time? Would he think they didn't want him any more? Children of that age don't take kindly to change. Much better to claim any benefits due and keep the family unit together.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Turkey Baster (U14562428) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    Ed wouldn't allow it  Neither would Nasty Nick.   Indeed!
    Do you remember when Nic was being very nasty to little Jawgee? She seems to have risen to beatified, if not saintly, status since then. How did that rehabilitation happen? Did she ever get her come uppance for abusing Jawgee? I can't retrieve this bit of data from my brain cell and would be grateful for help....

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Muttley (U1487710) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    An even more obvious solution is for them to claim the benefits to which they are entitled - as many posters have already pointed out in detail there are plenty of benefits available to them, but according to the reply in Notes & Queries they are not claiming any of them. In my opinion this is the single most unrealistic part of the whole storyline. With the amount of press given over to how much is available to low-paid people via working family tax credits etc it is beyond belief that they wouldn't be claiming what they are able to.

    M x

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Scarlett the Harlot (U14942477) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    Well quite Mutley - it is a nonsense and makes the whole storyline unbelievable.

    Frankly last night I was almost hoping that Emma and George would go under a huge truck - at least we wouldn't have to listen to either of them ever again.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    ......benefits do not always make much difference.

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    I think you would find they do, Locky. I have been surprised at how generous the welfare system is these days. Even £20-30 pw would make quite a difference to them. And George is probably entitled to free school meals too if they claim.

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by JudithL (U14272244) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    If Emma can't afford to put food on the table, I'd expect George to be able to have a free meal at school.
    I can see the problems with returning George to his father for a while, but in RL I've a feeling that social services might intervene before too long. George does have a tendency to tell the truth, and if a child is not being fed at home.....
    At the very least, I'd have thought that they could claim: free school meals; working tax credit; housing benefit; maintenance. And that's what spring to mind immediately.

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    But he is being fed. Have we been told otherwise? I thought it was Em and Ed who were going without.

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by siriol (U14748387) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    ..... for the time being at least.
    Why doesn't Emma send George to live with his Dad for a while until they get sorted out? At least Will can afford to feed him!
    Or is Emma too selfish for that? 
    I don't think it's as simple emotionally as you make it seem.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by elizabeth church (U14285872) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    As I said in another thread a couple who are on £10,000 a year can claim £9800 a year in child tax credits, for 2 children There are also credits for child care. (Which would mean Emma could work. )
    Has no-one in Ambridge thought of investigated the benefits this family could claim?

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by Mieteka (U14938651) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    Excellent points - but of course it is not Ed and Emma who are to blame - but the SW team. It's nonsense to think that either of them would not be claiming these, especially when they are clearly worried about their ability to provide for their children. IF it was just the two of them, then perhaps they might try to manage without benefits, but with the children involved, taht makes things quite different. And woudn't Emma's health visitor also have picked up on things and gently advised her to see what she is entitled to? Because that is the point - they are entitled to these benefits, by reason of paying National Insurance.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by ANDROMEDAKRAKEN (U14391535) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    ..... for the time being at least.
    Why doesn't Emma send George to live with his Dad for a while until they get sorted out? At least Will can afford to feed him!
    Or is Emma too selfish for that? 
    I think that's what's about to happen.

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    Or find out about placing Keira in a Surestart nursery -there are still some left and the offer cheap places to people in need - even free in some cases I think....

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    after all it is having Keira that is causing the problem re work not George.

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by teddyandgypsy (U14935190) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    Excellent points - but of course it is not Ed and Emma who are to blame - but the SW team. It's nonsense to think that either of them would not be claiming these, especially when they are clearly worried about their ability to provide for their children. IF it was just the two of them, then perhaps they might try to manage without benefits, but with the children involved, taht makes things quite different. And woudn't Emma's health visitor also have picked up on things and gently advised her to see what she is entitled to? Because that is the point - they are entitled to these benefits, by reason of paying National Insurance.  It is ludicrous. People have paid for these benefits and I don't think young couples in Ed and Emma's situation would be proud about accepting state benefits which they are perfectly entitled to. This isn't the Victorian poverty workhouse era. Ludicrous.

