Discuss The Archers  permalink

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

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 51 - 85 of 85
  • Message 51

    , in reply to message 50.

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

    He will only "remember" it if adults who cannot tell a difference between hitting and smacking go on about it.

    Report message1

  • Message 52

    , in reply to message 51.

    Posted by Mieteka (U14938651) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    OED definitions:

    Hit: to strike with blow or missile

    Smack: blow with palm of hand.

    They are different words for exactly the same thing and most adults know there is no difference between them, Chris.

    Report message2

  • Message 53

    , in reply to message 52.

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

    I think that the difference lies, not in dictionary definitions, but in force, number of blows and the "target". A trousered leg as opposed to the face, for example. One slap as opposed to perhaps many. A "tap" rather than a hard blow. Please believe me, Mieteka, I am as opposed as anyone to violence and did not punish my own three children that way. By the time they were at school it was also outlawed there, I'm happy to say. But I can recognised nuances of intention and effect.

    Report message3

  • Message 54

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by toffee (U8026926) on Saturday, 3rd 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 
    George hasn't got a step-father. He's got a step-mother, the woman his Dad is married to. His mother lives with his Uncle. He's her boyfriend not her husband,so he's not George's step-father just his Uncle.

    Report message4

  • Message 55

    , in reply to message 51.

    Posted by fabsupergran (U11440988) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    He will only "remember" it if adults who cannot tell a difference between hitting and smacking go on about it.  Exactly what I was thinking - I bet George wont even remember it now (unless as you say the adults keep on bringing it up)

    I certainly dont agree with hitting a child (and I had three under two at one stage) so as they grew up it was hectic and stressful as Nic found on that occasion when she found heself looking after George - I expect she regretted it as soon as she had done it.,she was certainly a lost sole at that stage herself .

    AS for taking /sending a child away from his regular home because his Mother is short of money - how unkind is that (to Emma too and I am not her greatest fan ) It surely dosent matter how poor a family is - its all about the fact that he is loved and cared for. There must be hundreds of children living in a situation where the Mother is struggling whereas the Father is seemingly much better off (and vice versa I expect ) but surely that isnt a reason to uproot a child unless that child is being abused or uncared for in some way - and this certainly isnt the case with George.

    Report message5

  • Message 56

    , in reply to message 55.

    Posted by ruralsnowflakebliss (U8131914) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    They should have gone to slightly more time with Will though as Georgie got older (one more day and night?). Effectively Georgie does have two homes since they are so close and the ritual is more established and it wouldn't do him any harm/ in a way is in his best interest to see equality between them and could remove the problem of the guinea pig :-

    Report message6

  • Message 57

    , in reply to message 55.

    Posted by Mieteka (U14938651) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    Can we all agree that Will, Ed and Emma all love George?

    Like fabsg, I believe it would cruel to effectively 'send' George away from a home where he is loved and cared for.

    As far as Nic is concerned, I am not convinved that she loves George, certainly not in the same way that Ed does, and I believe that she actively favours her own children. Could it be that George is being set up to be the neglected child in that household, should he be taken away from Emma? There would certainly be a lot of dramatic potential in such a storyline. And then we might see Clarrie and Susan riding to the rescue!

    Report message7

  • Message 58

    , in reply to message 57.

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

    It could develop that way , yes.

    Report message8

  • Message 59

    , in reply to message 52.

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

    Meiteka, there is a distinct and definite difference. It is the difference between hitting someone and smacking them. Closed fist, open hand. There is absolutley no way that if someone hits you, you cannot tell the difference between that and someone smacking you, believe me.

    I don't think that anyone has suggested "sending George away" from Emma. Will is suggesting having him at Will's house a bit more than one and a half days a week. Only the jealous and possessive Ed would see that as so threatening that he has to go into flight-or-fight when it is suggested. Emma, on previous form, would welcome a bit of help in her difficulties.

    Report message9

  • Message 60

    , in reply to message 59.

    Posted by Mieteka (U14938651) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    Chris - you don't agree with me. I think we've all got that. There's no need to labour the point.

