where did the caravan come from?

[DavidK]

Can anyrat remind me where the caravan came from, and is it like to be a
touring caravan or a static one?

[krw]

Post by DavidK
Can anyrat remind me where the caravan came from, and is it like to be a
touring caravan or a static one?

There are several possibilities here:

a) Bert built the first egg mobile on some wheels which were available;
that was fired by person or persons unknown and Burns has not managed to
finger anyone yet (does he ever solve any crimes or simply log them on
his tablet?).
b) The Fairbrethern apparently "had" a caravan which they simply moved
onto the land at Hollowtree (where the flats have been forgotten) and
lived in it for a while before converting it to a new egg mobile by
removing the internal partitions when the first egg mobile got fired.
Some comment was made that it would not be fit for human habitation
again ever so the brothers moved in with Bert with Rex offering to do a
bit of gardening.
c) Using the wheels and presumably a bit of the underframe from egg
mobile 1 Bert then built another egg mobile which was eventually put to
use after everyone but Bert told the brothers it was finished.
d) Meanwhile and to provide a comic comparison Eddie was building a
probably wonky shepherd's hut for Lynda which had a paste table for a
bed, a cowl which was all wrong, a metallic chimney which required the
visitation by the Rolling Stones (a well known pop group m'lud) and
immediately suffered a leaky roof and other failings which long ago
ceased to provide any entertainment. There was some competition over
the wheels and Eddie has made no profit on the deal at all.

Or are you referring to the caravan in which John Tregorran originally
arrived in the village?

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by krw

Post by DavidK
Can anyrat remind me where the caravan came from, and is it like to be a
touring caravan or a static one?

a) Bert built the first egg mobile on some wheels which were available;

(Didn't Eddie provide them? I don't remember hearing that he did, but
ISTR him admiring eggmobile 1 to somebody, and saying something like
"Good wheels, those", or something like that. [Or was that the
"shepherd's hut"?)

Post by krw
that was fired by person or persons unknown and Burns has not managed

[Rather appropriate name ... (-:]
[]

Post by krw
Some comment was made that it would not be fit for human habitation
again ever so the brothers moved in with Bert with Rex offering to do a

[]

Post by krw
d) Meanwhile and to provide a comic comparison Eddie was building a
probably wonky shepherd's hut for Lynda which had a paste table for a
bed, a cowl which was all wrong, a metallic chimney which required the
visitation by the Rolling Stones (a well known pop group m'lud) and

(That bit whooshed me.)
[]

Post by krw
Or are you referring to the caravan in which John Tregorran originally
arrived in the village?

Then there was what Darryl was living in - not sure if that was a
caravan or a converted old van, but it was certainly something with
wheels. Then there's the thing EdnEmma (or was it WillnEmma?) lived in
for a while ... Ambridge seems to have a lot of caravans ...

[Sally Thompson]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by krw

Post by DavidK
Can anyrat remind me where the caravan came from, and is it like to be a
touring caravan or a static one?

a) Bert built the first egg mobile on some wheels which were available;

(Didn't Eddie provide them? I don't remember hearing that he did, but
ISTR him admiring eggmobile 1 to somebody, and saying something like
"Good wheels, those", or something like that. [Or was that the
"shepherd's hut"?)

No, they came from somewhere in Brookfield and I think Bert asked for them,
so Eddie was too late and admiring the wheels wistfully.

[DavidK]

Post by krw

Post by DavidK
Can anyrat remind me where the caravan came from, and is it like to be a
touring caravan or a static one?

b) The Fairbrethern apparently "had" a caravan which they simply moved
onto the land at Hollowtree (where the flats have been forgotten) and
lived in it for a while before converting it to a new egg mobile by
removing the internal partitions when the first egg mobile got fired.
Some comment was made that it would not be fit for human habitation
again ever so the brothers moved in with Bert with Rex offering to do a
bit of gardening.
Or are you referring to the caravan in which John Tregorran originally
arrived in the village?

b) I was wondering whether the caravan that is housing chickens could be
relocated nearer to the farm for the farm-sunday event. I suppose the
chickens wouldn't like it and many broken eggs would have to be cleared up.

[krw]

Post by DavidK

Post by krw

Post by DavidK
Can anyrat remind me where the caravan came from, and is it like to be a
touring caravan or a static one?

b) The Fairbrethern apparently "had" a caravan which they simply moved
onto the land at Hollowtree (where the flats have been forgotten) and
lived in it for a while before converting it to a new egg mobile by
removing the internal partitions when the first egg mobile got fired.
Some comment was made that it would not be fit for human habitation
again ever so the brothers moved in with Bert with Rex offering to do a
bit of gardening.
Or are you referring to the caravan in which John Tregorran originally
arrived in the village?

b) I was wondering whether the caravan that is housing chickens could be
relocated nearer to the farm for the farm-sunday event. I suppose the
chickens wouldn't like it and many broken eggs would have to be cleared up.

It has been agreed that the focus is on beef not chicken, you must
ensure the right message is delivered to these townies.

[John Ashby]

Post by krw

Post by DavidK

Post by krw

Post by DavidK
Can anyrat remind me where the caravan came from, and is it like to be a
touring caravan or a static one?

b) The Fairbrethern apparently "had" a caravan which they simply moved
onto the land at Hollowtree (where the flats have been forgotten) and
lived in it for a while before converting it to a new egg mobile by
removing the internal partitions when the first egg mobile got fired.
Some comment was made that it would not be fit for human habitation
again ever so the brothers moved in with Bert with Rex offering to do a
bit of gardening.
Or are you referring to the caravan in which John Tregorran originally
arrived in the village?

b) I was wondering whether the caravan that is housing chickens could be
relocated nearer to the farm for the farm-sunday event. I suppose the
chickens wouldn't like it and many broken eggs would have to be cleared up.

It has been agreed that the focus is on beef not chicken, you must
ensure the right message is delivered to these townies.

You mean the message that Brookfield is a mixed farm that only does beef?

john

[krw]

Post by John Ashby

Post by krw

Post by DavidK

Post by krw

Post by DavidK
Can anyrat remind me where the caravan came from, and is it like to be a
touring caravan or a static one?

b) The Fairbrethern apparently "had" a caravan which they simply moved
onto the land at Hollowtree (where the flats have been forgotten) and
lived in it for a while before converting it to a new egg mobile by
removing the internal partitions when the first egg mobile got fired.
Some comment was made that it would not be fit for human habitation
again ever so the brothers moved in with Bert with Rex offering to do a
bit of gardening.
Or are you referring to the caravan in which John Tregorran originally
arrived in the village?

b) I was wondering whether the caravan that is housing chickens could be
relocated nearer to the farm for the farm-sunday event. I suppose the
chickens wouldn't like it and many broken eggs would have to be cleared up.

It has been agreed that the focus is on beef not chicken, you must
ensure the right message is delivered to these townies.

You mean the message that Brookfield is a mixed farm that only does beef?
john

The chicken are not a Brookfield Farm enterprise and therefore do not
fall to be considered.

And why are the fowlbretheren not doing geese all year round? There
must be some market at times other than Xmas (Gay Grables etc). And to
contemplate a smaller number than the prior year is surely nonsense -
does no-one understand growing a brand? The should listen the The
Archers where they are always banging on about growing a brand.

[the Omrud]

Post by krw
And why are the fowlbretheren not doing geese all year round? There
must be some market at times other than Xmas (Gay Grables etc). And to
contemplate a smaller number than the prior year is surely nonsense -
does no-one understand growing a brand? The should listen the The
Archers where they are always banging on about growing a brand.

The reason that goose was popular at Christmas is that they tend to lay
only in the Spring and early Summer, making the birds ready to eat by
the end of the year. I think it may be difficult to be in a position
to rear geese for consumption throughout the year.

[krw]

Post by the Omrud

Post by krw
And why are the fowlbretheren not doing geese all year round? There
must be some market at times other than Xmas (Gay Grables etc). And to
contemplate a smaller number than the prior year is surely nonsense -
does no-one understand growing a brand? The should listen the The
Archers where they are always banging on about growing a brand.

The reason that goose was popular at Christmas is that they tend to lay
only in the Spring and early Summer, making the birds ready to eat by
the end of the year. I think it may be difficult to be in a position
to rear geese for consumption throughout the year.

True - but some could be ready around Michelmas through barley feeding
and they should still be looking at expansion not contraction.

[Serena Blanchflower]

Post by krw

Post by the Omrud

Post by krw
And why are the fowlbretheren not doing geese all year round? There
must be some market at times other than Xmas (Gay Grables etc). And to
contemplate a smaller number than the prior year is surely nonsense -
does no-one understand growing a brand? The should listen the The
Archers where they are always banging on about growing a brand.

The reason that goose was popular at Christmas is that they tend to lay
only in the Spring and early Summer, making the birds ready to eat by
the end of the year. I think it may be difficult to be in a position
to rear geese for consumption throughout the year.

True - but some could be ready around Michelmas through barley feeding
and they should still be looking at expansion not contraction.

Or, if they want to break into the luxury egg market, why not ducks
and/or quail?

[Steve Hague]

Post by Serena Blanchflower

Post by krw

Post by the Omrud

Post by krw
And why are the fowlbretheren not doing geese all year round? There
must be some market at times other than Xmas (Gay Grables etc). And to
contemplate a smaller number than the prior year is surely nonsense -
does no-one understand growing a brand? The should listen the The
Archers where they are always banging on about growing a brand.

The reason that goose was popular at Christmas is that they tend to lay
only in the Spring and early Summer, making the birds ready to eat by
the end of the year. I think it may be difficult to be in a position
to rear geese for consumption throughout the year.

True - but some could be ready around Michelmas through barley feeding
and they should still be looking at expansion not contraction.

Or, if they want to break into the luxury egg market, why not ducks
and/or quail?

I drove past a farm the other day which advertised hen, duck and turkey
eggs for sale. We normally buy duck eggs out of preference, goose eggs
occasionally, but turkey eggs? I've never seen them for sale before.
Steve

[Btms]

Post by Steve Hague

Post by Serena Blanchflower

Post by krw

Post by the Omrud

Post by krw
And why are the fowlbretheren not doing geese all year round? There
must be some market at times other than Xmas (Gay Grables etc). And to
contemplate a smaller number than the prior year is surely nonsense -
does no-one understand growing a brand? The should listen the The
Archers where they are always banging on about growing a brand.

The reason that goose was popular at Christmas is that they tend to lay
only in the Spring and early Summer, making the birds ready to eat by
the end of the year. I think it may be difficult to be in a position
to rear geese for consumption throughout the year.

True - but some could be ready around Michelmas through barley feeding
and they should still be looking at expansion not contraction.

Or, if they want to break into the luxury egg market, why not ducks
and/or quail?

I drove past a farm the other day which advertised hen, duck and turkey
eggs for sale. We normally buy duck eggs out of preference, goose eggs
occasionally, but turkey eggs? I've never seen them for sale before.
Steve

To add; we seem to have two pheasant eggs in our garden frame. They were
laid on the slate floor and no evidence of any kind of nesting activity.
Is this this something pheasants do?

[Steve Hague]

Post by Btms

Post by Steve Hague

Post by Serena Blanchflower

Post by krw

Post by the Omrud

Post by krw
And why are the fowlbretheren not doing geese all year round? There
must be some market at times other than Xmas (Gay Grables etc). And to
contemplate a smaller number than the prior year is surely nonsense -
does no-one understand growing a brand? The should listen the The
Archers where they are always banging on about growing a brand.

The reason that goose was popular at Christmas is that they tend to lay
only in the Spring and early Summer, making the birds ready to eat by
the end of the year. I think it may be difficult to be in a position
to rear geese for consumption throughout the year.

True - but some could be ready around Michelmas through barley feeding
and they should still be looking at expansion not contraction.

Or, if they want to break into the luxury egg market, why not ducks
and/or quail?

I drove past a farm the other day which advertised hen, duck and turkey
eggs for sale. We normally buy duck eggs out of preference, goose eggs
occasionally, but turkey eggs? I've never seen them for sale before.
Steve

To add; we seem to have two pheasant eggs in our garden frame. They were
laid on the slate floor and no evidence of any kind of nesting activity.
Is this this something pheasants do?

Dunno, but it's certainly something ducks do. When we used to keep a
couple in our back garden we sometimes had to search for the eggs, they
didn't seem to care where they laid them.
Steve

[Btms]

[]

Post by Steve Hague

Post by Btms
To add; we seem to have two pheasant eggs in our garden frame. They were
laid on the slate floor and no evidence of any kind of nesting activity.
Is this this something pheasants do?

Dunno, but it's certainly something ducks do. When we used to keep a
couple in our back garden we sometimes had to search for the eggs, they
didn't seem to care where they laid them.
Steve

Husseys!

