https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12377073/Archers-fans-slam-scriptwriters-Radio-4-drama-featuring-storyline-dog-sleep-air.html

Very naughty group member posted with names of group users. He is no
longer a group member :)

As I haven't listened really to TA since Rob appeared and somehowamnot
keen to doso I get the synopsis from the BBC site and details from
group members. I like discussing stories and am glad I didn't hear the
scene objected to. I agree it was unnecessary to broadcast it
indetail. They also apparently did a scene where Brad gets distressed
by Eddie teasing him, all as the Friday night end of week episode. Not
jolly.

On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 11:24:56 AM UTC, Vicky wrote:
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12377073/Archers-fans-slam-scriptwriters-Radio-4-drama-featuring-storyline-dog-sleep-air.html
>
> Very naughty group member posted with names of group users. He is no
> longer a group member :)
>
> As I haven't listened really to TA since Rob appeared and somehowamnot
> keen to doso I get the synopsis from the BBC site and details from
> group members. I like discussing stories and am glad I didn't hear the
> scene objected to. I agree it was unnecessary to broadcast it
> indetail. They also apparently did a scene where Brad gets distressed
> by Eddie teasing him, all as the Friday night end of week episode. Not
> jolly.

Eddie pulled this stunt on somebody else quite recently (can't remember who) and it is cruel and it is unnecessary but it is Eddie.

I read the Daily Mail article and quite a few of the BTL comments as well.
Like Rose Ashton, who is quoted at the tail end of the article, and like quite a lot of the BTL commentators, I'd say that the scene really wasn't played anything like the way you might have imagined from reading that article.. Yes, it was sad, and it drew you into the love and care and respect for Weaver the dog being shown by all concerned. As the continuity announcer said after the end credits, (WTTEO) "I think I've got something in my eye."

As a previous pet owner I identified totally with the scenes concerning Weaver and could not find anything to complain about.

Nick
nickodell@yahoo.ca

In message <ie0vcidksic3a4tp3omp0eseq9dm7g7pe2@4ax.com> at Sun, 6 Aug
2023 12:24:51, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12377073/Archers-fans-slam-scri
>ptwriters-Radio-4-drama-featuring-storyline-dog-sleep-air.html
>
>Very naughty group member posted with names of group users. He is no
>longer a group member :)
>
>As I haven't listened really to TA since Rob appeared and somehowamnot
>keen to doso I get the synopsis from the BBC site and details from
>group members. I like discussing stories and am glad I didn't hear the
>scene objected to. I agree it was unnecessary to broadcast it

I thought that was very well done; if I had a pet that had to be put
down, I'd hope for a sympathetic vet like that. "Put to sleep" was for
once not just a euphemism (I don't think that phrase was actually used).

>indetail. They also apparently did a scene where Brad gets distressed
>by Eddie teasing him, all as the Friday night end of week episode. Not
>jolly.

I found the Eddie teasing Brad scene too long and somewhat cruel, even
after I'd twigged that he _was_ teasing. But I know a lot of people
would tell me not to be a wimp and so on.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you believe in telekinesis, raise my right hand

On 06/08/2023 14:37, Nick Odell wrote:
>
> As a previous pet owner I identified totally with the scenes concerning Weaver and could not find anything to complain about.

<LW>

On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 18:02:54 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
scrawled in the dust...

>In message <ie0vcidksic3a4tp3omp0eseq9dm7g7pe2@4ax.com> at Sun, 6 Aug
>2023 12:24:51, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes

>>As I haven't listened really to TA since Rob appeared and somehowamnot
>>keen to doso I get the synopsis from the BBC site and details from
>>group members. I like discussing stories and am glad I didn't hear the
>>scene objected to. I agree it was unnecessary to broadcast it
>
>I thought that was very well done; if I had a pet that had to be put
>down, I'd hope for a sympathetic vet like that. "Put to sleep" was for
>once not just a euphemism (I don't think that phrase was actually used).

I agree, all the characters in that scene are regularly heard from and it
seemed appropriate. My only confusion being, I wasn't really aware of
Weaver until his accident.

>I found the Eddie teasing Brad scene too long and somewhat cruel, even
>after I'd twigged that he _was_ teasing. But I know a lot of people
>would tell me not to be a wimp and so on.