    And maybe not on this thread, but definitely on others people have indeed suggested that George goes to live with Will.

    Report message10

  • Message 61

    , in reply to message 60.

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

    I think that suggesting that George ought to live exclusively with Will is as silly and as pointless as suggesting that Will ought to pay over the odds for George's maintenance in order to make up the shortfall in Emma's wages. Seriously. It would not be an agreement that anyone would be happy with really -- least of all George, who is the one who matters in all this.

    What I do rather wonder, though, is why it is automatically acceptable for Emma to have so much more of Goerge's time that Will does, both in the story and in real life. If both parents are equally willing and equally able to look after a child, why should one of them be so very much favoured in the matter? It would make far better sense if George ate at Will's house and saved all this bother.

    Report message11

  • Message 62

    , in reply to message 61.

    Posted by Mieteka (U14938651) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    I think the problem is that we do not even have a rough idea of how much maintenance Will pays, or if it has ever risen in line with inflation.

    For all we know, he could pay a large amount, regularly increased and also go out and buy George school shoes, winter coats etc.

    Or he could be paying an unrealistically small amount and no practical extras as mentioned above.

    A little more information on air would be very helpful, but this has been studiously avoided, as has any mention of benefits Emma might or might not be claiming.

    Report message12

  • Message 63

    , in reply to message 62.

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

    Yes; that is infuriating, isn't it.

    I think that Will probably pays whatever the going rate may be for his salary and circumstances, to be honest, because it would be such a blow to his "I'll pay full maintenance, which is more than *you* could do!" pride if he didn't. The suggestion he wasn't would surely have him checking that it was right, and if it wasn't increasing the order from his bank. That is assuming that he is not compelled by the authorities anyway, which is possible.

    Incidentally, Emma said she was going to open an account in George's name for it to be put into -- how does *that* work? I couldn't get any money out of a bank until I was seven, and that was my PO savings bank book not a real live bank with accounts. Do banks really open accounts for minor children like that? That raises a whole different notion: maybe Emma doesn't actually have that money to spend because it is in George's bank account and she can't touch it? Argh!

    (Wednesday 21st December, 2005
    Will hands over George's maintenance money in cash but Emma would prefer a method that is more predictable; she will open an account in George's name in the new year.)

    Report message13

  • Message 64

    , in reply to message 63.

    Posted by Mieteka (U14938651) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    A friend of mine has just opened an account in his grand-daughters name (within the last month)

    Report message14

  • Message 65

    , in reply to message 64.

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

    Can she get money out of it as well as paying it in?

    Report message15

  • Message 66

    , in reply to message 54.

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

    Ed is George's step father. You don't have to be married to be a stepfather. They live together. Ed has a close fatherly relationship with him. Ergo he is his stepfather. Just as Nic is his stepmother even before they married. It is the relationship that counts not the wedding ring.

    Report message16

  • Message 67

    , in reply to message 59.

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

    < Will is suggesting having him at Will's house a bit more than one and a half days a week. >

    How would that stop George from allegedly going hungry? I don't think Will would stop at another night at theirs. He is implying that Em and Ed are neglecting George. A very serious and unfounded charge.

    Report message17

  • Message 68

    , in reply to message 67.

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

    If George ate a high tea at Will and Nic's house during the week, having been collacted by them from school along with their two children (a sensible arrangement, because it would mean Emma wouldn't have to do it now she has no car) and then went home for the night, that would solve the problem of concern about his diet, wouldn't it. As well as being a sensible division of labour.

    hang on -- if you are someone's stepmother/father if you live with his parent, how come the fuss about Nic treating George as if he were her child once they were sharing a house, rather than walking round him as if on eggshells and pandering to his every whim, letting him get away with whatever behaviour he felt like, and generally spoiling him rotten?

    Report message18

  • Message 69

    , in reply to message 61.

    Posted by Dinah Shore (U14984316) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    >> why it is automatically acceptable for Emma to have so much more of Goerge's time that Will does, <<

    Good wondering. Not fair at all, is it?

