On 27.11.23 12:28, Vicky wrote:
> What did they evict Rex and his pigs for? I've forgotten. Is there
> space for Ed's sheep? How are Rex and Kirsty doing?

The pigs had to go because they were increasing the size of the milking
herd and that is why the sheep decamped to Home Farm - they also handed
over a lot of land for rewilding without considering the income and so
on - another nonsense.

Kirsty seems to keep popping up saying things are happening but to be
honest we have never really had the ins and outs of rewilding - almost
as if it is a good idea and allows random strangers to appear but we
have not been told how it is developing. Sad really.

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

On 27/11/2023 12:28, Vicky wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 10:00:52 +0000, krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 26.11.23 19:52, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>>> [1]  I forget who it was at the time.
>>
>> Sean O'Connor.
>>
>> He had already told the story of coercive control on Enders and as with
>> the kidnap of Ian many years ago it crowded out all of the stories and
>> various characters were sacrificed - and long term plans were dumped.
>>
>> Kirsty had to go - so her marriage to Tom never happened. Tom was sent
>> away to get a new voice. Darryl had a miraculous recovery. The Tuckers
>> were tucked off out of sight and so on.
>>
>> Having destroyed some long term plans there was no real thought about
>> the longer term and in consequence we now have a dearth of young archers
>> so the current team have to over use the rude mechanicals in the village.
>>
>> And decent stories for existing Archers were non-existent - Brookfield
>> should be at the heart of it - and yet when did we hear Pip do anything?
>
> Yes all that and I don't want so much of Pip wondering about sharing a
> house with Stella, or telling the world she loves her. I want more
> about herbal leys and lambing and crops and cows.
>
> What did they evict Rex and his pigs for? I've forgotten. Is there
> space for Ed's sheep? How are Rex and Kirsty doing?

Is Rex supplying pork for Tom? I was surprised to hear Tom delivering
sausages for Brian's party last week as I thought he had got rid of the
sausage business BIMBAM.

john

On 27.11.23 14:51, John Ashby wrote:
> On 27/11/2023 12:28, Vicky wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 10:00:52 +0000, krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26.11.23 19:52, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>>>> [1]  I forget who it was at the time.
>>>
>>> Sean O'Connor.
>>>
>>> He had already told the story of coercive control on Enders and as with
>>> the kidnap of Ian many years ago it crowded out all of the stories and
>>> various characters were sacrificed - and long term plans were dumped.
>>>
>>> Kirsty had to go - so her marriage to Tom never happened.  Tom was sent
>>> away to get a new voice.  Darryl had a miraculous recovery.  The Tuckers
>>> were tucked off out of sight and so on.
>>>
>>> Having destroyed some long term plans there was no real thought about
>>> the longer term and in consequence we now have a dearth of young archers
>>> so the current team have to over use the rude mechanicals in the
>>> village.
>>>
>>> And decent stories for existing Archers were non-existent - Brookfield
>>> should be at the heart of it - and yet when did we hear Pip do anything?
>>
>> Yes all that and I don't want so much of Pip wondering about sharing a
>> house with Stella, or telling the world she loves her.  I want more
>> about herbal leys and lambing and crops and cows.
>>
>> What did they evict Rex and his pigs for? I've forgotten. Is there
>> space for Ed's sheep?  How are Rex and Kirsty doing?
>
> Is Rex supplying pork for Tom? I was surprised to hear Tom delivering
> sausages for Brian's party last week as I thought he had got rid of the
> sausage business BIMBAM.
>
> john

Tom took a lot of effort to get rid of the moo cows a few years ago but
Helen's prediction that they could not control the quality of the milk
proved true and so they bought the Monty's to give Johnny something to do.

And then they dispensed with Jazzer's services because they cut back on
porkers or removed them all together because Neil could not provide
weaners - so I suppose they buy in pork and the butcher processes it -
but he must be getting on a bit.