[Mike McMillan]

Post by Serena Blanchflower

Post by krw

Post by the Omrud

Post by krw
And why are the fowlbretheren not doing geese all year round? There
must be some market at times other than Xmas (Gay Grables etc). And to
contemplate a smaller number than the prior year is surely nonsense -
does no-one understand growing a brand? The should listen the The
Archers where they are always banging on about growing a brand.

The reason that goose was popular at Christmas is that they tend to lay
only in the Spring and early Summer, making the birds ready to eat by
the end of the year. I think it may be difficult to be in a position
to rear geese for consumption throughout the year.

True - but some could be ready around Michelmas through barley feeding
and they should still be looking at expansion not contraction.

Or, if they want to break into the luxury egg market, why not ducks
and/or quail?

They don't have the wherewithall to shell out?

[steveski]

Post by Mike McMillan

Post by Serena Blanchflower

Post by krw

Post by the Omrud

Post by krw
And why are the fowlbretheren not doing geese all year round? There
must be some market at times other than Xmas (Gay Grables etc). And
to contemplate a smaller number than the prior year is surely
nonsense - does no-one understand growing a brand? The should
listen the The Archers where they are always banging on about
growing a brand.

The reason that goose was popular at Christmas is that they tend to
lay only in the Spring and early Summer, making the birds ready to
eat by the end of the year. I think it may be difficult to be in a
position to rear geese for consumption throughout the year.

True - but some could be ready around Michelmas through barley feeding
and they should still be looking at expansion not contraction.

Or, if they want to break into the luxury egg market, why not ducks
and/or quail?

They don't have the wherewithall to shell out?

Perhaps it's an embryonic idea.

[Mike McMillan]

Post by steveski

Post by Mike McMillan

Post by Serena Blanchflower

Post by krw

Post by the Omrud

Post by krw
And why are the fowlbretheren not doing geese all year round? There
must be some market at times other than Xmas (Gay Grables etc). And
to contemplate a smaller number than the prior year is surely
nonsense - does no-one understand growing a brand? The should
listen the The Archers where they are always banging on about
growing a brand.

The reason that goose was popular at Christmas is that they tend to
lay only in the Spring and early Summer, making the birds ready to
eat by the end of the year. I think it may be difficult to be in a
position to rear geese for consumption throughout the year.

True - but some could be ready around Michelmas through barley feeding
and they should still be looking at expansion not contraction.

Or, if they want to break into the luxury egg market, why not ducks
and/or quail?

They don't have the wherewithall to shell out?

Perhaps it's an embryonic idea.

A cracking idea Grommet! Time for all bu men to come to the aid of the
brethren.

[Chris McMillan]

Post by krw

Post by John Ashby

Post by krw

Post by DavidK

Post by krw

Post by DavidK
Can anyrat remind me where the caravan came from, and is it like to be a
touring caravan or a static one?

b) The Fairbrethern apparently "had" a caravan which they simply moved
onto the land at Hollowtree (where the flats have been forgotten) and
lived in it for a while before converting it to a new egg mobile by
removing the internal partitions when the first egg mobile got fired.
Some comment was made that it would not be fit for human habitation
again ever so the brothers moved in with Bert with Rex offering to do a
bit of gardening.
Or are you referring to the caravan in which John Tregorran originally
arrived in the village?

b) I was wondering whether the caravan that is housing chickens could be
relocated nearer to the farm for the farm-sunday event. I suppose the
chickens wouldn't like it and many broken eggs would have to be cleared up.

It has been agreed that the focus is on beef not chicken, you must
ensure the right message is delivered to these townies.

You mean the message that Brookfield is a mixed farm that only does beef?
john

The chicken are not a Brookfield Farm enterprise and therefore do not
fall to be considered.

Time Josh failed - at this rate he's heading for failing it all. Serves
him right.

Sincerely Chris

[krw]

Post by Chris McMillan

Post by krw

Post by John Ashby

Post by krw

Post by DavidK

Post by krw

Post by DavidK
Can anyrat remind me where the caravan came from, and is it like to be a
touring caravan or a static one?

b) The Fairbrethern apparently "had" a caravan which they simply moved
onto the land at Hollowtree (where the flats have been forgotten) and
lived in it for a while before converting it to a new egg mobile by
removing the internal partitions when the first egg mobile got fired.
Some comment was made that it would not be fit for human habitation
again ever so the brothers moved in with Bert with Rex offering to do a
bit of gardening.
Or are you referring to the caravan in which John Tregorran originally
arrived in the village?

b) I was wondering whether the caravan that is housing chickens could be
relocated nearer to the farm for the farm-sunday event. I suppose the
chickens wouldn't like it and many broken eggs would have to be cleared up.

It has been agreed that the focus is on beef not chicken, you must
ensure the right message is delivered to these townies.

You mean the message that Brookfield is a mixed farm that only does beef?
john

The chicken are not a Brookfield Farm enterprise and therefore do not
fall to be considered.

Time Josh failed - at this rate he's heading for failing it all. Serves
him right.
Sincerely Chris

Will he get his A levels?

[Chris McMillan]

Post by krw

Post by Chris McMillan

Post by krw

Post by John Ashby

Post by krw

Post by DavidK

Post by krw

Post by DavidK
Can anyrat remind me where the caravan came from, and is it like to be a
touring caravan or a static one?

b) The Fairbrethern apparently "had" a caravan which they simply moved
onto the land at Hollowtree (where the flats have been forgotten) and
lived in it for a while before converting it to a new egg mobile by
removing the internal partitions when the first egg mobile got fired.
Some comment was made that it would not be fit for human habitation
again ever so the brothers moved in with Bert with Rex offering to do a
bit of gardening.
Or are you referring to the caravan in which John Tregorran originally
arrived in the village?

b) I was wondering whether the caravan that is housing chickens could be
relocated nearer to the farm for the farm-sunday event. I suppose the
chickens wouldn't like it and many broken eggs would have to be cleared up.

It has been agreed that the focus is on beef not chicken, you must
ensure the right message is delivered to these townies.

You mean the message that Brookfield is a mixed farm that only does beef?
john

The chicken are not a Brookfield Farm enterprise and therefore do not
fall to be considered.

Time Josh failed - at this rate he's heading for failing it all. Serves
him right.
Sincerely Chris

Will he get his A levels?

No, that's his first fail - though of course he'll have failed the all eggs
businesses before August. Time we heard from Hayley and/or Feebs on their
eggs biz.

Sincerely Chris

[krw]

Post by Chris McMillan

Post by krw

Post by Chris McMillan

Post by krw

Post by John Ashby

Post by krw

Post by DavidK

Post by krw

Post by DavidK
Can anyrat remind me where the caravan came from, and is it like to be a
touring caravan or a static one?

b) The Fairbrethern apparently "had" a caravan which they simply moved
onto the land at Hollowtree (where the flats have been forgotten) and
lived in it for a while before converting it to a new egg mobile by
removing the internal partitions when the first egg mobile got fired.
Some comment was made that it would not be fit for human habitation
again ever so the brothers moved in with Bert with Rex offering to do a
bit of gardening.
Or are you referring to the caravan in which John Tregorran originally
arrived in the village?

b) I was wondering whether the caravan that is housing chickens could be
relocated nearer to the farm for the farm-sunday event. I suppose the
chickens wouldn't like it and many broken eggs would have to be cleared up.

It has been agreed that the focus is on beef not chicken, you must
ensure the right message is delivered to these townies.

You mean the message that Brookfield is a mixed farm that only does beef?
john

The chicken are not a Brookfield Farm enterprise and therefore do not
fall to be considered.

Time Josh failed - at this rate he's heading for failing it all. Serves
him right.
Sincerely Chris

Will he get his A levels?

No, that's his first fail - though of course he'll have failed the all eggs
businesses before August. Time we heard from Hayley and/or Feebs on their
eggs biz.
Sincerely Chris

Josh is just this generation's Tom. Remember it was sausages at loud
volume in every eating establishment (was that with Kirsty or Brenda?).

[Chris McMillan]

Post by krw

Post by Chris McMillan

Post by krw

Post by Chris McMillan

Post by krw

Post by John Ashby

Post by krw

Post by DavidK

Post by krw

Post by DavidK
Can anyrat remind me where the caravan came from, and is it like to be a
touring caravan or a static one?

b) The Fairbrethern apparently "had" a caravan which they simply moved
onto the land at Hollowtree (where the flats have been forgotten) and
lived in it for a while before converting it to a new egg mobile by
removing the internal partitions when the first egg mobile got fired.
Some comment was made that it would not be fit for human habitation
again ever so the brothers moved in with Bert with Rex offering to do a
bit of gardening.
Or are you referring to the caravan in which John Tregorran originally
arrived in the village?

b) I was wondering whether the caravan that is housing chickens could be
relocated nearer to the farm for the farm-sunday event. I suppose the
chickens wouldn't like it and many broken eggs would have to be cleared up.

It has been agreed that the focus is on beef not chicken, you must
ensure the right message is delivered to these townies.

You mean the message that Brookfield is a mixed farm that only does beef?
john

The chicken are not a Brookfield Farm enterprise and therefore do not
fall to be considered.

Time Josh failed - at this rate he's heading for failing it all. Serves
him right.
Sincerely Chris

Will he get his A levels?

No, that's his first fail - though of course he'll have failed the all eggs
businesses before August. Time we heard from Hayley and/or Feebs on their
eggs biz.
Sincerely Chris

Josh is just this generation's Tom. Remember it was sausages at loud
volume in every eating establishment (was that with Kirsty or Brenda?).

Both i think.

Sincerely Chris

[Marjorie]

Post by DavidK
Can anyrat remind me where the caravan came from, and is it like to be a
touring caravan or a static one?

The one that the Fowlbrothers first moved onto the site must have been a
tourer, as it just appeared there one day without David knowing about
it. A static would require a special low loader to move it, and might
well have difficulty getting onto the field. We don't know whose it was
or where it came from.

At that stage they said they would just use it for the occasional
overnight stay, but eventually they appeared to be living in it
full-time. They then moved into a tent in order to keep the hens in the
van. They must have had to remove seats, beds, cooker, toilet, cupboards
etc from the van - heaven knows what they did with the contents and all
their worldly possessions while they lived in the tent.

Then they moved in with Bert, so there is presumably a rusting,
poo-filled, stinking hulk of a caravan sitting in the field.

[Btms]

Post by Marjorie

Post by DavidK
Can anyrat remind me where the caravan came from, and is it like to be a
touring caravan or a static one?

The one that the Fowlbrothers first moved onto the site must have been a
tourer, as it just appeared there one day without David knowing about
it. A static would require a special low loader to move it, and might
well have difficulty getting onto the field. We don't know whose it was
or where it came from.
At that stage they said they would just use it for the occasional
overnight stay, but eventually they appeared to be living in it
full-time. They then moved into a tent in order to keep the hens in the
van. They must have had to remove seats, beds, cooker, toilet, cupboards
etc from the van - heaven knows what they did with the contents and all
their worldly possessions while they lived in the tent.
Then they moved in with Bert, so there is presumably a rusting,
poo-filled, stinking hulk of a caravan sitting in the field.

Fowlbrothers 😏. Is this a new one or have I not been paying attention. I
do like it v. much and nominate it as umraspeak.

[Marjorie]

Post by Btms

Post by Marjorie

Post by DavidK
Can anyrat remind me where the caravan came from, and is it like to be a
touring caravan or a static one?

The one that the Fowlbrothers first moved onto the site must have been a
tourer, as it just appeared there one day without David knowing about
it. A static would require a special low loader to move it, and might
well have difficulty getting onto the field. We don't know whose it was
or where it came from.
At that stage they said they would just use it for the occasional
overnight stay, but eventually they appeared to be living in it
full-time. They then moved into a tent in order to keep the hens in the
van. They must have had to remove seats, beds, cooker, toilet, cupboards
etc from the van - heaven knows what they did with the contents and all
their worldly possessions while they lived in the tent.
Then they moved in with Bert, so there is presumably a rusting,
poo-filled, stinking hulk of a caravan sitting in the field.

Fowlbrothers 😏. Is this a new one or have I not been paying attention. I
do like it v. much and nominate it as umraspeak.

I nicked it from someone on Mustardland, where I spend a lot of time now.

[Vicky]

On Thu, 12 May 2016 14:03:14 +0100, Marjorie

Post by Marjorie

Post by Marjorie

Post by DavidK
Can anyrat remind me where the caravan came from, and is it like to be a
touring caravan or a static one?