    I think it is because when they made the (informal) agreement), Willyum had great difficulty in combining childcare and his job - he was forever taking George and foisting him off on someone else - or trying to - usually Clarrie, once even on Helen! - so not having time with George. He realised that it was impractical for him to have the full time he wanted George.

    At the Caravan Granny Summit, they agreed he would have George all the time he was free of work - the Saturday lunchtime to Sunday evening 6 o'clock, and his 2 half days (one fixed, Thursday afternoon, one floating half day). They did not want the expense of lawyers. (Tut tut)

    This was never heard to have been discussed by the courts social workers at the time of the divorce (I think this was a definite error by the production team, the welfare of the child and arrangements for access by both parents would have been gone into, there would have been jealous comments on both sides, and sullen Ed, spiteful Emma and Glowering Will would each have had a lot to spit out),

    But obviously now circumstances have changed - William left, did not want to see George, it was only because Clarrie carted the poor toddler around that he got to see his father at all, and when he DID come back to Ambridge, George was living with Ed and Em, then George went to school so the 2 half days seem to have been squashed in to a mere couple of hours after school, and no holiday arrangements put in place (Emma seemed to arrange (or rather NOT arrange) his holiday fun, with Will seeing sodall of HisSon).

    Now William has a willing drudge to do the childcare, it is different - he could get lawyers to get the courts to give him (well, Nic) better access times, and bask in some fatherly time.

    Until Nic has the baby, and George doesn't like it, like he didn't like Kiera!

    Report message19

  • Message 70

    , in reply to message 69.

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

    Let us hope that Nic, unlike Emma, wouldn't make it blatantly obvious to George even before the baby was born that it mattered and he did not, as well as ignoring him and snapping at him all the time while cuddling and cooing to the baby! Emma handled that incredibly badly.

    It has just occurred to me: where was Keira in the Great Up-Bank Crisis after the breakdown? Were we told she was with someone that afternoon?

    Report message20

  • Message 71

    , in reply to message 63.

    Posted by Auntie Molly (U14110968) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012



    I think that Will probably pays whatever the going rate may be for his salary and circumstances, to be honest, because it would be such a blow to his "I'll pay full maintenance, which is more than *you* could do!" pride if he didn't. The suggestion he wasn't would surely have him checking that it was right, and if it wasn't increasing the order from his bank. That is assuming that he is not compelled by the authorities anyway, which is possible. 


    yes, I am sure he does - apart from anything else we have not, as far as I recall, heard Emma or Ed complaining that he doesn't pay his share. I am sure they would if he wasn't.

    Incidentally, Emma said she was going to open an account in George's name for it to be put into -- how does *that* work? I couldn't get any money out of a bank until I was seven, and that was my PO savings bank book not a real live bank with accounts. Do banks really open accounts for minor children like that? That raises a whole different notion: maybe Emma doesn't actually have that money to spend because it is in George's bank account and she can't touch it? Argh!  

    But that would be daft, Maintenance is supposed to be for day to day costs isn't it?

    Report message21

  • Message 72

    , in reply to message 71.

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

    I thought it would be daft, but that was what she said she was going to do!

    Report message22

  • Message 73

    , in reply to message 68.

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

    Because when she hit him they hadn't been living together for long and George was still unsettled by the change. I think she should have considered that, taken him aside and explain you don't hit people not hit him herself. And she should have explained to Mia that you don't swipe other people's toys.

    It wouldn't solve the problem immediately but I've found if you reiterate every time a spat occurs they learn eventually. Smacking other people's children isn't on even if you are a step parent.

    Report message23

  • Message 74

    , in reply to message 73.

    Posted by DracoM1 (U14252039) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    < How would that stop George from allegedly going hungry? I don't think Will would stop at another night at theirs. He is implying that Em and Ed are neglecting George. A very serious and unfounded charge. >

    Erm, ...............anna, he's well past merely implying it. He said that very thing in so many words at the door of Rickyard. And yes, it is a very serious charge.