To be honest few of the farms seem to know what they are doing as Ed
could manage many more sheep on much less land without a problem.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:
> On 27.11.23 12:28, Vicky wrote:
>> What did they evict Rex and his pigs for? I've forgotten. Is there
>> space for Ed's sheep? How are Rex and Kirsty doing?
>
> The pigs had to go because they were increasing the size of the milking
> herd and that is why the sheep decamped to Home Farm - they also handed
> over a lot of land for rewilding without considering the income and so
> on - another nonsense.
>
> Kirsty seems to keep popping up saying things are happening but to be
> honest we have never really had the ins and outs of rewilding - almost
> as if it is a good idea and allows random strangers to appear but we
> have not been told how it is developing. Sad really.
>

Perhaps it was thought to be a good idea at the time and fitted nicely into
the then current thinking - but now they realise they don;t have an advisor
with any experience / knowledge of the subject - typical Beeb.

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

John Ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 27/11/2023 12:28, Vicky wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 10:00:52 +0000, krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26.11.23 19:52, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>>>> [1]  I forget who it was at the time.
>>>
>>> Sean O'Connor.
>>>
>>> He had already told the story of coercive control on Enders and as with
>>> the kidnap of Ian many years ago it crowded out all of the stories and
>>> various characters were sacrificed - and long term plans were dumped.
>>>
>>> Kirsty had to go - so her marriage to Tom never happened. Tom was sent
>>> away to get a new voice. Darryl had a miraculous recovery. The Tuckers
>>> were tucked off out of sight and so on.
>>>
>>> Having destroyed some long term plans there was no real thought about
>>> the longer term and in consequence we now have a dearth of young archers
>>> so the current team have to over use the rude mechanicals in the village.
>>>
>>> And decent stories for existing Archers were non-existent - Brookfield
>>> should be at the heart of it - and yet when did we hear Pip do anything?
>>
>> Yes all that and I don't want so much of Pip wondering about sharing a
>> house with Stella, or telling the world she loves her. I want more
>> about herbal leys and lambing and crops and cows.
>>
>> What did they evict Rex and his pigs for? I've forgotten. Is there
>> space for Ed's sheep? How are Rex and Kirsty doing?
>
> Is Rex supplying pork for Tom? I was surprised to hear Tom delivering
> sausages for Brian's party last week as I thought he had got rid of the
> sausage business BIMBAM.
>
> john
>

Is he perhaps, too busy hiding them these days? IIRC they have twins don;t
they - perhaps it is time that ensproglamentation occurred again…

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:
> On 27.11.23 14:51, John Ashby wrote:
>> On 27/11/2023 12:28, Vicky wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 10:00:52 +0000, krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 26.11.23 19:52, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>>>>> [1]  I forget who it was at the time.
>>>>
>>>> Sean O'Connor.
>>>>
>>>> He had already told the story of coercive control on Enders and as with
>>>> the kidnap of Ian many years ago it crowded out all of the stories and
>>>> various characters were sacrificed - and long term plans were dumped.
>>>>
>>>> Kirsty had to go - so her marriage to Tom never happened.  Tom was sent
>>>> away to get a new voice.  Darryl had a miraculous recovery.  The Tuckers
>>>> were tucked off out of sight and so on.
>>>>
>>>> Having destroyed some long term plans there was no real thought about
>>>> the longer term and in consequence we now have a dearth of young archers
>>>> so the current team have to over use the rude mechanicals in the
>>>> village.
>>>>
>>>> And decent stories for existing Archers were non-existent - Brookfield
>>>> should be at the heart of it - and yet when did we hear Pip do anything?
>>>
>>> Yes all that and I don't want so much of Pip wondering about sharing a
>>> house with Stella, or telling the world she loves her.  I want more
>>> about herbal leys and lambing and crops and cows.
>>>
>>> What did they evict Rex and his pigs for? I've forgotten. Is there
>>> space for Ed's sheep?  How are Rex and Kirsty doing?
>>
>> Is Rex supplying pork for Tom? I was surprised to hear Tom delivering
>> sausages for Brian's party last week as I thought he had got rid of the
>> sausage business BIMBAM.
>>
>> john
>
>
> Tom took a lot of effort to get rid of the moo cows a few years ago but
> Helen's prediction that they could not control the quality of the milk
> proved true and so they bought the Monty's to give Johnny something to do.
>
> And then they dispensed with Jazzer's services because they cut back on
> porkers or removed them all together because Neil could not provide
> weaners - so I suppose they buy in pork and the butcher processes it -
> but he must be getting on a bit.
>
> To be honest few of the farms seem to know what they are doing as Ed
> could manage many more sheep on much less land without a problem.

