|
Post by Malyndi on Oct 11, 2024 20:02:41 GMT
Still a "troubled teen", then...
Looks like he will still be playing a constant part though, as his phone call to his mum made for the usual Friday cliffhanger: why did he not answer her question about whether he was sharing a cell or not, and why was his call cut off right at the episode's end (I just knew that was going to happen and leave us in suspenders...)
Nearly choked with laughter on my butternut-and-goats'cheese lasagne while the Name The Kitten entries were being read out - "Catty McCatFace"
|
|
|
Post by goodhelenstar on Oct 13, 2024 17:27:32 GMT
Did you listen to the podcast? Emma Freud is the presenter with guests each week. This week it was Rob Rinder commenting on the sentence which was interesting, and 'Tracy' and 'Emma'. They also played a bit from the shop armed hold-up years ago which resulted in Susan going to prison when she unwillingly sheltered Clive. It's here if you missed it: www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/p0jt4npn
|
|
|
Post by Malyndi on Oct 13, 2024 20:08:10 GMT
Thanks for the link, Helen! Interestingly enough, this podcast actually got a paragraph in the Saturday paper - Emma Freud displeased listeners by giving out a spoiler about George's sentence. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but once a radio or TV programme has been broadcast, any talk about it cannot technically be deemed 'spoiling' as far as I understand (the podcast was the day after the episode which revealed that George would be serving time at His Majesty's pleasure.) The listeners up in arms were those who get their Archers fix via the Sunday omnibus edition or BBC Sounds. The perils of using 'catch-up' services, eh?
|
|
|
Post by marion on Oct 14, 2024 9:06:01 GMT
😂😂😂 You take on the Archers diehard audience at your peril though! I don’t think it was helped by her saying she couldn’t care less!
|
|
|
Post by goodhelenstar on Oct 14, 2024 17:28:42 GMT
Completely agree, I often think that people who witter on about spoilers should get a life. At the very least, don't read reviews if you don't want to know! The blurb for the podcast made it clear what the subject was.
|
|
|
Post by goodhelenstar on Oct 14, 2024 17:31:33 GMT
Did she? Good for her!
It didn't take Emma long to revert to her usual position of victimhood, did it? Now she's having a go at Neil for daring to say they did the right thing by preventing a miscarriage of justice.
I hope George doesn't get beaten up though, or worse. I don't recall him ever getting into fights so we don't really know if he could defend himself. We've already had the scenario of Clive coming out of prison worse than he went in so I'd like to think George will benefit in some way from the experience.
|
|
|
Post by marion on Oct 14, 2024 18:08:17 GMT
Emma is always chewed up by envy and bitterness isn’t she? Never pleased for others’ good fortune, just resentful that it isn’t hers.
|
|
|
Post by Malyndi on Oct 14, 2024 18:56:03 GMT
I started to seriously dislike Emma when all this George business first blew up...
Wonder what's amiss with Neil? Is it an accumulation of stress over The George Business or is there something wrong with his ticker (or another vital body organ)? When Clarrie insisted he make a GP appointment, I thought 'good luck with that' on two counts: a) the real life difficulty in getting to see a doc these days, and b) Neil was showing that reluctance that seems to be typical of the average male when it comes to seeking medical advice - I remember how my own dad was about such matters!
Helen suggesting in a roundabout way that Neil might benefit from counselling - oh, how I laughed....
|
|
|
Post by marion on Oct 15, 2024 8:36:31 GMT
Mal, don’t forget the Ambridge Cancellation Fairy who always manages to find appointments whenever required for anything.
|
|
|
Post by marion on Oct 15, 2024 14:05:03 GMT
I’ve just started listening to the podcast on BBC Sounds. Interesting but I have to go and sort the laundry now so haven’t finished it! But I cannot believe Emma Freud’s total sympathy with and pity for George, having to do time. And how sad it was when he packed his case…. Well no sympathy here! He is a toerag, 😂😂.
|
|
|
Post by Malyndi on Oct 16, 2024 18:59:49 GMT
Tried to get the podcast on my smartphone as I really fancied listening while doing boring stuff like the washing-up. Could I? Pffft. The time spent faffing around with this and that far exceeded the actual length of the podcast .... gave up in the end after I was asked to sign in to my BBC account and it 'didn't recognise the e-mail or username'. OK, right - I've been Malyndi at the same e-mail addy since I created the account So frustrated! But I've just opened the link on my laptop and no trouble whatsoever, it simply started playing. Perhaps I'll have to take the PC into the kitchen next time!
Natasha's not happy about Fallon leaving (to start this car-charging-with-cafe malarkey), is she? It is rather ironic that only last week Emma gave her notice in order to save Fallon from having to work with her! I can see why the remaining employees are somewhat miffed; can't see Emma returning now, unless her tree-cutting business with Ed fails to thrive..
|
|
|
Post by Malyndi on Oct 17, 2024 18:58:43 GMT
...have actually heard the podcast all the way through now enjoyed Judge Rob Rinder's dissection of George's case and also that segment from Clive's armed attack on the shop all those years ago - never would have imagined that the actress who plays Tracey Horrobin also doubled as a young Kate! Wanted another episode but there didn't seem to be one available yet; wonder how often we'll have the podcast?
Looks like the scriptwriters are setting up Zainab and Brad to become 'an item'. He'll find her a bit of a handful though, she is one girl with attitude - though she's won Chelsea over, wanting a beauty treatment!
|
|
|
Post by marion on Oct 17, 2024 19:31:04 GMT
I think it’s every Friday, Mal.
Zainab comes over as very passive aggressive at times, doesn’t she? And then there’s her hilarious wind up merchant brother. Ghastly pair, but maybe they will settle down and are just being over-written as an intro.
So are they saying Hallowe’en is no longer an acceptable term, but spooky is? I’d never heard of that.
|
|
|
Post by goodhelenstar on Oct 17, 2024 21:18:32 GMT
That surprised me too. The series Spooks was renamed MI-5 in the US because Spooks was not an acceptable title so it's interesting they opted for that.
What on earth is wrong with Hallowe'en? It does suggest the objectors have no idea what Hallowe'en is actually about
|
|
|
Post by Malyndi on Oct 18, 2024 19:16:13 GMT
Yes, it is - this was confirmed at the end of tonight's episode, so I shall be hauling my laptop into the kitchen again when I next perform a tedious chore there
When the discussion was taking place about the school disco, I too did a double-take at the mention of Hallowe'en being unacceptable to some - it brought to mind a born-again Christian friend, whom I've not seen for years, whose firm view of the occasion was that it was tantamount to devil worship. I suppose some still think that The only thing I personally object to is the type of trick-or-treat where older children or teenagers will happily throw eggs or worse at your windows if you deny them the treat... Otherwise it's fun for kids dressing up in skeleton/witch/ghost costumes and having parties, and you could even look at Hallowe'en as a collective raspberry to the whole business of death!
Back to The Archers, I rather enjoyed hearing Natasha being humbled into offering Fallon an extra-pay deal in what turned out to be a futile effort to retain her at the tea room. Though in scenarios like this I always find myself asking, "Well, why didn't you do that/say that while the person was still 'available' to you in whatever form?"
|
|