The one that the Fowlbrothers first moved onto the site must have been a
tourer, as it just appeared there one day without David knowing about
it. A static would require a special low loader to move it, and might
well have difficulty getting onto the field. We don't know whose it was
or where it came from.
At that stage they said they would just use it for the occasional
overnight stay, but eventually they appeared to be living in it
full-time. They then moved into a tent in order to keep the hens in the
van. They must have had to remove seats, beds, cooker, toilet, cupboards
etc from the van - heaven knows what they did with the contents and all
their worldly possessions while they lived in the tent.
Then they moved in with Bert, so there is presumably a rusting,
poo-filled, stinking hulk of a caravan sitting in the field.

Fowlbrothers ?. Is this a new one or have I not been paying attention. I
do like it v. much and nominate it as umraspeak.

I nicked it from someone on Mustardland, where I spend a lot of time now.

OK just had a look over there. Can't remember whether I have done so
before. What is it about the toffees? They are very excited about the
classy coffee maker stressing toffees and not picking up clues when
Helen gives them.
http://www.paranormal.org.uk/mustardland/viewtopic.php?t=78758

We both think the way the story has been handled is worse than just
bad programme making. It is criminal because they took a serious legal
subject with important social implications and have given wrong
information and the wrong impression and have misled the people who
might be in or get into this situation.

[Btms]

Vicky <***@gmail.com> wrote:
. What is it about the toffees.

It is a device which shows that since early childhood Helen feels guilty
and readily accepts blame..... For some reason or other she has little self
protection.

Well this is my two pennarth.

[Mike McMillan]

Post by Btms
. What is it about the toffees.
It is a device which shows that since early childhood Helen feels guilty
and readily accepts blame..... For some reason or other she has little self
protection.
Well this is my two pennarth.

Was she supposed to store the half eaten toffees in her knickerbockers?

[Chris McMillan]

Post by Btms
. What is it about the toffees.
It is a device which shows that since early childhood Helen feels guilty
and readily accepts blame..... For some reason or other she has little self
protection.
Well this is my two pennarth.

That's how I took it, Btms

Sincerely Chris

[krw]

.. What is it about the toffees.
It is a device which shows that since early childhood Helen feels guilty
and readily accepts blame..... For some reason or other she has little self
protection.
Well this is my two pennarth.

When you self protection do you mean self worth? Or can you explain
self protection please?

As far as I can see she is a headstrong Archer woman - can control what
she eats (or not) and can have a baby without a man. She would have
seen through Rob in a few months and would have listened to Jess instead
of ignoring her.

[Btms]

Post by krw

.. What is it about the toffees.
It is a device which shows that since early childhood Helen feels guilty
and readily accepts blame..... For some reason or other she has little self
protection.
Well this is my two pennarth.

When you self protection do you mean self worth? Or can you explain
self protection please?

I do not mean self worth,

I mean having a nature which (for whatever reason) too easily accepts an
inappropriate level of responsibility when being attacked (literally or
symbolically). They don't stand up for themselves/or justify themselves in
the way others might.

Post by krw
As far as I can see she is a headstrong Archer woman - can control what
she eats (or not) and can have a baby without a man.

I agree but this doesn't make her having much self worth. ime the most
obstinate and difficult folk are those who inside themselves are ridden
with self doubt. They can never be wrong because being unchallengeable and
wrong is the way they hold on to what little self worth they actually
possess.

She would have

Post by krw
seen through Rob in a few months and would have listened to Jess instead
of ignoring her.

In real life she might or might not. Helen presents as unyielding and
determined to have her own way but inside is deeply insecure. Along comes
this strong man' willing to champion her. Willing to offer her the
adoration she seeks. He will happily and fiercely challenge anyone who is
perceived as attacking Helen's ideas and disagreeing. What a hero. She
can now be Mrs nice lady and leave Rob as Mr difficult.

Parents etc see Hellen as happier than ever before and despite their own
first take on Rob work to accommodate him and his influence on Helen. Not
an uncommon dynamic in many families I guess. Friends are less invested in
wanting a good relationship with them both and must be dismissed as
jealous/envious.

Many years ago, I belonged to a little social group of young Mums. There
came a need to appoint a new leader and one of the group was very
keen/determined to take on the role. Given that this person suffered with
depression, was clearly lacking in any positive self worth and generally
lacked the personality right for this role, I was curious about why she was
so determined. I recall asking her why? Answer: "Oh Linda, people like
you are natural leaders; people like me are not. We have to fight for
leadership". My response was along the lines of: "Yes people often see me
as a leader but I avoid it. Why do you want to do it.' Her answer
staggered me: "People like me feel we are dismissed/never heard but if we
become a leader we can be in charge. The leader is never wrong and we
cannot be challenged."

I think my jaw may have dropped at that point. I think she did become the
leader of the little group. I think it just fizzled out after that. Of
course this was years before I began reading about the psychopathic nature
of many Managers and top dogs in the business world!

Given Helen's nature I think the Rob scenario hangs together reasonably
well; what I object to is that it has become "The Archers" and all the
other stuff folk here have said.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message
<1335631571.484903355.421783.poppy-***@news.eternal-september.
org>, Btms <***@thetames.me.uk> writes:
[]

Post by Btms
I agree but this doesn't make her having much self worth. ime the most
obstinate and difficult folk are those who inside themselves are ridden
with self doubt. They can never be wrong because being unchallengeable and
wrong is the way they hold on to what little self worth they actually
possess.

_My_ jaw dropped on reading the above paragraph. Rather than going into
my usual long tangle, I think I'll just say that our experiences (and -
probably therefore - views) differ, in this type of case more or less
diametrically.
[]

Post by Btms
In real life she might or might not. Helen presents as unyielding and
determined to have her own way

She did ...

Post by Btms
but inside is deeply insecure. Along comes

.. but I didn't feel that at all, at least not until after some months
of Rob-ing.

Post by Btms
this strong man' willing to champion her. Willing to offer her the
adoration she seeks. He will happily and fiercely challenge anyone who is
perceived as attacking Helen's ideas and disagreeing. What a hero. She
can now be Mrs nice lady and leave Rob as Mr difficult.

I will admit that I don't understand why she collapsed under him. But
even if she really is internally insecure as you describe, I don't
extrapolate from her to determined people in general.

(Come to think of it, I think of myself as fairly determined - though
with a strong inclination to try to see the other's point of view, but I
do that so as to be able to counter their points eventually, though it
may seem I'm accommodating initially.)

Post by Btms
Parents etc see Hellen as happier than ever before and despite their own
first take on Rob work to accommodate him and his influence on Helen. Not

By "despite their own first take", I presume you mean they were
suspicious of him, but were willing to keep quiet about that because
they saw how happy Helen was.

Post by Btms
an uncommon dynamic in many families I guess.

Yes - either because of the perceived happiness of one, or because
(commoner than many would admit) they're glad not to have to be involved

Post by Btms
Friends are less invested in
wanting a good relationship with them both and must be dismissed as
jealous/envious.

Indeed.

Post by Btms
Many years ago, I belonged to a little social group of young Mums. There
came a need to appoint a new leader and one of the group was very
keen/determined to take on the role. Given that this person suffered with
depression, was clearly lacking in any positive self worth and generally
lacked the personality right for this role, I was curious about why she was
so determined. I recall asking her why? Answer: "Oh Linda, people like
you are natural leaders; people like me are not. We have to fight for
leadership". My response was along the lines of: "Yes people often see me
as a leader but I avoid it. Why do you want to do it.' Her answer
staggered me: "People like me feel we are dismissed/never heard but if we
become a leader we can be in charge. The leader is never wrong and we
cannot be challenged."
I think my jaw may have dropped at that point.

Yes, mine too; clearly a rather tenuous understanding of the power of a
leader.

Post by Btms
I think she did become the
leader of the little group. I think it just fizzled out after that.

I was expecting you to say that's what happened; presumably she became
the sort of leader who _did_ not accept any challenge, and thus the rest
of the group left her to it, by leaving the group, so she eventually
only had herself to lead.

Post by Btms
Of
course this was years before I began reading about the psychopathic nature
of many Managers and top dogs in the business world!

One could say that your previous leader was the opposite of what you
describe: outwardly timid, but at heart dictatorial!

Post by Btms
Given Helen's nature I think the Rob scenario hangs together reasonably

Well, we're led to believe that such a wearing-down of a personality
does happen; I guess if it's gradual and insidious enough it's
plausible, though I still felt it not too believable at various points.
I think - if we believe what is a drama after all - that Helen has had
short periods of at least being forced into situations where she didn't
think things through as she normally would: for example, I still think
the planned day out with Kirsty (and was it Tom?) on the steam railway
was in her mind an attempt to leave.

Post by Btms
well; what I object to is that it has become "The Archers" and all the
other stuff folk here have said.

I think we all agree about that.
It might be interesting for some (not me - I strongly dislike the
programme) to see how SO'C handles the situation back at EastEnders:
according to an article in this week's RT, the outgoing editor is
killing off Peggy Mitchell just before he goes, though _apparently_ this
was at Barbara Windsor's request rather than his own idea.

[Vicky]

On Sat, 14 May 2016 12:04:41 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
It might be interesting for some (not me - I strongly dislike the
according to an article in this week's RT, the outgoing editor is
killing off Peggy Mitchell just before he goes, though _apparently_ this
was at Barbara Windsor's request rather than his own idea.

I think I read somewhere that they begged her not to go but she didn't
want to work with Soc. ICBAM.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Vicky
On Sat, 14 May 2016 12:04:41 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
It might be interesting for some (not me - I strongly dislike the
according to an article in this week's RT, the outgoing editor is
killing off Peggy Mitchell just before he goes, though _apparently_ this
was at Barbara Windsor's request rather than his own idea.

I think I read somewhere that they begged her not to go but she didn't
want to work with Soc. ICBAM.

Ooh, good rumour, though!

[Sally Thompson]

Post by Vicky
On Sat, 14 May 2016 12:04:41 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
It might be interesting for some (not me - I strongly dislike the
according to an article in this week's RT, the outgoing editor is
killing off Peggy Mitchell just before he goes, though _apparently_ this
was at Barbara Windsor's request rather than his own idea.

I think I read somewhere that they begged her not to go but she didn't
want to work with Soc. ICBAM.

I think I read something similar. Death of the character would be
preferable to having him as editor, then!

[Chris J Dixon]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I was expecting you to say that's what happened; presumably she became
the sort of leader who _did_ not accept any challenge, and thus the rest
of the group left her to it, by leaving the group, so she eventually
only had herself to lead.

Reminds me of a group who were asked to classify themselves as
leaders or followers, so one self-described as "a leader without
any followers".

Chris

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I was expecting you to say that's what happened; presumably she became
the sort of leader who _did_ not accept any challenge, and thus the rest
of the group left her to it, by leaving the group, so she eventually
only had herself to lead.

Reminds me of a group who were asked to classify themselves as
leaders or followers, so one self-described as "a leader without
any followers".

(-: [I think I'd often classify myself as a loner, i. e. neither a
leader nor a follower.]

I find I have little patience with those who want to divide the world
into two categories in almost any field - the most recent example, or at
least one of the ones I find most irritating, was one of the US
presidents - I think it was one of the shrubs - who said (I think these
exact words) "if you're not with us, you're against us". [That in itself
had the effect of turning me against them - or at least him.]

Post by Chris J Dixon
Chris

[Chris J Dixon]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I find I have little patience with those who want to divide the world
into two categories in almost any field -

There are those who can extrapolate from incomplete data...

Chris

[Sid Nuncius]

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I find I have little patience with those who want to divide the world
into two categories in almost any field -

There are those who can extrapolate from incomplete data...

Well, quite. And anyway, as we all know there are 10 types of people in
the world: those who understand binary and those who don't.[1]

[Btms]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
In message
[]

Post by Btms
I agree but this doesn't make her having much self worth. ime the most
obstinate and difficult folk are those who inside themselves are ridden
with self doubt. They can never be wrong because being unchallengeable and
wrong is the way they hold on to what little self worth they actually
possess.

_My_ jaw dropped on reading the above paragraph. Rather than going into
my usual long tangle, I think I'll just say that our experiences (and -
probably therefore - views) differ, in this type of case more or less
diametrically.
[]

Well that is fine. Our experiences clearly differ. No need to your jaw 😀

[]
[]
.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I will admit that I don't understand why she collapsed under him.

Err..... Ummm..... Let us pass on.

But

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
even if she really is internally insecure as you describe, I don't
extrapolate from her to determined people in general.
(Come to think of it, I think of myself as fairly determined - though
with a strong inclination to try to see the other's point of view, but I
do that so as to be able to counter their points eventually, though it
may seem I'm accommodating initially.)