There’s a story line in the making then… Ed goes into intensive rearing and
the Snell informs the RSPCA …

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

On 27.11.23 15:57, Mike McMillan wrote:
> krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>> On 27.11.23 12:28, Vicky wrote:
>>> What did they evict Rex and his pigs for? I've forgotten. Is there
>>> space for Ed's sheep? How are Rex and Kirsty doing?
>>
>> The pigs had to go because they were increasing the size of the milking
>> herd and that is why the sheep decamped to Home Farm - they also handed
>> over a lot of land for rewilding without considering the income and so
>> on - another nonsense.
>>
>> Kirsty seems to keep popping up saying things are happening but to be
>> honest we have never really had the ins and outs of rewilding - almost
>> as if it is a good idea and allows random strangers to appear but we
>> have not been told how it is developing. Sad really.
>>
>
> Perhaps it was thought to be a good idea at the time and fitted nicely into
> the then current thinking - but now they realise they don;t have an advisor
> with any experience / knowledge of the subject - typical Beeb.
>

I think they have had several changes of agricultural advisor in the
last 5 years

Sybil Ruscoe took up the post in May 23.

Steve Peacock was in the position in May 11.

Graham Harvey certainly had the title in May 2015 and I know he was in
post for around 10 years.

Sarah Swadling held the post in December 20

I have a feeling SS originated the rewilding idea and then has not
really followed it up - and to be honest at the moment there seems a
lack of accuracy on some of the farming aspects.

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

On 27.11.23 16:00, Mike McMillan wrote:
> perhaps it is time that ensproglamentation occurred again…

I would opine that more children are not part of Natasha's spending plans.

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

On 27-Nov-23 16:14, krw wrote:
> On 27.11.23 15:57, Mike McMillan wrote:
>> krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>>> On 27.11.23 12:28, Vicky wrote:
>>>> What did they evict Rex and his pigs for? I've forgotten. Is there
>>>> space for Ed's sheep?  How are Rex and Kirsty doing?
>>>
>>> The pigs had to go because they were increasing the size of the milking
>>> herd and that is why the sheep decamped to Home Farm - they also handed
>>> over a lot of land for rewilding without considering the income and so
>>> on - another nonsense.
>>>
>>> Kirsty seems to keep popping up saying things are happening but to be
>>> honest we have never really had the ins and outs of rewilding - almost
>>> as if it is a good idea and allows random strangers to appear but we
>>> have not been told how it is developing.  Sad really.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps it was thought to be a good idea at the time and fitted nicely
>> into
>> the then current thinking - but now they realise they don;t have an
>> advisor
>> with any experience / knowledge of the subject - typical Beeb.
>>
>
> I think they have had several changes of agricultural advisor in the
> last 5 years
>
> Sybil Ruscoe took up the post in May 23.
>
> Steve Peacock was in the position in May 11.
>
> Graham Harvey certainly had the title in May 2015 and I know he was in
> post for around 10 years.
>
> Sarah Swadling held the post in December 20
>
> I have a feeling SS originated the rewilding idea and then has not
> really followed it up - and to be honest at the moment there seems a
> lack of accuracy on some of the farming aspects.
>
I suspect that having an Ag. Advisor is one thing. Taking their advice
is quite another matter.