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by Mieteka (U14938651) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    I do hope that George is not sent to live with Will, because that could scar him for life - feeling his mummy doesn't love him, no matter what she might say. It would be removing him from his home to go and live in a house where there are two other children already in residence and would be upsetting for all of them.

    To take a small boy away from his mother for reasons only of money is one of the cruellest things I have ever heard. there has to be another solution - one that will be in George's best interests and won't send him to therapy in years to come.

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by ruralsnowflakebliss (U8131914) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    Hmmm I wouldn't be so sure on that teddyandgypsy... some of the attitudes displayed towards people claiming benefits... especially for children can be quite harsh on this board and out there :-

    I seem to remember that claiming benefits can be complictaed by being self employed which Ed is.

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by JudithL (U14272244) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    In RL, many children are shunted between parents. Some cope, some don't.
    George has a good relationship with Will, and I can't see why he wouldn't be perfectly happy spending most of his time at Will and Nic's with visits to Ed and Emma, until things improve.
    A permanent change would have to be approved, though, possibly? I'm not au fait with divorce law re children.

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    Emma falls under one of the buses that have been cut (before Emma was *born* the bus stopped going to Ambridge!) and leaves him to get on with his life free from her cloying and destructive presence might be the best thing for George. It would stop his uncle Ed from using George as a pawn in his determination to drag his brother down, too.

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    I agree Mieketa - I hope they don't go down this route. And I don't think nic would want him full time either he obviously doesn't get on with darling Jake [who is actually older than George]

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by DracoM1 (U14252039) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    I do hope that George is not sent to live with Will, because that could scar him for life - feeling his mummy doesn't love him, no matter what she might say. It would be removing him from his home to go and live in a house where there are two other children already in residence and would be upsetting for all of them.

    To take a small boy away from his mother for reasons only of money is one of the cruellest things I have ever heard. there has to be another solution - one that will be in George's best interests and won't send him to therapy in years to come. 
    Yup.

    But Will of course as his Dad will heal his 'son'.

    We need not worry, do we?
    Well, do we?

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by ANDROMEDAKRAKEN (U14391535) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    The whole sending Jawg to live at Will's reminds me of Georgie Osborne (NO! Not THAT one) in "Vanity Fair" being wrenched from mother Amelia Sedley and sent to be spoiled rotten by the family of his rich Pappa.

    And he is already spoilt, so will only get worse.

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by KneeCreeks (U15408577) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    Well quite Mutley - it is a nonsense and makes the whole storyline unbelievable.

    Frankly last night I was almost hoping that Emma and George would go under a huge truck - at least we wouldn't have to listen to either of them ever again.
     
    Me too - reminded me of Tony's mad dash to get Hellqueen to hospital to have the immaculately conceived child - I hoped for a large wagon out of control then too..... One days our dreams will come true

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    I would think the back story of his mother, father and step-father will be enough to ensure George's route to therapy. It's a little late for damage limitation

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by Dailyfix (U14602649) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    She gave him a slap once when he was being a total brat so according to you I m a child abuser as I have done the same on rare occasions with my three.
    That was several years ago and I don't recall George saying anything negative or being reluctant to spend time with Nic since. He has, however, made several remarks about how much better things are at his Dad's. Children his age are pretty honest as evidenced by his remark that upset his mother the other day about Nic's food. I'm sure if he had any complaints he would be very quick to moan to his mother who would be very keen to hear it.

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by Mieteka (U14938651) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    In RL children who are actually being abused are often too scared to say anything, or are threatened by their abusers with all sorts of horrid things if they do talk. So the fact that George has not said anything has to be viewed in that context. Not that I am suggesting Nic is abusing George, but just pointing out that enforced silense is an abuser's key weapon.