[]

.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Btms
Many years ago, I belonged to a little social group of young Mums. There
came a need to appoint a new leader and one of the group was very
keen/determined to take on the role. Given that this person suffered with
depression, was clearly lacking in any positive self worth and generally
lacked the personality right for this role, I was curious about why she was
so determined. I recall asking her why? Answer: "Oh Linda, people like
you are natural leaders; people like me are not. We have to fight for
leadership". My response was along the lines of: "Yes people often see me
as a leader but I avoid it. Why do you want to do it.' Her answer
staggered me: "People like me feel we are dismissed/never heard but if we
become a leader we can be in charge. The leader is never wrong and we
cannot be challenged."
I think my jaw may have dropped at that point.

Yes, mine too; clearly a rather tenuous understanding of the power of a
leader.

Post by Btms
I think she did become the
leader of the little group. I think it just fizzled out after that.

I was expecting you to say that's what happened; presumably she became
the sort of leader who _did_ not accept any challenge, and thus the rest
of the group left her to it, by leaving the group, so she eventually
only had herself to lead.

I don't recall but she wasn't really the personality to appear
unchallengeable.
I think the group was not able to develop as she didn't bring much creative
thought to it
and as our babies grew to toddlers and then to school, it might also be
that it just faded away.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Btms
Of
course this was years before I began reading about the psychopathic nature
of many Managers and top dogs in the business world!

One could say that your previous leader was the opposite of what you
describe: outwardly timid, but at heart dictatorial!

You could say that but I saw her more as self deceived in thinking the role
of leader was sufficient to raise her self esteem by itself because others
would automatically bow to her wishes. All I recall is that I felt rather
sad for her.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Btms
Given Helen's nature I think the Rob scenario hangs together reasonably

Well, we're led to believe that such a wearing-down of a personality
does happen; I guess if it's gradual and insidious enough it's
plausible, though I still felt it not too believable at various points.
I think - if we believe what is a drama after all - that Helen has had
short periods of at least being forced into situations where she didn't
think things through as she normally would: for example, I still think
the planned day out with Kirsty (and was it Tom?) on the steam railway
was in her mind an attempt to leave.

I think there is much truth in the sayings we throw out so casually. The
one that comes to mind here is: it/they/her/him are driving me mad.u
[]

[Marjorie]

Post by Btms
. What is it about the toffees.
It is a device which shows that since early childhood Helen feels guilty
and readily accepts blame..... For some reason or other she has little self
protection.
Well this is my two pennarth.

It was a bit of a waste of time, though, for Helen to blurt all this out
a criminal barrister, who is not a counsellor or a therapist. It would
be more constructive if she would actually discuss her feelings about
Rob and Henry, and the events of Stab Night.

[Btms]

Post by Marjorie

Post by Btms
. What is it about the toffees.
It is a device which shows that since early childhood Helen feels guilty
and readily accepts blame..... For some reason or other she has little self
protection.
Well this is my two pennarth.

It was a bit of a waste of time, though, for Helen to blurt all this out
a criminal barrister, who is not a counsellor or a therapist. It would
be more constructive if she would actually discuss her feelings about
Rob and Henry, and the events of Stab Night.

I agree but if this twerp* decides to employ psychobabble in Court it may
become relevant.
Irl I doubt this would happen but in this particular incarnation, who
knows.

*This is a word my Father wd use. I don't know why it rose to my
consciousness and apologise if it is unseemly. My Father never used
properly bad language but meanings change. I think this was his preferred
name for (ah cant spell this next word, help)..... Subbletuns who he
considered to be a bit thick.

[BrritSki]

Post by Btms

Post by Marjorie

Post by Btms
. What is it about the toffees.
It is a device which shows that since early childhood Helen feels guilty
and readily accepts blame..... For some reason or other she has little self
protection.
Well this is my two pennarth.

It was a bit of a waste of time, though, for Helen to blurt all this out
a criminal barrister, who is not a counsellor or a therapist. It would
be more constructive if she would actually discuss her feelings about
Rob and Henry, and the events of Stab Night.

I agree but if this twerp* decides to employ psychobabble in Court it may
become relevant.
Irl I doubt this would happen but in this particular incarnation, who
knows.
*This is a word my Father wd use. I don't know why it rose to my
consciousness and apologise if it is unseemly. My Father never used
properly bad language but meanings change. I think this was his preferred
name for (ah cant spell this next word, help)..... Subbletuns

Subalterns

[Sally Thompson]

Post by BrritSki

Post by Btms

Post by Marjorie

Post by Btms
. What is it about the toffees.
It is a device which shows that since early childhood Helen feels guilty
and readily accepts blame..... For some reason or other she has little self
protection.
Well this is my two pennarth.

It was a bit of a waste of time, though, for Helen to blurt all this out
a criminal barrister, who is not a counsellor or a therapist. It would
be more constructive if she would actually discuss her feelings about
Rob and Henry, and the events of Stab Night.

I agree but if this twerp* decides to employ psychobabble in Court it may
become relevant.
Irl I doubt this would happen but in this particular incarnation, who
knows.
*This is a word my Father wd use. I don't know why it rose to my
consciousness and apologise if it is unseemly. My Father never used
properly bad language but meanings change. I think this was his preferred
name for (ah cant spell this next word, help)..... Subbletuns

Subalterns

Oh don't spoil it. I preferred btms' version:-). I'm absolutely not
laughing at you btms so don't take this amiss.

[Btms]

Post by Sally Thompson

Post by BrritSki

Post by Btms

Post by Marjorie

Post by Btms
. What is it about the toffees.
It is a device which shows that since early childhood Helen feels guilty
and readily accepts blame..... For some reason or other she has little self
protection.
Well this is my two pennarth.

It was a bit of a waste of time, though, for Helen to blurt all this out
a criminal barrister, who is not a counsellor or a therapist. It would
be more constructive if she would actually discuss her feelings about
Rob and Henry, and the events of Stab Night.

I agree but if this twerp* decides to employ psychobabble in Court it may
become relevant.
Irl I doubt this would happen but in this particular incarnation, who
knows.
*This is a word my Father wd use. I don't know why it rose to my
consciousness and apologise if it is unseemly. My Father never used
properly bad language but meanings change. I think this was his preferred
name for (ah cant spell this next word, help)..... Subbletuns

Subalterns

Oh don't spoil it. I preferred btms' version:-). I'm absolutely not
laughing at you btms so don't take this amiss.

Not at all. It is no wonder I couldn't find the right spelling. Try as I
might.

[Ralph B]

(snip)

Post by Sally Thompson

Post by BrritSki

Post by Btms
*This is a word my Father wd use. I don't know why it rose to my
consciousness and apologise if it is unseemly. My Father never used
properly bad language but meanings change. I think this was his preferred
name for (ah cant spell this next word, help)..... Subbletuns

Subalterns

Oh don't spoil it. I preferred btms' version:-). I'm absolutely not
laughing at you btms so don't take this amiss.

I'm wondering if "subtletums" wouldn't be a better match for btms though.

[Mike McMillan]

Post by Ralph B
(snip)

Post by Sally Thompson

Post by BrritSki

Post by Btms
*This is a word my Father wd use. I don't know why it rose to my
consciousness and apologise if it is unseemly. My Father never used
properly bad language but meanings change. I think this was his preferred
name for (ah cant spell this next word, help)..... Subbletuns

Subalterns

Oh don't spoil it. I preferred btms' version:-). I'm absolutely not
laughing at you btms so don't take this amiss.

I'm wondering if "subtletums" wouldn't be a better match for btms though.

May I suggest 'subtlebums' in btm's case?

[Btms]

Post by Mike McMillan

Post by Ralph B
(snip)

Post by Sally Thompson

Post by BrritSki

Post by Btms
*This is a word my Father wd use. I don't know why it rose to my
consciousness and apologise if it is unseemly. My Father never used
properly bad language but meanings change. I think this was his preferred
name for (ah cant spell this next word, help)..... Subbletuns

Subalterns

Oh don't spoil it. I preferred btms' version:-). I'm absolutely not
laughing at you btms so don't take this amiss.

I'm wondering if "subtletums" wouldn't be a better match for btms though.

May I suggest 'subtlebums' in btm's case?

Applications for Editor's job closes soon. I hope your "humour" will not
damage my image as a serious contender.

Note to self: do not name McToodles as a reference.

[Btms]

Post by BrritSki

Post by Btms

Post by Marjorie

Post by Btms
. What is it about the toffees.
It is a device which shows that since early childhood Helen feels guilty
and readily accepts blame..... For some reason or other she has little self
protection.
Well this is my two pennarth.

It was a bit of a waste of time, though, for Helen to blurt all this out
a criminal barrister, who is not a counsellor or a therapist. It would
be more constructive if she would actually discuss her feelings about
Rob and Henry, and the events of Stab Night.

I agree but if this twerp* decides to employ psychobabble in Court it may
become relevant.
Irl I doubt this would happen but in this particular incarnation, who
knows.
*This is a word my Father wd use. I don't know why it rose to my
consciousness and apologise if it is unseemly. My Father never used
properly bad language but meanings change. I think this was his preferred
name for (ah cant spell this next word, help)..... Subbletuns

Subalterns

Oh yes.......thank you. Leaves me wondering if there is such a creature as
an altern and if they can be twerps too. Just recalled this is what Pike
calls Hitler in Dad's Army.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Marjorie

Post by Btms
. What is it about the toffees.
It is a device which shows that since early childhood Helen feels guilty
and readily accepts blame..... For some reason or other she has little self
protection.
Well this is my two pennarth.

It was a bit of a waste of time, though, for Helen to blurt all this
out a criminal barrister, who is not a counsellor or a therapist. It

It was a bit of a waste of time on me, too: such stories from childhood
always go over my head, as I'm not a trained counsellor or therapist
either - but when I hear them I know their deep meaning will be
explained, tortuously and boringly, in the near future.

(I'm not saying such therapy doesn't have value - on the contrary, I
think things have improved in that respect in recent years; however, I
find their use in drama is often [mis]used as a lazy plot device. Much
like I acknowledge that split/multiple personality disorder really does
exist, but I very rarely see it presented as other than the cartoon
version in drama.)

Post by Marjorie
would be more constructive if she would actually discuss her feelings
about Rob and Henry, and the events of Stab Night.

Cynicism alert: I can see Stab Night becoming an annually-celebrated
anniversary. (Heaven help us, even used as an excuse/defence for such -
or similar - actions in future years.) 4/4, wasn't it? Easy to remember

[Sally Thompson]

Post by Vicky
On Thu, 12 May 2016 14:03:14 +0100, Marjorie

Post by Marjorie

Post by Marjorie

Post by DavidK
Can anyrat remind me where the caravan came from, and is it like to be a
touring caravan or a static one?

The one that the Fowlbrothers first moved onto the site must have been a
tourer, as it just appeared there one day without David knowing about
it. A static would require a special low loader to move it, and might
well have difficulty getting onto the field. We don't know whose it was
or where it came from.
At that stage they said they would just use it for the occasional
overnight stay, but eventually they appeared to be living in it
full-time. They then moved into a tent in order to keep the hens in the
van. They must have had to remove seats, beds, cooker, toilet, cupboards
etc from the van - heaven knows what they did with the contents and all
their worldly possessions while they lived in the tent.
Then they moved in with Bert, so there is presumably a rusting,
poo-filled, stinking hulk of a caravan sitting in the field.

Fowlbrothers ?. Is this a new one or have I not been paying attention. I
do like it v. much and nominate it as umraspeak.

I nicked it from someone on Mustardland, where I spend a lot of time now.

OK just had a look over there. Can't remember whether I have done so
before. What is it about the toffees? They are very excited about the
classy coffee maker stressing toffees and not picking up clues when
Helen gives them.
http://www.paranormal.org.uk/mustardland/viewtopic.php?t=78758
We both think the way the story has been handled is worse than just
bad programme making. It is criminal because they took a serious legal
subject with important social implications and have given wrong
information and the wrong impression and have misled the people who
might be in or get into this situation.

I've never seen Mustardland before, so thank you (I think).

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

[]

Post by Sally Thompson

Post by Vicky
http://www.paranormal.org.uk/mustardland/viewtopic.php?t=78758
We both think the way the story has been handled is worse than just
bad programme making. It is criminal because they took a serious legal
subject with important social implications and have given wrong
information and the wrong impression and have misled the people who
might be in or get into this situation.

(The fine legal points that have been raised here and elsewhere are
mostly, I'm sure, correct. The overall situation as presented - Rob
seems to most people to have been a caring person, stabbed by an
unstable woman - I find depressingly plausible. [I mean I could believe
it could play out the way it is doing.])

Post by Sally Thompson
I've never seen Mustardland before, so thank you (I think).