I hate teasing, always have. It is cruel and designed to intimidate and/or
humiliate the victim.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On Mon, 07 Aug 2023 09:56:35 +0100, Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 18:02:54 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>scrawled in the dust...
>
>>In message <ie0vcidksic3a4tp3omp0eseq9dm7g7pe2@4ax.com> at Sun, 6 Aug
>>2023 12:24:51, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
>
>>>As I haven't listened really to TA since Rob appeared and somehowamnot
>>>keen to doso I get the synopsis from the BBC site and details from
>>>group members. I like discussing stories and am glad I didn't hear the
>>>scene objected to. I agree it was unnecessary to broadcast it
>>
>>I thought that was very well done; if I had a pet that had to be put
>>down, I'd hope for a sympathetic vet like that. "Put to sleep" was for
>>once not just a euphemism (I don't think that phrase was actually used).
>
>I agree, all the characters in that scene are regularly heard from and it
>seemed appropriate. My only confusion being, I wasn't really aware of
>Weaver until his accident.
Me neither.
>
>>I found the Eddie teasing Brad scene too long and somewhat cruel, even
>>after I'd twigged that he _was_ teasing. But I know a lot of people
>>would tell me not to be a wimp and so on.
>
>I hate teasing, always have. It is cruel and designed to intimidate and/or
>humiliate the victim.
Yes. I agree.

Apparently the Telegraph had the storty today and named names and the
Times carried it without the names. Should the names be named?

ŶPenny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 18:02:54 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
> scrawled in the dust...
>
>> In message <ie0vcidksic3a4tp3omp0eseq9dm7g7pe2@4ax.com> at Sun, 6 Aug
>> 2023 12:24:51, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
>
>>> As I haven't listened really to TA since Rob appeared and somehowamnot
>>> keen to doso I get the synopsis from the BBC site and details from
>>> group members. I like discussing stories and am glad I didn't hear the
>>> scene objected to. I agree it was unnecessary to broadcast it
>>
>> I thought that was very well done; if I had a pet that had to be put
>> down, I'd hope for a sympathetic vet like that. "Put to sleep" was for
>> once not just a euphemism (I don't think that phrase was actually used).
>
> I agree, all the characters in that scene are regularly heard from and it
> seemed appropriate. My only confusion being, I wasn't really aware of
> Weaver until his accident.
>
>> I found the Eddie teasing Brad scene too long and somewhat cruel, even
>> after I'd twigged that he _was_ teasing. But I know a lot of people
>> would tell me not to be a wimp and so on.
>
> I hate teasing, always have. It is cruel and designed to intimidate and/or
> humiliate the victim.

Weaver went to stay with Pipsqueak recently but I do vaguely remember when
Snappy met him. Denise may have still been there. Or early days Paul?

Best Chris

On 7.8.23 15:10, Chris wrote:
> ŶPenny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 18:02:54 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>> scrawled in the dust...
>>
>>> In message <ie0vcidksic3a4tp3omp0eseq9dm7g7pe2@4ax.com> at Sun, 6 Aug
>>> 2023 12:24:51, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
>>
>>>> As I haven't listened really to TA since Rob appeared and somehowamnot
>>>> keen to doso I get the synopsis from the BBC site and details from
>>>> group members. I like discussing stories and am glad I didn't hear the
>>>> scene objected to. I agree it was unnecessary to broadcast it
>>>
>>> I thought that was very well done; if I had a pet that had to be put
>>> down, I'd hope for a sympathetic vet like that. "Put to sleep" was for
>>> once not just a euphemism (I don't think that phrase was actually used).
>>
>> I agree, all the characters in that scene are regularly heard from and it
>> seemed appropriate. My only confusion being, I wasn't really aware of
>> Weaver until his accident.
>>
>>> I found the Eddie teasing Brad scene too long and somewhat cruel, even
>>> after I'd twigged that he _was_ teasing. But I know a lot of people
>>> would tell me not to be a wimp and so on.
>>
>> I hate teasing, always have. It is cruel and designed to intimidate and/or
>> humiliate the victim.
>
> Weaver went to stay with Pipsqueak recently but I do vaguely remember when
> Snappy met him. Denise may have still been there. Or early days Paul?
>
> Best Chris

I remember a discussion about how Stella wanted a dog but can anyone say
when Weaver actually materialised as my next memory is of the dog going
to stay with Adam and Ian and Xander whilst Stella went off to Italy for
a wedding?

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

In message <4lc1did40vihhgqc6t9mjo3ppgd7q09orp@4ax.com> at Mon, 7 Aug
2023 10:01:20, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
>On Mon, 07 Aug 2023 09:56:35 +0100, Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 18:02:54 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>>scrawled in the dust...
[]
>>>I thought that was very well done; if I had a pet that had to be put
>>>down, I'd hope for a sympathetic vet like that. "Put to sleep" was for
>>>once not just a euphemism (I don't think that phrase was actually used).
>>
>>I agree, all the characters in that scene are regularly heard from and it
>>seemed appropriate. My only confusion being, I wasn't really aware of
>>Weaver until his accident.
>Me neither.