    Also - smacking your own child is one thing - smacking someone else's child is completely different..

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    No step-parent should ever smack or even discipline any of the children s/he has about him or her apart from ones s/he has personally given birth to or sired, no matter what they do to another smaller child.

    If that is the case it is no wonder that so many children seem to be growing into rather nasty little beasts who have no idea about rules or proper behaviour, given the rate at which marriage has fallen apart and the number of them in th care of step-parents who are not to thwart them.

    Why does anyone assume that having given birth magically conveys understanding? A lot of birth mothers are themsleves the abusers, or allow their new men to be the abusers and go along with it. Read the NSPCC records some time to see that horrific data. Very few stepmothers burn the child to death with cigarettes, or systematically start breaking its bones to see what happenes.

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    George was 3 and Mia was 2. He was learning to cope with sharing with these children who had been foisted upon him. Mia took his toy and wouldn't return it he hit her. What Nic should have done is told them both off and taken the toy away from Mia. She had no right to hit him.

    Small children do fight over toys don't they?

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by Mieteka (U14938651) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Anna - by her actions, Nic was actually enforcing that hitting is the answer, wasn't she? Stupid woman.

    And Chris - Nic was not George's stepmother at the time. She had no right to smack him, especially as her own child was the cause of the trouble.

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Meiteka, whilst a counsel of perfection would be that you do not swipe a child on the leg for assaulting a smaller child and causing her to hit her head as she falls, the action of the moment is that you *do*, probably while saying something unpleasant in an angry (because frightened) voice, in order to get the aggressor out of the way so you can get to the smaller and possibly injured one.

    George had been playing up and being unpleasant for some weeks, to such an extent that being told he was going on holiday with them clearly made Nic feel unsure that the holiday would be worth it if she had to be in constant charge of him. He was a thoroughly nasty child, and after Nic left he was even nastier.

    If someone who is cohabiting with a child's father, which she was, and looking after him all the time that he is there, which she was because Will was being too busy to take him in charge, what is her position? Do they have to marry before she has any sort of relationship with the child? Because if so, what the blazes is his mother's new partner doing, thinking he has any relationship with George?

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Difference between Nic and Ed. Ed has never hit George.

    Does Nic hit her own children? Jake sounded pretty awful yesterday and he is older than George.

    I am not sure that she is the perfect mother people like to think she is and she certainly didn't make allowances for George when he was 3 years old and confused because he father had just moved another family into their house and was constantly dumping him on her.

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by Mieteka (U14938651) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Mmm - why was George acting up, I wonder? Maybe because he was insecure and unhappy about the presence of Nic and her children? Bet her actions really helped that situation.

    yes, I understand about acting "In the heat of the moment". But I still think she should not have hit George, because she was reinforcing the behaviour. Nor did she need to, as he was small enough to take hold of (by the hand or bodily) and remove him from the immediate vicinity of Mia. And Mia was the agressor anyway, not George, who was merely reacting to her agression.

    What was Nic's position? Well, Will was using her as a glorified childminder, wasn't he? And he wasn't exactly chuffed when he found out about the whole affair, which tends to suggest that he didn't agree with her hitting George, who was only a very little boy at the time and unable to express himself fully. Nic, on the other hand, was an adult and given taht she had two children, presumably used to dealing with squabbles. I'd hate to think that her habitual reaction to arguing/fighting children was a smack. But this was George, not one of her own, and she acted as an overly protective mother.

    And for the record, while I am far from perfect, I've never hit a child. I've been tempted though...!

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    It is clear, and was clear all along, that George did not resent Nic or her children, but on the contrary liked her, enjoyed being with her, annoyed Emma by liking her and wanting to spend time with her, and thought that having a brother and sister was fun.

    This "oh poor love he was unsettled" theory was not borne out by what was on air.