This seemed a good question:

lsd25 wrote:

I find it unbelievable that Helen keeps repeating, with gusto, that the
children aren't safe with Rob yet no one is asking why. It seems that
her "defence team" don't want to discover if there may be mitigating
circumstances, self defence or defence of child for example.

Ginnie replied:

It`s pathetic - gosh, how many times has she shouted `No, he can`t have
the baby` ...... yet the stupid barrister doesn`t even want to find out
why. Is there some law against her saying `Why is that Helen`. Duh.


So _is_ there?

I can see that there _could_ be accusations of "leading the witness", if
such lines were taken during an actual trial; but I am not aware (but
then I certainly ANAL) of any reason why the barrister can't, in the
privacy of talking to her client, pursue that line (specifically asking
"was Rob about to hurt Henry, or did you at least think he was"). Even
if there are rules against it, I can't really believe it wouldn't be
asked, in private.

[krw]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by Sally Thompson

Post by Vicky
http://www.paranormal.org.uk/mustardland/viewtopic.php?t=78758
We both think the way the story has been handled is worse than just
bad programme making. It is criminal because they took a serious legal
subject with important social implications and have given wrong
information and the wrong impression and have misled the people who
might be in or get into this situation.

(The fine legal points that have been raised here and elsewhere are
mostly, I'm sure, correct. The overall situation as presented - Rob
seems to most people to have been a caring person, stabbed by an
unstable woman - I find depressingly plausible. [I mean I could believe
it could play out the way it is doing.])

Post by Sally Thompson
I've never seen Mustardland before, so thank you (I think).

I find it unbelievable that Helen keeps repeating, with gusto, that the
children aren't safe with Rob yet no one is asking why. It seems that
her "defence team" don't want to discover if there may be mitigating
circumstances, self defence or defence of child for example.
It`s pathetic - gosh, how many times has she shouted `No, he can`t have
the baby` ...... yet the stupid barrister doesn`t even want to find out
why. Is there some law against her saying `Why is that Helen`. Duh.
So _is_ there?
I can see that there _could_ be accusations of "leading the witness", if
such lines were taken during an actual trial; but I am not aware (but
then I certainly ANAL) of any reason why the barrister can't, in the
privacy of talking to her client, pursue that line (specifically asking
"was Rob about to hurt Henry, or did you at least think he was"). Even
if there are rules against it, I can't really believe it wouldn't be
asked, in private.

Ms Toboggan has to be careful that she does not lead Helen into saying
something like "Rob was goading me so I decided he had to be silenced
and I therefore attempted to kill him". If she admits that was her
frame of mind she has admitted guilt and consequently the barrister
would no longer be able to act for the client.

I find it odd that the barrister is so heavily involved. At this stage
the solicitor should be doing the donkey work because barristers are
expensive.

[Chris J Dixon]

Post by krw
I find it odd that the barrister is so heavily involved. At this stage
the solicitor should be doing the donkey work because barristers are
expensive.

Wasn't that also one of a number of issues with Broadchurch 2?

Chris

[Vicky]

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by krw
I find it odd that the barrister is so heavily involved. At this stage
the solicitor should be doing the donkey work because barristers are
expensive.

Wasn't that also one of a number of issues with Broadchurch 2?
Chris

In this case the Barrister is the daughter of an aunt, so perhaps
personally concerned.

[carolet]

Post by krw

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by Sally Thompson

Post by Vicky
http://www.paranormal.org.uk/mustardland/viewtopic.php?t=78758
We both think the way the story has been handled is worse than just
bad programme making. It is criminal because they took a serious legal
subject with important social implications and have given wrong
information and the wrong impression and have misled the people who
might be in or get into this situation.

(The fine legal points that have been raised here and elsewhere are
mostly, I'm sure, correct. The overall situation as presented - Rob
seems to most people to have been a caring person, stabbed by an
unstable woman - I find depressingly plausible. [I mean I could believe
it could play out the way it is doing.])

Post by Sally Thompson
I've never seen Mustardland before, so thank you (I think).

I find it unbelievable that Helen keeps repeating, with gusto, that the
children aren't safe with Rob yet no one is asking why. It seems that
her "defence team" don't want to discover if there may be mitigating
circumstances, self defence or defence of child for example.
It`s pathetic - gosh, how many times has she shouted `No, he can`t have
the baby` ...... yet the stupid barrister doesn`t even want to find out
why. Is there some law against her saying `Why is that Helen`. Duh.
So _is_ there?
I can see that there _could_ be accusations of "leading the witness", if
such lines were taken during an actual trial; but I am not aware (but
then I certainly ANAL) of any reason why the barrister can't, in the
privacy of talking to her client, pursue that line (specifically asking
"was Rob about to hurt Henry, or did you at least think he was"). Even
if there are rules against it, I can't really believe it wouldn't be
asked, in private.

Ms Toboggan has to be careful that she does not lead Helen into saying
something like "Rob was goading me so I decided he had to be silenced
and I therefore attempted to kill him". If she admits that was her
frame of mind she has admitted guilt and consequently the barrister
would no longer be able to act for the client.
I find it odd that the barrister is so heavily involved. At this stage
the solicitor should be doing the donkey work because barristers are
expensive.

Helen is Anna's Godmother's great niece. Is she charging at a cheap rate
because they are almost family?

[krw]

Post by carolet

Post by krw

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by Sally Thompson

Post by Vicky
http://www.paranormal.org.uk/mustardland/viewtopic.php?t=78758
We both think the way the story has been handled is worse than just
bad programme making. It is criminal because they took a serious legal
subject with important social implications and have given wrong
information and the wrong impression and have misled the people who
might be in or get into this situation.

(The fine legal points that have been raised here and elsewhere are
mostly, I'm sure, correct. The overall situation as presented - Rob
seems to most people to have been a caring person, stabbed by an
unstable woman - I find depressingly plausible. [I mean I could believe
it could play out the way it is doing.])

Post by Sally Thompson
I've never seen Mustardland before, so thank you (I think).

I find it unbelievable that Helen keeps repeating, with gusto, that the
children aren't safe with Rob yet no one is asking why. It seems that
her "defence team" don't want to discover if there may be mitigating
circumstances, self defence or defence of child for example.
It`s pathetic - gosh, how many times has she shouted `No, he can`t have
the baby` ...... yet the stupid barrister doesn`t even want to find out
why. Is there some law against her saying `Why is that Helen`. Duh.
So _is_ there?
I can see that there _could_ be accusations of "leading the witness", if
such lines were taken during an actual trial; but I am not aware (but
then I certainly ANAL) of any reason why the barrister can't, in the
privacy of talking to her client, pursue that line (specifically asking
"was Rob about to hurt Henry, or did you at least think he was"). Even
if there are rules against it, I can't really believe it wouldn't be
asked, in private.

Ms Toboggan has to be careful that she does not lead Helen into saying
something like "Rob was goading me so I decided he had to be silenced
and I therefore attempted to kill him". If she admits that was her
frame of mind she has admitted guilt and consequently the barrister
would no longer be able to act for the client.
I find it odd that the barrister is so heavily involved. At this stage
the solicitor should be doing the donkey work because barristers are
expensive.

Helen is Anna's Godmother's great niece. Is she charging at a cheap rate
because they are almost family?

For the hearing about Henry? Just seems unlikely.

[Marjorie]

Post by krw

Post by carolet

Post by krw

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by Sally Thompson

Post by Vicky
http://www.paranormal.org.uk/mustardland/viewtopic.php?t=78758
We both think the way the story has been handled is worse than just
bad programme making. It is criminal because they took a serious legal
subject with important social implications and have given wrong
information and the wrong impression and have misled the people who
might be in or get into this situation.

(The fine legal points that have been raised here and elsewhere are
mostly, I'm sure, correct. The overall situation as presented - Rob
seems to most people to have been a caring person, stabbed by an
unstable woman - I find depressingly plausible. [I mean I could believe
it could play out the way it is doing.])

Post by Sally Thompson
I've never seen Mustardland before, so thank you (I think).

I find it unbelievable that Helen keeps repeating, with gusto, that the
children aren't safe with Rob yet no one is asking why. It seems that
her "defence team" don't want to discover if there may be mitigating
circumstances, self defence or defence of child for example.
It`s pathetic - gosh, how many times has she shouted `No, he can`t have
the baby` ...... yet the stupid barrister doesn`t even want to find out
why. Is there some law against her saying `Why is that Helen`. Duh.
So _is_ there?
I can see that there _could_ be accusations of "leading the
witness", if
such lines were taken during an actual trial; but I am not aware (but
then I certainly ANAL) of any reason why the barrister can't, in the
privacy of talking to her client, pursue that line (specifically asking
"was Rob about to hurt Henry, or did you at least think he was"). Even
if there are rules against it, I can't really believe it wouldn't be
asked, in private.

Ms Toboggan has to be careful that she does not lead Helen into saying
something like "Rob was goading me so I decided he had to be silenced
and I therefore attempted to kill him". If she admits that was her
frame of mind she has admitted guilt and consequently the barrister
would no longer be able to act for the client.
I find it odd that the barrister is so heavily involved. At this stage
the solicitor should be doing the donkey work because barristers are
expensive.

Helen is Anna's Godmother's great niece. Is she charging at a cheap rate
because they are almost family?

For the hearing about Henry? Just seems unlikely.

Some of us thought that was Anna, but it wasn't, it was a solicitor
hired by Pat and Tony, who sounded a bit like her.

[carolet]

Post by Marjorie

Post by krw

Post by carolet

Post by krw

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by Sally Thompson

Post by Vicky
http://www.paranormal.org.uk/mustardland/viewtopic.php?t=78758
We both think the way the story has been handled is worse than just
bad programme making. It is criminal because they took a serious legal
subject with important social implications and have given wrong
information and the wrong impression and have misled the people who
might be in or get into this situation.

(The fine legal points that have been raised here and elsewhere are
mostly, I'm sure, correct. The overall situation as presented - Rob
seems to most people to have been a caring person, stabbed by an
unstable woman - I find depressingly plausible. [I mean I could believe
it could play out the way it is doing.])

Post by Sally Thompson
I've never seen Mustardland before, so thank you (I think).

I find it unbelievable that Helen keeps repeating, with gusto, that the
children aren't safe with Rob yet no one is asking why. It seems that
her "defence team" don't want to discover if there may be mitigating
circumstances, self defence or defence of child for example.
It`s pathetic - gosh, how many times has she shouted `No, he can`t have
the baby` ...... yet the stupid barrister doesn`t even want to find out
why. Is there some law against her saying `Why is that Helen`. Duh.
So _is_ there?
I can see that there _could_ be accusations of "leading the witness", if
such lines were taken during an actual trial; but I am not aware (but
then I certainly ANAL) of any reason why the barrister can't, in the
privacy of talking to her client, pursue that line (specifically asking
"was Rob about to hurt Henry, or did you at least think he was"). Even
if there are rules against it, I can't really believe it wouldn't be
asked, in private.

Ms Toboggan has to be careful that she does not lead Helen into saying
something like "Rob was goading me so I decided he had to be silenced
and I therefore attempted to kill him". If she admits that was her
frame of mind she has admitted guilt and consequently the barrister
would no longer be able to act for the client.
I find it odd that the barrister is so heavily involved. At this stage
the solicitor should be doing the donkey work because barristers are
expensive.

Helen is Anna's Godmother's great niece. Is she charging at a cheap rate
because they are almost family?

For the hearing about Henry? Just seems unlikely.

Some of us thought that was Anna, but it wasn't, it was a solicitor
hired by Pat and Tony, who sounded a bit like her.

The hearing regarding Henry's custody was on the 27th April. Tony said
that Dominic would be the solicitor representing Helen, with Anna
representing Helen in court, a solicitor called Maggie would be
representing Pat and Tony, and Rob's solicitor was called Stephen. We
heard from Stephen and Anna in court, but not Maggie or Dominic. At
least, that is what I understood, and the cast list seems to support
that, as neither Maggie nor Dominic were listed.

[Marjorie]

Post by carolet

Post by Marjorie

Post by krw

Post by carolet

Post by krw

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by Sally Thompson

Post by Vicky
http://www.paranormal.org.uk/mustardland/viewtopic.php?t=78758
We both think the way the story has been handled is worse than just
bad programme making. It is criminal because they took a serious legal
subject with important social implications and have given wrong
information and the wrong impression and have misled the people who
might be in or get into this situation.

(The fine legal points that have been raised here and elsewhere are
mostly, I'm sure, correct. The overall situation as presented - Rob
seems to most people to have been a caring person, stabbed by an
unstable woman - I find depressingly plausible. [I mean I could believe
it could play out the way it is doing.])

Post by Sally Thompson
I've never seen Mustardland before, so thank you (I think).