--
Sam Plusnet

Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 16:05:59 +0000, Serena Blanchflower
> <nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 26/11/2023 15:37, krw wrote:
>>> On 26.11.23 15:11, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>>>> Very much so.  If she really felt she needed to push him off the roof,
>>>> it would have made a far more interesting storyline to have left him
>>>> in a wheelchair.  That would have still allowed her pretty well all
>>>> the major drama and family tension that killing him off gave her.  She
>>>> would also have had some really interesting lines that they could have
>>>> explored.
>>>>
>>> Wassiname from Crossroads did that.  These days they would not allow an
>>> able bodied actor to play the part.
>>
>> I don't think there would be any problem with an able bodied actor
>> playing a character who became disabled, having been fully active before
>> that. It might be different if they brought Mike and Vicky Tucker back
>> to Ambridge, with an able bodied actor playing Beth, rather than one who
>> has Down's Syndrome.
>
> What about a disabled actor playing the part of an able-bodied person?
> There's a perfect example within The Archers in Ryan Kelly but I'd
> take it further than that: why shouldn't a wheelchair using actor play
> Macbeth on stage or a person of short stature play Richard III?
>
> I think nearly everybody thought that Tracy-Ann Oberman gave a
> stunning performance as Shylock and surely that's because she is such
> a superb actor that she makes the audience believe that she is Shylock
> regardless of her physical presence before them. Really good actors
> give performances that will convince regardless of boundaries.
>
> I have my own theory wot is mine about why there is a perceived
> reluctance to cast or be cast in a part that is contrary to the
> physical attributes of the actor and that is because I'm afraid that
> although there are a few spectacularly wonderful actors around, there
> are an awful lot who are not. So, should casting always play safe and
> stick to type or should directors and audiences expect mediocre
> performers to up their game?
>
> I'd make a comparison with musicians. Sure, there are plenty of
> jobbing musicians who play well enough for weddings, socials and
> corporate events but there are also brilliant, talented, hard-working,
> high flying musicians who can stop us in our tracks with their
> performances. So given that we have such excellence around, should
> every musical performance be brought down to the level of a Portsmouth
> Sinfonia or a Tuneless Choir because it's asking too much of
> performers to actually be good? Shouldn't actors be expected to rise
> to the challenge of parts that are difficult to play rather than
> playing a version of themselves every time?
>
> Good old Ryan Kelly. I think he's broken the mold so successfully that
> audiences don't even recall that there was a mold to be broken. More
> actors like this, please.
>
> Nick
>

Not many would know Ryan Kelly’s blind. It wouldn’t have crossed my path
had I been sighted, or more precisely have an interest in sight loss
generally because I am. And I know very little of what he might do outside
TA.

Mrs McT

krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:
> On 26.11.23 19:52, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>> [1]  I forget who it was at the time.
>
> Sean O'Connor.
>
> He had already told the story of coercive control on Enders and as with
> the kidnap of Ian many years ago it crowded out all of the stories and
> various characters were sacrificed - and long term plans were dumped.
>
> Kirsty had to go - so her marriage to Tom never happened. Tom was sent
> away to get a new voice. Darryl had a miraculous recovery. The Tuckers
> were tucked off out of sight and so on.
>
> Having destroyed some long term plans there was no real thought about
> the longer term and in consequence we now have a dearth of young archers
> so the current team have to over use the rude mechanicals in the village.
>
> And decent stories for existing Archers were non-existent - Brookfield
> should be at the heart of it - and yet when did we hear Pip do anything?
>
Quite enough doing with Stella, thanks for nothing.

Josh is the one who’s lost his voice since his big fall from grace (shut up
you lot!)

You’d have thought we could have had a chicken plot line during Brexit.

Mrs McT

Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 10:00:52 +0000, krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 26.11.23 19:52, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>>> [1]  I forget who it was at the time.
>>
>> Sean O'Connor.
>>
>> He had already told the story of coercive control on Enders and as with
>> the kidnap of Ian many years ago it crowded out all of the stories and
>> various characters were sacrificed - and long term plans were dumped.
>>
>> Kirsty had to go - so her marriage to Tom never happened. Tom was sent
>> away to get a new voice. Darryl had a miraculous recovery. The Tuckers
>> were tucked off out of sight and so on.
>>
>> Having destroyed some long term plans there was no real thought about
>> the longer term and in consequence we now have a dearth of young archers
>> so the current team have to over use the rude mechanicals in the village.
>>
>> And decent stories for existing Archers were non-existent - Brookfield
>> should be at the heart of it - and yet when did we hear Pip do anything?
>
> Yes all that and I don't want so much of Pip wondering about sharing a
> house with Stella, or telling the world she loves her. I want more
> about herbal leys and lambing and crops and cows.
>
> What did they evict Rex and his pigs for? I've forgotten. Is there
> space for Ed's sheep? How are Rex and Kirsty doing?
>

Not telling about Ed’s Texells.

Mrs McT

On 27-Nov-23 16:15, krw wrote:
> On 27.11.23 16:00, Mike McMillan wrote:
>> perhaps it is time that ensproglamentation occurred again…
>
> I would opine that more children are not part of Natasha's spending plans.