Nor me! In fact until after reading a few posts here, I was wondering
who this person was.
>>
>>>I found the Eddie teasing Brad scene too long and somewhat cruel, even
>>>after I'd twigged that he _was_ teasing. But I know a lot of people
>>>would tell me not to be a wimp and so on.
>>
>>I hate teasing, always have. It is cruel and designed to intimidate and/or
>>humiliate the victim.
>Yes. I agree.

It's one of the nastiest aspects of human nature (some humans, anyway):
so often associated with "man up" and similar phrases. Similar applies
to many anti-prejudice or just generally anti-maltreatment aspects of
life: the insult "snowflake" is a recent implementation.

(Can't help thinking of part of Tom Lehrer's introduction to "National
Brotherhood Week": "There are people around who dislike their fellow
man. And I _hate_ people like that!")
>
>Apparently the Telegraph had the storty today and named names and the
>Times carried it without the names. Should the names be named?

Are we talking about the scriptwriters responsible? Whatever one's views
on whether it should or should not have been broadcast (consensus here
seems to be that it was sympathetically done), it's been done now, so I
think it makes no difference: witchhunting isn't going to recall it.
(Nor have much effect on future scripts, I think: I think the SWs and
editorial board are pretty robust.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Tolerating intolerance is not a virtue." - Barry Shein

On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 17:10:19 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

>Apparently the Telegraph had the storty today and named names and the
>>Times carried it without the names. Should the names be named?
>
>Are we talking about the scriptwriters responsible? Whatever one's views
>on whether it should or should not have been broadcast (consensus here
>seems to be that it was sympathetically done), it's been done now, so I
>think it makes no difference: witchhunting isn't going to recall it.
>(Nor have much effect on future scripts, I think: I think the SWs and
>editorial board are pretty robust.)
>--
>--
The posts were on a private fb group, visibleonly to members. The
journalist had joined. He used the posts and included the names of the
fb group members who posted themand so did the Telegraph.

On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 5:36:22 PM UTC+1, Vicky wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 17:10:19 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6...@255soft.uk>
> wrote:
> >Apparently the Telegraph had the storty today and named names and the
> >>Times carried it without the names. Should the names be named?
> >
> >Are we talking about the scriptwriters responsible? Whatever one's views
> >on whether it should or should not have been broadcast (consensus here
> >seems to be that it was sympathetically done), it's been done now, so I
> >think it makes no difference: witchhunting isn't going to recall it.
> >(Nor have much effect on future scripts, I think: I think the SWs and
> >editorial board are pretty robust.)
> >--
> >--
> The posts were on a private fb group, visibleonly to members. The
> journalist had joined. He used the posts and included the names of the
> fb group members who posted themand so did the Telegraph.

I read the Telegraph article today (I read the one in the Mail yesterday). I think it's worth remembering that both the Mail and the Telegraph have owners who would rather that the BBC were not there and that a drip-feed of articles critical of the BBC is (unwritten?) editorial policy with both publications. But I think that it's also worth remembering that there are a large number of members of the public who hold anti-BBC views and they value these platforms as an opportunity to express them. There was some - deliberate, in my opinion - misdirection there too. The Telegraph's "On whether dealing with such a sensitive subject so raw and viscerally in fiction might be traumatic to children who might have been listening with their parents as the show was broadcast on Friday afternoon," just pushes so many buttons I don't know where to begin.

In my opinion, disclosing the names and opinions of members of a closed, not for wider publication, group of people is wrong and the group moderators were right to cast out the offender. But I don't think you can discount the possibility that some of those who were quoted might be quite pleased that their views have received a wider circulation. For those that are not pleased to have been so represented the Telegraph, the Times and the Mail have complaints processes and each of them are signed up with a regulatory body who ought to look into complains that can't be satisfield elsewhere.

Nick
nickodell49@yahoo.ca

In message <f1e6238e-493b-4c94-a7e1-d422ca42b519n@googlegroups.com> at
Mon, 7 Aug 2023 15:29:14, Nick Odell <nickodell@bigfoot.com> writes
[]
>circulation. For those that are not pleased to have been so represented
>the Telegraph, the Times and the Mail have complaints processes and
>each of them are signed up with a regulatory body who ought to look
>into complains that can't be satisfield elsewhere.

I think we're all familiar with how such processes - and body - work;
even where complaints _are_ upheld, the process takes so long (and has
to if it's to be fair) that it doesn't _feel_ effective.

I forget where I got it, but it's in my quotes file: WTTE that "freedom
of the press is limited to those who have one." Even now in the world of
social media, it's still very unbalanced - some have many more followers
than others, and it's not always at all clear why.
>
>Nick
>nickodell49@yahoo.ca
John
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.
-Thomas Henry Huxley, biologist (1825-1895)