    I wonder why it is assumed that giving a child boundaries and not allowing him to do whatever he wants no matter who it may hurt makes him insecure and unhappy. Are we to assume that children are only happy when they are hitting others, over-eating, running in front of cars, staling whatever they have a fancy for, and in other ways doing their own thing? I don't think that is true, but perhaps that is the new notion about parenting. Back when I was in charge of small children, it was rather assumed that they both needed and wanted rules and fixed times for things, and it was not having those but instead having parents they could play off against each other and nothing fixed or to be relied upon which led to them being insecure and unhappy.

    *After* Nic left, he behaved very nastily indeed, in particular to Clarrie, and I wondered whether this was his way of letting it be known that he was not happy about the change, nor about the loss of his playmates and surrogate mum, nor about the erosion of the newly-applied rules which had become a secure point in his disordered life.

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by Mieteka (U14938651) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Or just his way of reacting to change, whether it be for good or bad? Children like routine. First he had Nic and her children in his Dad's life and had to adjust to them, then they were gone. Pretty confusing for a wee chap.

    I don't advocate not giving children boundaries - quite the contrary. Equally, I don't agree with an adult punishing a child for hitting by hitting that child. Because that way the adult has just crossed the boundary they are trying to teach and the whole thing is counter-productive. What lesson does it teach a child? That it is okay to hit if you are bigger and stronger?

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    What lesson does it teach a child? That like sex and drugs and rock and roll, smacking another child (or hitting it or pushing it or kicking it biting it) may be a thing for grown-ups and but it is not for children. Simple as that. (Not that they are likely to see an adult doing the other things, but those are all things some small children *do* do to each other, and must be prevented from. Where do they learn them? I wouldn't suppose that in most cases itis from their parents.)

    I don't think anyone is foolish enough to think that children cannot recognise what they may and may not do because of their age and ability and that it differs from what adults may and may not do: we forbid them from all sorts of things all the time. Adults are allowed to cross the road alone; three-year-olds are not. Adults are allowed to drink; toddlers are not. And so on in a myriad matters. Are *you* not able to tell the difference between a punishment that has been deserved, and an arbitrary tanturm? A child can too. They are perfectly well aware of a great deal more than simplistic assumptions about them ever reckon with.

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by carolyn (U15450251) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Nic was quite insecure in the situation foisted on her at that time, she over reacted by smacking, but it was humanly understandable, &, my goodness, did she pay for it. This small incident hardly scarred George for life....
    Boundaries are obviously necessary for a child to feel secure at all. Smacking is not the best way to establish them, granted, but better that occasionally, than giving in to every demand & grizzle through sheer weakness or, worse, from some weird principle that the word 'no' is somehow damaging.

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by Mieteka (U14938651) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    By this logic, there was no justification for Nic to hit George. It was not deserved, as Mia was the agressor and he was only reacting to her. Further, Nic should also have been able to tell the difference between a situation which require physical chastisement and one which could be dealt with more effectively with recourse to hitting.

    Of course small children have to be set realistic boundaries. But equally adults have to set an example. You can't forbid a child to swear if you swear yourself - not unless you are a complete hypocrite. As you say, children are aware of the irony of an adult saying "don't hit Mia" while simultaneously delivering a smack on the back of the legs. "One rule for you, another for me" is rarely a credo that gives the speaker much credibility

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    If someone who is a child clearly thinks that thumping (or kicking or shoving to the floor or biting) a smaller child is ok whatever the circumstances he or she needs to be taught immediately that it is not. By this reasoning Nic was correct to punish George immediately and sharply for doing something which is against the rules in any family -- I assume including yours.

    When a toddler, who may be damaged, is crying on the floor there is not *time* to be reasonable and argue the rights and wrongs with another child who has caused the damage. No matter the cause of dissent, the older child must learn, immedaiately, that it may not attack a smaller child. George attacked and potentially damaged Mia. I was surprised that you seemed to feel this was right of him.