There might be cash to be made in resurrecting the Victorian practice of
Baby Farming.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 27-Nov-23 8:36, BrritSki wrote:
> On 26/11/2023 18:40, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 26-Nov-23 15:57, Mike McMillan wrote:
>>> Serena Blanchflower <nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Very much so.  If she really felt she needed to push him off the roof,
>>>> it would have made a far more interesting storyline to have left him in
>>>> a wheelchair.  That would have still allowed her pretty well all the
>>>> major drama and family tension that killing him off gave her.  She
>>>> would
>>>> also have had some really interesting lines that they could have
>>>> explored.
>>>>
>>> ‘I would like Mellors to push me around the estate this morning.’
>>
>> Nah!  TA doesn't do Mellors drama.
>>
> And Lady Chatterley never liked the wheelbarrow position.

Is that in the Carter Sutra?

(Susan would know)

--
Sam Plusnet

On 27.11.23 17:40, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 27-Nov-23 16:14, krw wrote:
>> On 27.11.23 15:57, Mike McMillan wrote:
>>> krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 27.11.23 12:28, Vicky wrote:
>>>>> What did they evict Rex and his pigs for? I've forgotten. Is there
>>>>> space for Ed's sheep?  How are Rex and Kirsty doing?
>>>>
>>>> The pigs had to go because they were increasing the size of the milking
>>>> herd and that is why the sheep decamped to Home Farm - they also handed
>>>> over a lot of land for rewilding without considering the income and so
>>>> on - another nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> Kirsty seems to keep popping up saying things are happening but to be
>>>> honest we have never really had the ins and outs of rewilding - almost
>>>> as if it is a good idea and allows random strangers to appear but we
>>>> have not been told how it is developing.  Sad really.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps it was thought to be a good idea at the time and fitted
>>> nicely into
>>> the then current thinking - but now they realise they don;t have an
>>> advisor
>>> with any experience / knowledge of the subject - typical Beeb.
>>>
>>
>> I think they have had several changes of agricultural advisor in the
>> last 5 years
>>
>> Sybil Ruscoe took up the post in May 23.
>>
>> Steve Peacock was in the position in May 11.
>>
>> Graham Harvey certainly had the title in May 2015 and I know he was in
>> post for around 10 years.
>>
>> Sarah Swadling held the post in December 20
>>
>> I have a feeling SS originated the rewilding idea and then has not
>> really followed it up - and to be honest at the moment there seems a
>> lack of accuracy on some of the farming aspects.
>>
> I suspect that having an Ag. Advisor is one thing.  Taking their advice
> is quite another matter.
>

I think they are nominally titled Ag Editor - so in my mind ought to at
least read all of the scripts to check ag aspects before recording. But
perhaps that is not considered required these days.

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

In message <6vKcnRGFNfanK_j4nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> at Tue,
28 Nov 2023 09:43:23, krw <krw@whitnet.uk> writes
>On 27.11.23 17:40, Sam Plusnet wrote:
[]
>> I suspect that having an Ag. Advisor is one thing.  Taking their
>>advice is quite another matter.
>>
>
>I think they are nominally titled Ag Editor - so in my mind ought to at
>least read all of the scripts to check ag aspects before recording. But
>perhaps that is not considered required these days.
>
I noticed in the last year or two they'd changed the person's title from
what it had been for many years - IIRR it's now something like "farming
and countryside advisor". (I just checked with the RT, but that post is
not listed.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Science isn't about being right every time, or even most of the time. It is
about being more right over time and fixing what it got wrong.
- Scott Adams, 2015-2-2