    Not entirely sure what his evidence is. I mean, if I asked a 7 yr old if he was hungry an hour or so after his last meal, the chances very much are that he'd say yet, and eat, wouldn't he? If he thought he was just about to miss out on a treat / food because he said he'd eaten an hour or so ago, and given that this Will person buys him sweets, cakes, toffee apples, wizard suits et al, I frankly don't think a 7 yr old think twice about it IME.

    BUT if you then build a case for neglect on that series of his reactions, you might just be aiming very wide of the mark.

    Report message24

  • Message 75

    , in reply to message 65.

    Posted by Mieteka (U14938651) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    She's only a couple of months old, so that issue hasn't arisen yet, Chris! To be honest, I have no idea about any of the practicalities, just that he'd opened an account in her name and was planning to put in money on a regular basis for her future. Which is lovely.

    Report message25

  • Message 76

    , in reply to message 73.

    Posted by Mieteka (U14938651) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    Don't go there, Anna - I've been roundly scolded on another thread for saying the same thing.

    Mia is the apple of Nic's eye. We've heard that time and time again. There was the scene when she was mooning over baby clothes, and poor Jake just got a fleeting mention at the end - it was all Mia, Mia, Mia. I seriously doubt if Nic told Mia off after the child swipes toy/second child hits first child/adult smacks (careful use of approved langauge for said action by Nic)second child fiasco.

    Report message26

  • Message 77

    , in reply to message 76.

    Posted by Dailyfix (U14602649) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    Don't go there, Anna - I've been roundly scolded on another thread for saying the same thing.

    Mia is the apple of Nic's eye. We've heard that time and time again. There was the scene when she was mooning over baby clothes, and poor Jake just got a fleeting mention at the end - it was all Mia, Mia, Mia. I seriously doubt if Nic told Mia off after the child swipes toy/second child hits first child/adult smacks (careful use of approved langauge for said action by Nic)second child fiasco.

     
    Why do you think Mia is Nic's favourite? She is her youngest so obviously there will be a protective instinct there and the only girl so more attention given to her hair, clothes etc. What incidents of favouritism can you use to support your claim?
    I am interested in this because my older daughters often claim I favour my son but I know that they get this impression because he is over 3 years younger and the odd one out of the three being the only boy and having a very different temperament and ADHD. Compared to my girls his life is more of a struggle and as a mother I feel I need to support him as much as possible. My girls choose to interpret this as bias.
    I certainly can't think of any preference Nic has given to Jake who is much more equivalent to George being roughly the same age and the same gender. Step parents are only human and it takes time to build a relationship with a child but feelings develop with time so several friends who are step parents tell me. I think Nic has worked hard at what is a difficult task and done it well IMO.

    Report message27

  • Message 78

    , in reply to message 77.

    Posted by Mieteka (U14938651) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    the example I quoted. most parents keep more baby momentos of the first child than the second, in my experience. Nic went on and on about Mia's clothes, and barely mentioned her first child. Again, in my experience, most parents have more memories of the first child, often because they are run ragged by the time the second one comes along. And also because anything the second child does, the first one has done already. It's the same with baby photos - usually (not always of course) there are loads more of the first child.

    And then the incident where Mia swiped George's toy and he reacted in the way of a three year old. Yes, Mia fell over, but she had a fright and a bump, but Nic totally over reacted. And I don't remember Mia gettin told off for her behaviour (although I could be wrong)

    Nic has one child of each sex, so there isn't the excuse for her that Mia is the only girl. By the same token Jake is the only boy.

    Report message28

  • Message 79

    , in reply to message 77.

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



     

    I am interested in this because my older daughters often claim I favour my son but I know that they get this impression because he is over 3 years younger and the odd one out of the three being the only boy and having a very different temperament and ADHD. Compared to my girls his life is more of a struggle and as a mother I feel I need to support him as much as possible. My girls choose to interpret this as bias.
     


    My oldest son has been known to say that, as not the cute little one, and also not the only boy, he has no chance of being favourite. The other two have said that, as my first baby, he's clearly my favourite.

    My second son has said that the middle child is never loved as much as the oldest and youngest. Also that, as another boy, he must have been a disappointment. The other two have both said that he has been so ill, and lucky to survive once (true) that he MUST be my favourite.