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by Dailyfix (U14602649) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    In my child abusing (according to the Nic haters) past the rare occasions I smacked my kids (including once for hitting a sibling) it had a great shock value and the offence was not repeated. The kids thought "wow I really went too far that time Mum doesn't normally do that" they didn't start hitting other people or anything like that despite being scarred for life by the abuse and I slapped them more often than Nic slapped George.
    My son once came home from school and said "the teacher smacked me" I asked him why, he didn't want to say so I suggested that he avoid that conduct in future which I believe he did. It is the sort of parent who would have marched up to the school demanding the teacher be sacked that has created a lot of the problems we have in education today IMO the same sort of person who condemns Nic as a child abuser 4 years after a single incident long forgotten by the child involved.

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by rick_yard_withdrawn (U14573092) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    The whole sending Jawg to live at Will's reminds me of Georgie Osborne (NO! Not THAT one) in "Vanity Fair" being wrenched from mother Amelia Sedley and sent to be spoiled rotten by the family of his rich Pappa.

    And he is already spoilt, so will only get worse.  
    Dobbin saved the day iirc. Unlikely to happen this time, though...

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by carolyn (U15450251) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    No, you're right, but, hand on heart, can anyone claim not to have said one thing, done another ? Been guilty of 'do as I say, not as I do' ?
    No one's perfect, no parent is perfect, & would there be any possibility of Drama, from Shakespeare to soap, if this were not the case ?

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 44.

    Posted by Mieteka (U14938651) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Mia was not seriously hurt or indeed even damaged. it was an over reaction on nic's part, and one I cannot defend in any way, shape or form.
    Hitting a child to reinforce the message that hitting is wrong seems crazy to me. And to argue that it is okay for an adult to hit a child to teach him that he may not hit a smaller child is so strange, because the adult is bigger yet. Strange as it may seem, while I'm really quite strict, I've never hit a child.

    Of course I do not think that George was correct - but that isn't the point at issue. his behaviour was wrong but he is a child! Nic's behaviour was worse.

    I cannot recall if Nic also punished Mia for starting the whole thing off? While I hope she did, I have a sneaking suspicion Mia got cuddled instead.

    And did the smack achieve any more that a sharp scold would have done? It's just as easy to say "No, George. You don't hit," while simultaneously picking up Mia. And then reinforcing by telling him how naughty it is to hit. It also means that you don't have two crying children to contend with.

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by ANDROMEDAKRAKEN (U14391535) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    The whole sending Jawg to live at Will's reminds me of Georgie Osborne (NO! Not THAT one) in "Vanity Fair" being wrenched from mother Amelia Sedley and sent to be spoiled rotten by the family of his rich Pappa.

    And he is already spoilt, so will only get worse.  
    Dobbin saved the day iirc. Unlikely to happen this time, though... 
    Dobbin never actually saved young George's day... He married his mother (who clung to her "rugged old oak, the little parasite" -in Becky Sharp's words- but she never really got George back, did she?)

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 49.

    Posted by StargazerwithOscar (U14668197) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    Amelia was a drip, and not worthy of the lovely Dobbin.

    As for George, he was a brat who thought it was okay to kick his grandmother, a situation for which Will was entirely responsible as he spoilt him outrageously. ("No, you don't have to eat grandma's horrible shepherd's pie, Georgie. I've got some chocolate cake here"). Things have improved a bit, but he's still mollycoddled by Emma and treated as a sort of juvenile "mate" by both of his fathers, neither of whom seem to have any idea of boundary setting or reinforcement. As for the (so far as we know) one and only smacking incident - yes, Nic was wrong. We don't hear of her punishing either of her own two that way, and they should all be treated the same as far as discipline goes. But to call ONE slap on the leg at the age of three abuse is going a bit far, I think. George will almost certainly not remember it. And what if he did|? Most of us who were born in the fifties or earlier were very seriously abused by that standard, and most of us are all right, I think.

    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.