On 28-Nov-23 9:43, krw wrote:
> On 27.11.23 17:40, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 27-Nov-23 16:14, krw wrote:
>>> On 27.11.23 15:57, Mike McMillan wrote:
>>>> krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 27.11.23 12:28, Vicky wrote:
>>>>>> What did they evict Rex and his pigs for? I've forgotten. Is there
>>>>>> space for Ed's sheep?  How are Rex and Kirsty doing?
>>>>>
>>>>> The pigs had to go because they were increasing the size of the
>>>>> milking
>>>>> herd and that is why the sheep decamped to Home Farm - they also
>>>>> handed
>>>>> over a lot of land for rewilding without considering the income and so
>>>>> on - another nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kirsty seems to keep popping up saying things are happening but to be
>>>>> honest we have never really had the ins and outs of rewilding - almost
>>>>> as if it is a good idea and allows random strangers to appear but we
>>>>> have not been told how it is developing.  Sad really.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps it was thought to be a good idea at the time and fitted
>>>> nicely into
>>>> the then current thinking - but now they realise they don;t have an
>>>> advisor
>>>> with any experience / knowledge of the subject - typical Beeb.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think they have had several changes of agricultural advisor in the
>>> last 5 years
>>>
>>> Sybil Ruscoe took up the post in May 23.
>>>
>>> Steve Peacock was in the position in May 11.
>>>
>>> Graham Harvey certainly had the title in May 2015 and I know he was
>>> in post for around 10 years.
>>>
>>> Sarah Swadling held the post in December 20
>>>
>>> I have a feeling SS originated the rewilding idea and then has not
>>> really followed it up - and to be honest at the moment there seems a
>>> lack of accuracy on some of the farming aspects.
>>>
>> I suspect that having an Ag. Advisor is one thing.  Taking their
>> advice is quite another matter.
>>
>
> I think they are nominally titled Ag Editor - so in my mind ought to at
> least read all of the scripts to check ag aspects before recording.  But
> perhaps that is not considered required these days.
>
Probably someone on a modest retainer, to whom they send snippets of
script when the _editor_ thinks fit to do so.

--
Sam Plusnet

Serena Blanchflower <nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:
>
> VW was capable of keeping three major themes running in parallel though.
> For me, the biggest problem with TA through they time of Helen and
> Rob, was that the editor of the day[1] couldn't manage that. The main
> story, relating to Rob's coercive control was, on the whole, done pretty
> well, IMO, but the rest of the village was allowed to go to rack and
> ruin. I remember there were countless disconnects, when stories were
> forgotten or were just badly constructed.
>
>
> [1] I forget who it was at the time.

Sean O’Connor. Long-term Archers people (i.e. Keri Davies) have commented
that he abandoned the long-term grid of births and deaths, leaving holes
that need to be filled in years later. Not a good period in the programme’s
history despite the popularity of that storyline.

krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>
> I think they have had several changes of agricultural advisor in the
> last 5 years
>
> Sybil Ruscoe took up the post in May 23.
>
> Steve Peacock was in the position in May 11.
>
> Graham Harvey certainly had the title in May 2015 and I know he was in
> post for around 10 years.
>
> Sarah Swadling held the post in December 20
>
> I have a feeling SS originated the rewilding idea and then has not
> really followed it up - and to be honest at the moment there seems a
> lack of accuracy on some of the farming aspects.

Sybil Ruscoe has gone. It’s now Fiona Mountain. Sarah Swadling knew her
stuff, as did Graham Harvey and Anthony Parkin. Not so sure about Ruscoe or
Mountain.

On 29.11.23 07:38, Wenlock wrote:
> krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I think they have had several changes of agricultural advisor in the
>> last 5 years
>>
>> Sybil Ruscoe took up the post in May 23.
>>
>> Steve Peacock was in the position in May 11.
>>
>> Graham Harvey certainly had the title in May 2015 and I know he was in
>> post for around 10 years.
>>
>> Sarah Swadling held the post in December 20
>>
>> I have a feeling SS originated the rewilding idea and then has not
>> really followed it up - and to be honest at the moment there seems a
>> lack of accuracy on some of the farming aspects.
>
> Sybil Ruscoe has gone. It’s now Fiona Mountain. Sarah Swadling knew her
> stuff, as did Graham Harvey and Anthony Parkin. Not so sure about Ruscoe or
> Mountain.
>
>
>

I could not find the latest appointment - but Ruscoe did not last long
did she?

We have had much change in writers too recently - and the editing of
scripts has been poor for a long time.

Hence it all seems uneven.

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

On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 19:52:42 +0000, Serena Blanchflower
<nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> scrawled in the dust...

>On 25/11/2023 06:40, Penny wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 15:11:26 +0000, Serena Blanchflower
>> <nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> scrawled in the dust...