I find it unbelievable that Helen keeps repeating, with gusto, that the
children aren't safe with Rob yet no one is asking why. It seems that
her "defence team" don't want to discover if there may be mitigating
circumstances, self defence or defence of child for example.
It`s pathetic - gosh, how many times has she shouted `No, he can`t have
the baby` ...... yet the stupid barrister doesn`t even want to find out
why. Is there some law against her saying `Why is that Helen`. Duh.
So _is_ there?
I can see that there _could_ be accusations of "leading the witness", if
such lines were taken during an actual trial; but I am not aware (but
then I certainly ANAL) of any reason why the barrister can't, in the
privacy of talking to her client, pursue that line (specifically asking
"was Rob about to hurt Henry, or did you at least think he was"). Even
if there are rules against it, I can't really believe it wouldn't be
asked, in private.

Ms Toboggan has to be careful that she does not lead Helen into saying
something like "Rob was goading me so I decided he had to be silenced
and I therefore attempted to kill him". If she admits that was her
frame of mind she has admitted guilt and consequently the barrister
would no longer be able to act for the client.
I find it odd that the barrister is so heavily involved. At this stage
the solicitor should be doing the donkey work because barristers are
expensive.

Helen is Anna's Godmother's great niece. Is she charging at a cheap rate
because they are almost family?

For the hearing about Henry? Just seems unlikely.

Some of us thought that was Anna, but it wasn't, it was a solicitor
hired by Pat and Tony, who sounded a bit like her.

The hearing regarding Henry's custody was on the 27th April. Tony said
that Dominic would be the solicitor representing Helen, with Anna
representing Helen in court, a solicitor called Maggie would be
representing Pat and Tony, and Rob's solicitor was called Stephen. We
heard from Stephen and Anna in court, but not Maggie or Dominic. At
least, that is what I understood, and the cast list seems to support
that, as neither Maggie nor Dominic were listed.

Now I am totally confused. Why would a criminal barrister be
representing Helen in a custody hearing, in a civil court? Does a
barrister have any role in such events? And she didn't seem to be
putting Helen's point of view in anything we heard (possibly because
Helen had so far failed to express it). Dominic is, let's face it, out
of a job now, as Anna has carved a niche for helrself as
barrister/solicitor rolled into one.

The cast lists aren't always much help now, as they so frequently
include people who are not heard, or don't include all who are.

[Vicky]

On Sun, 15 May 2016 17:56:53 +0100, Marjorie

Post by Marjorie

Post by carolet

On 13/5/16 12:00 PM, carolet wro

The hearing regarding Henry's custody was on the 27th April. Tony said
that Dominic would be the solicitor representing Helen, with Anna
representing Helen in court, a solicitor called Maggie would be
representing Pat and Tony, and Rob's solicitor was called Stephen. We
heard from Stephen and Anna in court, but not Maggie or Dominic. At
least, that is what I understood, and the cast list seems to support
that, as neither Maggie nor Dominic were listed.

Now I am totally confused. Why would a criminal barrister be
representing Helen in a custody hearing, in a civil court? Does a
barrister have any role in such events? And she didn't seem to be
putting Helen's point of view in anything we heard (possibly because
Helen had so far failed to express it). Dominic is, let's face it, out
of a job now, as Anna has carved a niche for helrself as
barrister/solicitor rolled into one.
The cast lists aren't always much help now, as they so frequently
include people who are not heard, or don't include all who are.

Maybe those people in the cast list we don't hear were present but
silent. Soc never really got the hang of radio, so perhaps he thinks
we saw them.

[krw]

Post by Marjorie
Some of us thought that was Anna, but it wasn't, it was a solicitor
hired by Pat and Tony, who sounded a bit like her.

No it was Anna. Another solicitor was mentioned but in court it was Anna.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <nh443h$rav$***@gioia.aioe.org>, krw <***@whitnet.uk> writes:
[]

Post by krw
Ms Toboggan has to be careful that she does not lead Helen into saying
something like "Rob was goading me so I decided he had to be silenced
and I therefore attempted to kill him". If she admits that was her

I would hope a reasonably experienced barrister would not have too much
difficulty in allowing "I thought he was going to harm Henry" but
keeping off just the "goading" aspect.

Post by krw
frame of mind she has admitted guilt and consequently the barrister
would no longer be able to act for the client.

How many barristers/solicitors truly adhere to that, when the admission
is in private, though? (Of course we can never know.)

Post by krw
I find it odd that the barrister is so heavily involved. At this stage
the solicitor should be doing the donkey work because barristers are
expensive.

The subject of her pay has of course been deliberately clouded (has it
even been mentioned _at all_?), but I get the _impression_ that she's
working either pro bono or very cheaply, for a combination of being
(very distant!) family or friend of family, and also feeling strongly
about the subject. (I think it was mentioned when she was first mooted,
that she specialised in such matters.)

[krw]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
How many barristers/solicitors truly adhere to that, when the admission
is in private, though? (Of course we can never know.)

All of them - it is their equivalent of the hippocratic oath.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by krw
I find it odd that the barrister is so heavily involved. At this
stage the solicitor should be doing the donkey work because barristers
are expensive.

The subject of her pay has of course been deliberately clouded (has it
even been mentioned _at all_?), but I get the _impression_ that she's
working either pro bono or very cheaply, for a combination of being
(very distant!) family or friend of family, and also feeling strongly
about the subject. (I think it was mentioned when she was first mooted,
that she specialised in such matters.)

No - she made it clear that whilst legal aid might pay part of the bill
her time was on the clock.

[the Omrud]

Post by krw

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
How many barristers/solicitors truly adhere to that, when the admission
is in private, though? (Of course we can never know.)

All of them - it is their equivalent of the hippocratic oath.

Which, BTW, is a theoretical oath, not an actual oath. UK doctors do
not "take" it, although the underlying principles are understood to be
part of professional duty.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by krw

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
How many barristers/solicitors truly adhere to that, when the admission
is in private, though? (Of course we can never know.)

All of them - it is their equivalent of the hippocratic oath.

[]
(Dropping a case when they become convinced of the guilt of their
client.)

Are you in the profession?

I can't believe it's all of them: quite apart from there must be a few
venal ones who'll continue regardless for monetary reasons (as you
imply, hopefully only a small proportion), and also some (again
hopefully a tiny proportion) where they fear for their or their
families' safety if they don't, there must also be cases where they feel
the action, though in theory illegal, could arguably be justified. In
the case of Helen, "Rob was goading me so I decided he had to be
silenced and I therefore attempted to kill him" could also be "Rob was
going on without a break such that he didn't give me a chance to think
calmly about the consequences of my actions". Sort of a psychological
similarity to where neighbours do something violent - such as smashing
equipment - in the face of continued noise from a neighbour.

And the Hippocratic oath: (a) I'm sure that both assisted suicide and
mercy killing are both slightly commoner than obvious statistics show,
and would be even commoner if the doctors did not fear legal [rather
than moral] consequences; and (b) things are not always black and white,
sometimes neither course of action (or inaction) open to a doctor will
"do no harm".

[Joe Kerr]

On Sat, 14 May 2016 12:18:28 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by krw

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
How many barristers/solicitors truly adhere to that, when the admission
is in private, though? (Of course we can never know.)

All of them - it is their equivalent of the hippocratic oath.

[]
(Dropping a case when they become convinced of the guilt of their
client.)
Are you in the profession?
I can't believe it's all of them: quite apart from there must be a few
venal ones who'll continue regardless for monetary reasons (as you
imply, hopefully only a small proportion), and also some (again
hopefully a tiny proportion) where they fear for their or their
families' safety if they don't, there must also be cases where they feel
the action, though in theory illegal, could arguably be justified. In
the case of Helen, "Rob was goading me so I decided he had to be
silenced and I therefore attempted to kill him" could also be "Rob was
going on without a break such that he didn't give me a chance to think
calmly about the consequences of my actions". Sort of a psychological
similarity to where neighbours do something violent - such as smashing
equipment - in the face of continued noise from a neighbour.

The role of a defence barrister is not necessarily to get the defendant
acquitted but to prevent them from being found guilty of a crime they did
not commit. For example, they could argue that the defendant was guilty of
manslaughter rather than murder as charged. This means they not so much
have to believe whether the defendant did it, but what their motives were
and the circumstances at the time of the act.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
And the Hippocratic oath: (a) I'm sure that both assisted suicide and
mercy killing are both slightly commoner than obvious statistics show,
and would be even commoner if the doctors did not fear legal [rather
than moral] consequences; and (b) things are not always black and white,
sometimes neither course of action (or inaction) open to a doctor will
"do no harm".

I thought that was Google's[*] philosophy, but the first problem is to
define "harm".

* Interestingly, the spool chucker thinks they should be called the rather
apt Go Ogle.

[Chris J Dixon]

Post by Joe Kerr
The role of a defence barrister is not necessarily to get the defendant
acquitted but to prevent them from being found guilty of a crime they did
not commit. For example, they could argue that the defendant was guilty of
manslaughter rather than murder as charged. This means they not so much
have to believe whether the defendant did it, but what their motives were
and the circumstances at the time of the act.

It was interesting to see how things developed in this week's 24
Hours in Police Custody.

Initially the perpetrator presented, and was to some degree
accepted, as someone caught in a situation the went tragically
wrong. As witness evidence was gathered, the picture changed.

He was found guilty of manslaughter, and is presently awaiting
sentencing.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-36072162>

Chris

[Chris McMillan]

Post by Joe Kerr
On Sat, 14 May 2016 12:18:28 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by krw

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
How many barristers/solicitors truly adhere to that, when the admission
is in private, though? (Of course we can never know.)

All of them - it is their equivalent of the hippocratic oath.

[]
(Dropping a case when they become convinced of the guilt of their
client.)
Are you in the profession?
I can't believe it's all of them: quite apart from there must be a few
venal ones who'll continue regardless for monetary reasons (as you
imply, hopefully only a small proportion), and also some (again
hopefully a tiny proportion) where they fear for their or their
families' safety if they don't, there must also be cases where they feel
the action, though in theory illegal, could arguably be justified. In
the case of Helen, "Rob was goading me so I decided he had to be
silenced and I therefore attempted to kill him" could also be "Rob was
going on without a break such that he didn't give me a chance to think
calmly about the consequences of my actions". Sort of a psychological
similarity to where neighbours do something violent - such as smashing
equipment - in the face of continued noise from a neighbour.

The role of a defence barrister is not necessarily to get the defendant
acquitted but to prevent them from being found guilty of a crime they did
not commit. For example, they could argue that the defendant was guilty of
manslaughter rather than murder as charged. This means they not so much
have to believe whether the defendant did it, but what their motives were
and the circumstances at the time of the act.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
And the Hippocratic oath: (a) I'm sure that both assisted suicide and
mercy killing are both slightly commoner than obvious statistics show,
and would be even commoner if the doctors did not fear legal [rather
than moral] consequences; and (b) things are not always black and white,
sometimes neither course of action (or inaction) open to a doctor will
"do no harm".

I thought that was Google's[*] philosophy, but the first problem is to
define "harm".
* Interestingly, the spool chucker thinks they should be called the rather
apt Go Ogle.

Any other-rat think Helen might be charged as committing the crime while
her mind is unbalanced (or however its described) at the end of the trial?

Sincerely Chris

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <SY_Zy.928206$***@fx45.am4>, Chris McMillan
<***@ntlworld.com> writes:
[]

Post by Chris McMillan
Any other-rat think Helen might be charged as committing the crime while
her mind is unbalanced (or however its described) at the end of the trial?
Sincerely Chris

I hope not, unless that's the best she can get, because it still puts a
black mark on her record - not the crime (though it'd be that as well),
but the stigma of mental illness (which _is_ still most definitely a
stigma in this country).

Anyway, doesn't a "diminished responsibility while the balance of mind
is disturbed" appeal have to be lodged by the defence? Or can the court
(or judge, or whatever) arbitrarily declare it?

[Chris McMillan]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by Chris McMillan
Any other-rat think Helen might be charged as committing the crime while
her mind is unbalanced (or however its described) at the end of the trial?
Sincerely Chris

I hope not, unless that's the best she can get, because it still puts a
black mark on her record - not the crime (though it'd be that as well),
but the stigma of mental illness (which _is_ still most definitely a
stigma in this country).
Anyway, doesn't a "diminished responsibility while the balance of mind
is disturbed" appeal have to be lodged by the defence? Or can the court
(or judge, or whatever) arbitrarily declare it?

No idea, JPEG, I don't know anything about the court

Sincerely Chris

[Marjorie]

Post by Chris McMillan

Post by Joe Kerr
On Sat, 14 May 2016 12:18:28 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by krw

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
How many barristers/solicitors truly adhere to that, when the admission
is in private, though? (Of course we can never know.)