    My youngest, and only daughter, has been known to doubt being wanted at all, having worked out (because she's clever) that we were attempting to run a business in the teeth of a recession at the time of her conception, and, indeed, birth. No prizes for guessing the grounds of her two brothers' occasional speculations about the reason for HER being the favourite.

    I would just like to add two things.

    - their "nobody loves me" whinges have been few and far between. A great deal of effort has gone into the development (but not overdevelopment) of their self esteem

    - (needless to say) there is NO favouritism. We both adore all three of them equally.

    Report message29

  • Message 80

    , in reply to message 50.

    Posted by JustJanie - Fairweather Strider (U10822512) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    << 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. >>

    Agreed. If I remember correctly Georgie forgot about it very quickly afterwards (or at any rate didn't hold a grudge) because he was upset when Nic left and missed her and Jake and Mia.

    Whatever the arguments for and against smacking, I do remember that Nic thought what she had done was wrong. It split up her and Will so I don't suppose SHE has forgotten the incident. I have the impression that as a result of it Nic has been quite indulgent with Georgie ever since. Add to that the fact that Will likes to spoil him as well, no wonder they're starting to have trouble with him at Rickyards with his making unfavourable comparisons between the two homes.

    Report message30

  • Message 81

    , in reply to message 80.

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

    It seems to me likely that if George has no hesitation in comparing the food at Rickyard unfavourably to Emma, at Rickyard, it is entirely likely that he has made the same comparison in front of Will, about the food there.

    That would be discounted by Nic and Will if there was no reason to think it was anything other than normal whinging and trying to get extras, but if there was any reason to think it might be true, I can see how it might be interpreted and taken more seriously than perhaps it warrants.

    Interestingly, once she knew that it had split up Will and Nic Emma clearly didn't care two hoots that her precious son had been smacked: she made light of the matter. She was the only one of the four who put it into its proper perspective, as far as I was concerned at the time, and I was rather surprised that she was for once the one being sensible. I was also shocked by the hypocrisy of Clarrie and Susan going on as if it had been a murder, when I am morally sure that given when they were bringing up children they knew the value of a swift smack to stop trouble, and in Clarrie's case we *know* that she smacked Will at least, and I assume Ed too.

    Report message31

  • Message 82

    , in reply to message 81.

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

    I too remember feeling surprised at Emma's response, having expected some kind of hyperbolic "I'll kill the bitch!" reaction. Will was far more upset. And yes, Clarrie and |Susan were hypocritical in the extreme. I seem to recall old Jethro getting seriously upset at Clarrie's disciplinary methods, and Susan threatening Emma with a slap, even if not carried out.

    Report message32

  • Message 83

    , in reply to message 79.

    Posted by JudithL (U14272244) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    An adult can think that she's treating all her children equally, but it may not seem like that to the children.
    OH is the elder of two surviving sons, and still feels very strongly that he had to battle for privileges that his younger brother took for granted, because he (OH) had done the battling. I suspect that it may have been the same for my two sons, although I didn't discriminate deliberately.
    George certainly wasn't well prepared for the arrival of a baby sister, and Emma always does seem very sharp with him.

    And tagging on to earlier discussion: if George spent more time with Will, it would mean very little change to his routine, as they live in the same village. He wouldn't have to change school, to be driven 50 miles, etc..
    At the moment he's a pawn in the "Who loves George the most?" game that his parents are playing. If Will really cares about his son, he'll buy essentials not occasional treats.

    Report message33

  • Message 84

    , in reply to message 83.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    We don't in fact know whether Will buys George all sorts of ordinary stuff like shirts in a routine way. We only hear that Emma can't buy him treats and resents it, and resents the fact that Will can.

    Wasn't there a row once becausee Will (or more likely Nic) wickedly bought George some trainers? I can't place it but I think there was.

    Report message34

  • Message 85

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by BERT (U15466554) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    Ed wouldn't allow it  Neither would Nasty Nick.   Give her freer access to beat him up.....

    Report message35

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.