>>> Yes, I agree, at times, my main problem to her was that there was simply
>>> too much good stuff going on. I remember hearing her being interviewed
>>> once, IIRC, it was about the storyline about Kathy's rape. She was
>>> making the point that bad things, such as that, aren't purely factors of
>>> urban life but that they also happen in apparently idyllic villages like
>>> Ambridge. I would have to agree with her about this and her comments
>>> were equally applicable to the other main stories running at the time, I
>>> think it was Ruth's almost-affaire with Sam Batten, and the Grundy love
>>> triangle.
>>>
>>> Any of these could happen somewhere like Ambridge and, in the most
>>> part[2], were well done. My problem was that it was highly improbable
>>> that all three crises would happen in one small village[1], all at the
>>> same time!
>>
>> Hm, I'm not so sure, I remember a brief period within my own extended
>> family when there was so much scandalous behaviour going on (not within my
>> own household) that I remarked, this would never be accepted as a plot on a
>> TV soap.
>> Nobody was killed, but the death of the matriarch before it all kicked off
>> was a blessing, and the death of her younger son about a year later may
>> have been a side effect of the rest.
>
>
>That must have been pretty grim for the non-scandalous parts of the
>family, at least.

Personally, I mostly stood on the sidelines and blinked, while doing my
best to support the husgod. Most of the protagonists were employed by him.
I think the children of said protagonists suffered most, but I wasn't
really considering them at the time.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On 27/11/2023 14:51, John Ashby wrote:
> Is Rex supplying pork for Tom? I was surprised to hear Tom delivering
> sausages for Brian's party last week as I thought he had got rid of the
> sausage business BIMBAM.

Yes, I think so. There was a lot of discussion about the need to
maintain their organic certification, when he took them over from Neil.

--
Best wishes, Serena
Have no fear of perfection - you will never achieve it! (Salvador Dali)

On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 21:27:30 +0000, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca>
scrawled in the dust...

>I have my own theory wot is mine about why there is a perceived
>reluctance to cast or be cast in a part that is contrary to the
>physical attributes of the actor and that is because I'm afraid that
>although there are a few spectacularly wonderful actors around, there
>are an awful lot who are not. So, should casting always play safe and
>stick to type or should directors and audiences expect mediocre
>performers to up their game?

Sometimes it is difficult to tell if an actor is good at their job or you
just really like the character they are playing. Until you've seen/heard
them in other parts. I continue to be astounded by David Tennant and
Michael Sheen (not together). Whereas Roger Moore can only ever have been
cast for his looks (and maybe his voice) - could you tell the difference
between Ivanhoe, Simon Templar and James Bond?

Hm, does this mean I only like actors who can do different voices?

Ray and I used to watch an American drama series called The Mentalist. His
main reason for liking it - all the actors looked like real people.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On 29/11/2023 07:37, Wenlock wrote:
> Serena Blanchflower <nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>> VW was capable of keeping three major themes running in parallel though.
>> For me, the biggest problem with TA through they time of Helen and
>> Rob, was that the editor of the day[1] couldn't manage that. The main
>> story, relating to Rob's coercive control was, on the whole, done pretty
>> well, IMO, but the rest of the village was allowed to go to rack and
>> ruin. I remember there were countless disconnects, when stories were
>> forgotten or were just badly constructed.
>>
>>
>> [1] I forget who it was at the time.
>
> Sean O’Connor. Long-term Archers people (i.e. Keri Davies) have commented
> that he abandoned the long-term grid of births and deaths, leaving holes
> that need to be filled in years later. Not a good period in the programme’s
> history despite the popularity of that storyline.
>
>

IIRC, it was also particularly under his watch (although he wasn't the
only culprit) that we started getting all too many scenes which left all
the TA groups online[1] wondering what they had just been listening to,
and what had happened and to whom. Things which might have worked
really well on TV but were incomprehensible when you couldn't see what
was going on or who was there.

[1] And, no doubt, other listeners at home.
--
Best wishes, Serena
What did the surgeon say to the patient who insisted on closing up their
own incision? Suture self.

On 29.11.23 11:46, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
> Things which might have worked really well on TV but were
> incomprehensible when you couldn't see what was going on or who was there.

That was down to a lack of understanding of radio drama - something
which the Beetle did know about and is now a lost art.

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