All of them - it is their equivalent of the hippocratic oath.

[]
(Dropping a case when they become convinced of the guilt of their
client.)
Are you in the profession?
I can't believe it's all of them: quite apart from there must be a few
venal ones who'll continue regardless for monetary reasons (as you
imply, hopefully only a small proportion), and also some (again
hopefully a tiny proportion) where they fear for their or their
families' safety if they don't, there must also be cases where they feel
the action, though in theory illegal, could arguably be justified. In
the case of Helen, "Rob was goading me so I decided he had to be
silenced and I therefore attempted to kill him" could also be "Rob was
going on without a break such that he didn't give me a chance to think
calmly about the consequences of my actions". Sort of a psychological
similarity to where neighbours do something violent - such as smashing
equipment - in the face of continued noise from a neighbour.

The role of a defence barrister is not necessarily to get the defendant
acquitted but to prevent them from being found guilty of a crime they did
not commit. For example, they could argue that the defendant was guilty of
manslaughter rather than murder as charged. This means they not so much
have to believe whether the defendant did it, but what their motives were
and the circumstances at the time of the act.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
And the Hippocratic oath: (a) I'm sure that both assisted suicide and
mercy killing are both slightly commoner than obvious statistics show,
and would be even commoner if the doctors did not fear legal [rather
than moral] consequences; and (b) things are not always black and white,
sometimes neither course of action (or inaction) open to a doctor will
"do no harm".

I thought that was Google's[*] philosophy, but the first problem is to
define "harm".
* Interestingly, the spool chucker thinks they should be called the rather
apt Go Ogle.

Any other-rat think Helen might be charged as committing the crime while
her mind is unbalanced (or however its described) at the end of the trial?

I have a feeling (but legalrats my know different) that this can be used
as a defence against murder - i.e. if she'd actually killed him - but
not in the case of a lesser charge.

[Btms]

[]
[]

Post by Marjorie

Post by Chris McMillan
Any other-rat think Helen might be charged as committing the crime while
her mind is unbalanced (or however its described) at the end of the trial?

I have a feeling (but legalrats my know different) that this can be used
as a defence against murder - i.e. if she'd actually killed him - but
not in the case of a lesser charge.

I may well be quite wrong but I understand murder has to be pre meditated.
For this reason the issue of what she says about "I want to kill him" is
important. If it is claimed that Rob put the knife in her hand the
suggestion of pre meditation collapses as I see it.

Helen has, imho, been portrayed as rather controlling herself and taking
against anyone who disagrees or challenges her. In Rob she has certainly
met her match.

[Iain Archer]

Post by Btms
[]
[]

Post by Marjorie

Post by Chris McMillan
Any other-rat think Helen might be charged as committing the crime while
her mind is unbalanced (or however its described) at the end of the trial?

I have a feeling (but legalrats my know different) that this can be used
as a defence against murder - i.e. if she'd actually killed him - but
not in the case of a lesser charge.

I may well be quite wrong but I understand murder has to be pre meditated.

True, you are quite wrong.

Post by Btms
For this reason the issue of what she says about "I want to kill him" is
important. If it is claimed that Rob put the knife in her hand the
suggestion of pre meditation collapses as I see it.

It's still important, because it possibly goes to the question of
intention.
For murder, there has to be an an act motivated by an intention to do
serious harm, and a resulting death. I think it's generally accepted
that a decision to wield a knife against someone is usually pretty good
evidence in itself of a wish to do serious harm. At present I'm not
sure we even know that she wielded the knife against him, let alone what
she intended. Though if she says nothing I think most will conclude,
beyond reasonable doubt, that she did. And that's without hearing Rob's
evidence.

Post by Btms
Helen has, imho, been portrayed as rather controlling herself and taking
against anyone who disagrees or challenges her.

I'm not sure of those points. I think there's a post in my drafting
folder where I want to take that up.

Post by Btms
In Rob she has certainly met her match.

And today Andy Murray even managed to beat wotsisname for once.

[Btms]

Post by Iain Archer

Post by Btms
[]
[]

Post by Marjorie

Post by Chris McMillan
Any other-rat think Helen might be charged as committing the crime while
her mind is unbalanced (or however its described) at the end of the trial?

I have a feeling (but legalrats my know different) that this can be used
as a defence against murder - i.e. if she'd actually killed him - but
not in the case of a lesser charge.

I may well be quite wrong but I understand murder has to be pre meditated.

True, you are quite wrong.

Post by Btms
For this reason the issue of what she says about "I want to kill him" is
important. If it is claimed that Rob put the knife in her hand the
suggestion of pre meditation collapses as I see it.

It's still important, because it possibly goes to the question of
intention.

It has to be premeditated if it has to be intended. What we heard sounded
like a spontaneous act without thought.

Post by Iain Archer
For murder, there has to be an an act motivated by an intention to do
serious harm, and a resulting death. I think it's generally accepted
that a decision to wield a knife against someone is usually pretty good
evidence in itself of a wish to do serious harm.

See above. I don't accept intention is a given fact here.

At present I'm not

Post by Iain Archer
sure we even know that she wielded the knife against him, let alone what
she intended.

I doubt Helen knows either.

Though if she says nothing I think most will conclude,

Post by Iain Archer
beyond reasonable doubt, that she did. And that's without hearing Rob's
evidence.

Probably. This seems self evident.

Post by Iain Archer

Post by Btms
Helen has, imho, been portrayed as rather controlling herself and taking
against anyone who disagrees or challenges her.

I'm not sure of those points. I think there's a post in my drafting
folder where I want to take that up.

Well when you do reflect on all her history not just this spinoff from a
programme that has been hi-jacked.

Post by Iain Archer

Post by Btms
In Rob she has certainly met her match.

And today Andy Murray even managed to beat wotsisname for once.

Yes indeed 👏

[Marjorie]

Post by Btms
It has to be premeditated if it has to be intended. What we heard sounded
like a spontaneous act without thought.

The thing is, we heard that but the judge and jury didn't. All they
will know is what Helen and Rob say and possibly what Henry says. On
present form:
Rob will lie.
Helen will gibber helplessly, or just say nothing.
Henry will babble like a toddler.
I don't know what sense they'll make of that!

[Btms]

Post by Marjorie

Post by Btms
It has to be premeditated if it has to be intended. What we heard sounded
like a spontaneous act without thought.

The thing is, we heard that but the judge and jury didn't. All they
will know is what Helen and Rob say and possibly what Henry says. On
Rob will lie.
Helen will gibber helplessly, or just say nothing.
Henry will babble like a toddler.
I don't know what sense they'll make of that!

Yes. I think I was discussing the nature of what would amount to murder.
I agree with your point. Were Helen to recall what happened, including the
goading of Rob, we could move forward a little. This dramatic irony device
is overplayed.

What with that and Pat toddling off to police to explain.

Not to mention the legal processes that somerats declare unprofessional.

Oh sorry. I just mentioned them.

[Sam Plusnet]

In article <2106462147.485204314.941828.poppy-
***@news.eternal-september.org>, ***@thetames.me.uk says...

snip

Post by Btms
Were Helen to recall what happened, including the
goading of Rob, we could move forward a little.

But only a little.

The Prosecution would point out that this defence (or plea for
mitigation) was never once mentioned in the weeks following the event.
That alone would cast one heck of a lot of doubt on Helen's story.

Since everyone in Ambridge seems convinced that Rob is a terribly nice
chap, it seems reasonable to assume the jury will not immediately spot
him as a wrong 'un.

Perhaps the dramatic twist will occur when a member of the jury points
out that his eyes are rather close together.

[Jim Easterbrook]

Post by Sam Plusnet
Since everyone in Ambridge seems convinced that Rob is a terribly nice
chap, it seems reasonable to assume the jury will not immediately spot
him as a wrong 'un.
Perhaps the dramatic twist will occur when a member of the jury points
out that his eyes are rather close together.

Or that he's black.

[Vicky]

Post by Sam Plusnet
In article <2106462147.485204314.941828.poppy-
snip

Post by Btms
Were Helen to recall what happened, including the
goading of Rob, we could move forward a little.

But only a little.
The Prosecution would point out that this defence (or plea for
mitigation) was never once mentioned in the weeks following the event.
That alone would cast one heck of a lot of doubt on Helen's story.

She was in shock. Trauma suffered. I think it is reasonable to believe
that. She was in a vulnerable state and her condition is surely
acceptable as a contributory cause. Stress of imprisonment and threat
of having the baby taken away. Worry about Henry.

Post by Sam Plusnet
Since everyone in Ambridge seems convinced that Rob is a terribly nice
chap, it seems reasonable to assume the jury will not immediately spot
him as a wrong 'un.
Perhaps the dramatic twist will occur when a member of the jury points
out that his eyes are rather close together.

[Btms]

Post by Vicky

Post by Sam Plusnet
In article <2106462147.485204314.941828.poppy-
snip

Post by Btms
Were Helen to recall what happened, including the
goading of Rob, we could move forward a little.

But only a little.
The Prosecution would point out that this defence (or plea for
mitigation) was never once mentioned in the weeks following the event.
That alone would cast one heck of a lot of doubt on Helen's story.

She was in shock. Trauma suffered. I think it is reasonable to believe
that. She was in a vulnerable state and her condition is surely
acceptable as a contributory cause. Stress of imprisonment and threat
of having the baby taken away. Worry about Henry.

Post by Sam Plusnet
Since everyone in Ambridge seems convinced that Rob is a terribly nice
chap, it seems reasonable to assume the jury will not immediately spot
him as a wrong 'un.
Perhaps the dramatic twist will occur when a member of the jury points
out that his eyes are rather close together.

It is common for folk to not recall after severe shock isn't it? I am
thinking of phrases like: "the last thing I remember is seeing the lights
turn red...." For example.

Anyway jurys are not bound by the the law. Certainly the one I sat on
agreed unanimously that the accused was probably guilty but ten members
were unwilling to return a guilty vote. Basically they didn't think it
much of a crime. The two/three who was less sure about this way of
returning a verdict went along with it ...... Various reasons but the point
is that what influenced the jury was their own value system.

[Sid Nuncius]

Post by Btms
It is common for folk to not recall after severe shock isn't it? I am
thinking of phrases like: "the last thing I remember is seeing the lights
turn red...." For example.

Or, indeed, the immortal:
"Well, the last thing I remember, Doc
I started to swerve
And then I saw the Jag slide into the curve..."
from the towering masterpiece that is Dead Man's Curve by Jan & Dean:

Sorry. Nothing to do with anything, but I can't see that phrase without
hearing DMC in my head.

[Mike McMillan]

Post by Sid Nuncius

Post by Btms
It is common for folk to not recall after severe shock isn't it? I am
thinking of phrases like: "the last thing I remember is seeing the lights
turn red...." For example.

"Well, the last thing I remember, Doc
I started to swerve
And then I saw the Jag slide into the curve..."
http://youtu.be/S1Cuekbklkg
Sorry. Nothing to do with anything, but I can't see that phrase without
hearing DMC in my head.

'The flashing red light on the car you hit blinded you?' Bob Newhart. The
driving instructor.

[krw]

Post by Sam Plusnet
The Prosecution would point out that this defence (or plea for
mitigation) was never once mentioned in the weeks following the event.
That alone would cast one heck of a lot of doubt on Helen's story.

One is entitled to remain silent. No need to tell the prosecution when
you are not in a fit state to do so.

[Serena Blanchflower]

Post by krw

Post by Sam Plusnet
The Prosecution would point out that this defence (or plea for
mitigation) was never once mentioned in the weeks following the event.
That alone would cast one heck of a lot of doubt on Helen's story.

One is entitled to remain silent. No need to tell the prosecution when
you are not in a fit state to do so.

You are, but the prosecution, and the court, is entitled to draw
whatever inferences they choose from that. In this case, they may well
infer that Helen chose to remain silent to give herself time to come up
with a plausible story.

[Btms]

Post by Serena Blanchflower

Post by krw

Post by Sam Plusnet
The Prosecution would point out that this defence (or plea for
mitigation) was never once mentioned in the weeks following the event.
That alone would cast one heck of a lot of doubt on Helen's story.

One is entitled to remain silent. No need to tell the prosecution when
you are not in a fit state to do so.

You are, but the prosecution, and the court, is entitled to draw
whatever inferences they choose from that. In this case, they may well
infer that Helen chose to remain silent to give herself time to come up
with a plausible story.

I think not being able to recall anything is quite a good defence. But she
would need folk like Jess to speak up and Kirsty.

[Iain Archer]

It has to be premeditated if it has to be intended. What we heard
sounded like a spontaneous act without thought.

Even if I spontaneously broke into song at the sight of your posting I
would still be held to have an intention to sing, to the extent that it
wasn't a nervous tic, or an act of delirium. I couldn't truly say "I
couldn't help it. I was not responsible for my action." or "It was an
accident. I was trying to sniff but accidentally sang instead."

I do appreciate the distinction between spontaneous and planned. Until
?2010 it would have been of great relevance, if Helen had managed to
kill him and then pleaded provocation. If the gap between the
provocation and the action was negligible (and having the knife already
in her hand would, ironically, have been of benefit to that argument)
she might have had one of those partial defences that reduce murder to
mere manslaughter. The nearest equivalent now is loss of control, which
may be instantaneous but doesn't have to be. As in eg:
<http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Ahluwalia.php>.

The thing is, we heard that but the judge and jury didn't. All they
will know is what Helen and Rob say and possibly what Henry says. On
Rob will lie.
Helen will gibber helplessly, or just say nothing.
Henry will babble like a toddler.
I don't know what sense they'll make of that!

I think it's possible that they will use Henry's video interview as his
evidence in chief. It's also possible for the cross examination and any
reexamination to be done on video before the trial, if the court so
wills. If he does have to turn up on the day, it can at least be done
on a live video link without his having to go into the actual courtroom.

For a non-murder, and given that she's not unfit to plead, I think that
leaves only exceptional caritas from the jury, or a reduction in
sentence on account of mitigating factors, for her to hope for. Even
then, committing the crime in front of a child turns out to be an
aggravating factor that goes in the opposite direction.

I still lean to the view that even the present facts known to us can't
save her from conviction. A late recollection that it happened
accidentally is my best bet for a get-out-of-jail-free card, if that's
what the gods want to give us.

[krw]

Post by Iain Archer
I still lean to the view that even the present facts known to us can't
save her from conviction.

I think if AT is any good she will cross examine Rob on the nonsense
statement he has given to Moseley and his story will fall apart.

AT can then use that to say he has been lying throughout and that he has
had the opportunity to influence Henry's evidence.

So the case falls apart.

If she is bright enough to know what has been going on.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by krw

Post by Iain Archer
I still lean to the view that even the present facts known to us can't
save her from conviction.

I think if AT is any good she will cross examine Rob on the nonsense
statement he has given to Moseley and his story will fall apart.
AT can then use that to say he has been lying throughout and that he
has had the opportunity to influence Henry's evidence.

Yes, that's an interesting point - if Helen can't talk to Pat (or is it
vice versa), how come Rob can talk to (in fact much more) Henry?

I suppose the answer will be that Rob hasn't been charged with anything.
(I was going to say yet, but so far there looks like no chance of him
being charged with anything.)

Post by krw
So the case falls apart.
If she is bright enough to know what has been going on.

[krw]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Yes, that's an interesting point - if Helen can't talk to Pat (or is it
vice versa), how come Rob can talk to (in fact much more) Henry?

Pat, Henry and Rob are all prosecution witnesses and can talk to each
other as much as they like. Helen is the defendant and cannot be
allowed to talk to them as she will get them to change their stories to
enable her freedom.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <***@gmail.com>, Iain Archer
<***@gmail.com> writes:
[]

Post by Iain Archer
then, committing the crime in front of a child turns out to be an
aggravating factor that goes in the opposite direction.

Presumably not if it was done in defence of said child, though.

Post by Iain Archer
I still lean to the view that even the present facts known to us can't
save her from conviction. A late recollection that it happened
accidentally is my best bet for a get-out-of-jail-free card, if that's
what the gods want to give us.

It certainly didn't sound accidental to me, though I don't think death
was intended - just a spur-of-the-moment defence of Henry (by a heavily
pregnant woman).

[Vicky]

On Tue, 17 May 2016 19:03:23 +0100, Marjorie

Post by Marjorie

Post by Btms
It has to be premeditated if it has to be intended. What we heard sounded
like a spontaneous act without thought.

The thing is, we heard that but the judge and jury didn't. All they
will know is what Helen and Rob say and possibly what Henry says. On
Rob will lie.
Helen will gibber helplessly, or just say nothing.
Henry will babble like a toddler.
I don't know what sense they'll make of that!

The police will have found Helen's bag half-packed to leave and then
the phone Kirsty gave her will have the women's aid number and a call
to the help line. Why would Helen get a knife and attack? She is
pregnant, not in good shape for a fight, had a child to protect and
one inside too. The only way she would need to use a knife at this
point, endangering her escape plan, is if Rob attacked her.Why would
she have a knife at all if she was just about to leave? That does lend
credence to his having given it to her while taunting her that she can
only leave that way.

[krw]

Post by Vicky
The police will have found Helen's bag half-packed to leave and then
the phone Kirsty gave her will have the women's aid number and a call
to the help line.

If the police have noticed any of this they will not have recorded it as
it would undermine the prosecution case as it is an open and shut case
of attempted murder.

[Iain Archer]

Post by Marjorie

Post by Chris McMillan
Any other-rat think Helen might be charged as committing the crime while
her mind is unbalanced (or however its described) at the end of the trial?

I have a feeling (but legalrats my know different) that this can be
used as a defence against murder - i.e. if she'd actually killed him -
but not in the case of a lesser charge.

Just so. A partial defence, like "loss of control", that can reduce
murder to manslaughter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminished_responsibility_in_English_law

As Rob is still with us, I think that leaves only unfitness to plead,
which I think Helen is far from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_to_plead

[krw]

Post by krw

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
How many barristers/solicitors truly adhere to that, when the admission
is in private, though? (Of course we can never know.)

All of them - it is their equivalent of the hippocratic oath.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by krw
I find it odd that the barrister is so heavily involved. At this
stage the solicitor should be doing the donkey work because barristers
are expensive.

The subject of her pay has of course been deliberately clouded (has it
even been mentioned _at all_?), but I get the _impression_ that she's
working either pro bono or very cheaply, for a combination of being
(very distant!) family or friend of family, and also feeling strongly
about the subject. (I think it was mentioned when she was first mooted,
that she specialised in such matters.)

No - she made it clear that whilst legal aid might pay part of the bill
her time was on the clock.

It was worse tonight. No barrister would pop in to tell a client they
knew nothing about her being moved to mbu. Quite honestly I thought
they undertook research and got it right.

Not any more. Made up it is. Bring back Dick Barton.

[Btms]

Post by krw

Post by krw

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
How many barristers/solicitors truly adhere to that, when the admission
is in private, though? (Of course we can never know.)

All of them - it is their equivalent of the hippocratic oath.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by krw
I find it odd that the barrister is so heavily involved. At this
stage the solicitor should be doing the donkey work because barristers
are expensive.

The subject of her pay has of course been deliberately clouded (has it
even been mentioned _at all_?), but I get the _impression_ that she's
working either pro bono or very cheaply, for a combination of being
(very distant!) family or friend of family, and also feeling strongly
about the subject. (I think it was mentioned when she was first mooted,
that she specialised in such matters.)

No - she made it clear that whilst legal aid might pay part of the bill
her time was on the clock.

It was worse tonight. No barrister would pop in to tell a client they
knew nothing about her being moved to mbu. Quite honestly I thought
they undertook research and got it right.
Not any more. Made up it is. Bring back Dick Barton.

Some of us would settle for bringing back TA. It all sounds very different
from my experience when I worked for a solicitor; but tbf we didn't have
any murder cases afair.

[Marjorie]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by Sally Thompson

Post by Vicky
http://www.paranormal.org.uk/mustardland/viewtopic.php?t=78758
We both think the way the story has been handled is worse than just
bad programme making. It is criminal because they took a serious legal
subject with important social implications and have given wrong
information and the wrong impression and have misled the people who
might be in or get into this situation.

(The fine legal points that have been raised here and elsewhere are
mostly, I'm sure, correct. The overall situation as presented - Rob
seems to most people to have been a caring person, stabbed by an
unstable woman - I find depressingly plausible. [I mean I could believe
it could play out the way it is doing.])

Post by Sally Thompson
I've never seen Mustardland before, so thank you (I think).

I find it unbelievable that Helen keeps repeating, with gusto, that the
children aren't safe with Rob yet no one is asking why. It seems that
her "defence team" don't want to discover if there may be mitigating
circumstances, self defence or defence of child for example.
It`s pathetic - gosh, how many times has she shouted `No, he can`t have
the baby` ...... yet the stupid barrister doesn`t even want to find out
why. Is there some law against her saying `Why is that Helen`. Duh.
So _is_ there?
I can see that there _could_ be accusations of "leading the witness", if
such lines were taken during an actual trial; but I am not aware (but
then I certainly ANAL) of any reason why the barrister can't, in the
privacy of talking to her client, pursue that line (specifically asking
"was Rob about to hurt Henry, or did you at least think he was"). Even
if there are rules against it, I can't really believe it wouldn't be
asked, in private.

Yes, I can't see why on earth no one says, "What makes you say that?"
That's not a leading question, it's a request for clarification of what
seems, on the face of it, a surprising allegation.

[Marjorie]

Post by Sally Thompson

Post by Vicky
On Thu, 12 May 2016 14:03:14 +0100, Marjorie

Post by Marjorie

Post by Marjorie

Post by DavidK
Can anyrat remind me where the caravan came from, and is it like to be a
touring caravan or a static one?

The one that the Fowlbrothers first moved onto the site must have been a
tourer, as it just appeared there one day without David knowing about
it. A static would require a special low loader to move it, and might
well have difficulty getting onto the field. We don't know whose it was
or where it came from.
At that stage they said they would just use it for the occasional
overnight stay, but eventually they appeared to be living in it
full-time. They then moved into a tent in order to keep the hens in the
van. They must have had to remove seats, beds, cooker, toilet, cupboards
etc from the van - heaven knows what they did with the contents and all
their worldly possessions while they lived in the tent.
Then they moved in with Bert, so there is presumably a rusting,
poo-filled, stinking hulk of a caravan sitting in the field.

Fowlbrothers ?. Is this a new one or have I not been paying attention. I
do like it v. much and nominate it as umraspeak.

I nicked it from someone on Mustardland, where I spend a lot of time now.

OK just had a look over there. Can't remember whether I have done so
before. What is it about the toffees? They are very excited about the
classy coffee maker stressing toffees and not picking up clues when
Helen gives them.
http://www.paranormal.org.uk/mustardland/viewtopic.php?t=78758
We both think the way the story has been handled is worse than just
bad programme making. It is criminal because they took a serious legal
subject with important social implications and have given wrong
information and the wrong impression and have misled the people who
might be in or get into this situation.

I've never seen Mustardland before, so thank you (I think).

There are several Mustardlands, though. All take their name from the
nickname of the old BBC board which they replaced when it closed down.
The one I post on is
http://mustardland.boards.net/board/7/discuss-archers where I am
Pennyhasset.

[Sally Thompson]

Post by Marjorie

Post by Sally Thompson

Post by Vicky
On Thu, 12 May 2016 14:03:14 +0100, Marjorie

Post by Marjorie

Post by Marjorie

Post by DavidK
Can anyrat remind me where the caravan came from, and is it like to be a
touring caravan or a static one?

The one that the Fowlbrothers first moved onto the site must have been a
tourer, as it just appeared there one day without David knowing about
it. A static would require a special low loader to move it, and might
well have difficulty getting onto the field. We don't know whose it was
or where it came from.
At that stage they said they would just use it for the occasional
overnight stay, but eventually they appeared to be living in it
full-time. They then moved into a tent in order to keep the hens in the
van. They must have had to remove seats, beds, cooker, toilet, cupboards
etc from the van - heaven knows what they did with the contents and all
their worldly possessions while they lived in the tent.
Then they moved in with Bert, so there is presumably a rusting,
poo-filled, stinking hulk of a caravan sitting in the field.

Fowlbrothers ?. Is this a new one or have I not been paying attention. I
do like it v. much and nominate it as umraspeak.

I nicked it from someone on Mustardland, where I spend a lot of time now.

OK just had a look over there. Can't remember whether I have done so
before. What is it about the toffees? They are very excited about the
classy coffee maker stressing toffees and not picking up clues when
Helen gives them.
http://www.paranormal.org.uk/mustardland/viewtopic.php?t=78758
We both think the way the story has been handled is worse than just
bad programme making. It is criminal because they took a serious legal
subject with important social implications and have given wrong
information and the wrong impression and have misled the people who
might be in or get into this situation.

I've never seen Mustardland before, so thank you (I think).

There are several Mustardlands, though. All take their name from the
nickname of the old BBC board which they replaced when it closed down.
The one I post on is
http://mustardland.boards.net/board/7/discuss-archers where I am
Pennyhasset.

And another one earmarked for later perusal.