Options

Coronation Street - Suspension of Reality (Part 2)

18283858788120

Comments

  • Options
    chloebchloeb Posts: 6,501
    Forum Member
    yep......steve would have had parental repsonsibility for Amy..
  • Options
    crystal_methcrystal_meth Posts: 8,379
    Forum Member
    grey wrote: »
    So Tracy walks into the Rovers and throws her weight about.............literally and figuratively
    Then goes into the pub's private quarters and abducts a child
    This, after being convicted of murder
    Any licensee would hve barred her within minutes of her first visit. If she refused to leave the police would have been called and hauled her straight back to jail

    Agree, this aspect has been laughable. Steve & Becky would be dying to see Tracy back in clink, they'd have just called the police. As people are saying she has currently abducted a child.

    Where exactly is Liz by the way?
  • Options
    ::Adam::::Adam:: Posts: 7,223
    Forum Member
    Agree, this aspect has been laughable. Steve & Becky would be dying to see Tracy back in clink, they'd have just called the police. As people are saying she has currently abducted a child.

    Where exactly is Liz by the way?

    Spain.
  • Options
    adwaltonadwalton Posts: 4,698
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ::Adam:: wrote: »
    Spain.

    Rather strasnge for a landlady to disappear on holiday at the pub's busiest time of the year. I don't recall anything being said about the trip to Spain until some time after she had gone.
  • Options
    adwaltonadwalton Posts: 4,698
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Was all the food on Christmas day provided free by the management (who happen to be deep in debt)? Nobody seemed to be paying for food. The whole street simply piled in and started tucking in.
    No wonder Steve has no money.
  • Options
    Jimmy ConnorsJimmy Connors Posts: 118,205
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    stevepjk wrote: »
    but you can't drive down the street as it's closed off, the only way in or out is via Rosamund street so if Mr & Mrs Hoyle drove into the street they'd have had to turn the car round outside the factory and Colin would have seen that, they litterally just drove up to him like they'd come from Viaduct Street not turned the car around

    and why did John decide to go when he saw Chesney and katy, like most teens they probably couldn't care less who he's talking to anyway

    all getting too silly

    I thought it was strange too. I assumed they had parked up in front of the garage whilst they paid their respects and were leaving when they noticed John.
    It was strange though.
  • Options
    Mystery ManMystery Man Posts: 914
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Liz's absence is really strange. Last time, it was because the actress had had a nervous breakdown (or something similar), but at the time the current episodes were being filmed, she was regularly appearing on Loose Women and seemed to be perfectly fine. And there was no scene with her which explained why she suddenly f... flitted of to Spain, either - merely a casual mention some time after she last appeared. Odd.

    And how many more times are we going to be subjected to Nick wanting to take Leanne up the ginnel (!). We've had the same, virtually identical scene at least six times now. Why can't she simply tell him she just can't stand big ears? :)
  • Options
    simonipswichsimonipswich Posts: 1,803
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Liz's absence is really strange. Last time, it was because the actress had had a nervous breakdown (or something similar), but at the time the current episodes were being filmed, she was regularly appearing on Loose Women and seemed to be perfectly fine. And there was no scene with her which explained why she suddenly f... flitted of to Spain, either - merely a casual mention some time after she last appeared. Odd.

    And how many more times are we going to be subjected to Nick wanting to take Leanne up the ginnel (!). We've had the same, virtually identical scene at least six times now. Why can't she simply tell him she just can't stand big ears? :)

    Bev Collard got married October/November time, when they filmed those episodes, so Liz was sent off to Spain.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 987
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Think Ken's attitude to Tracy is out of character as well. He should have been absolutely mortified by the way she has spoken to people and behaved since she got back. Ken is an utter snob and would not put up with being shown up like that in front of the neighbours without saying something to Tracy. :confused:
  • Options
    Hootie19Hootie19 Posts: 3,181
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Harking back a bit . . . .

    But I work in Children's Services where all the referrals about potential harm to children are received. I am often left with my jaw on the desk at the ridiculous reports about "domestic violence" we receive from the police. "Parents had an argument over a takeaway". "Eldest child (usually about 16/17 years old) had an argument with parents over being grounded". "Parents had a verbal argument about Christmas lights" (yes, we really did get that one in last week). There doesn't have to be violence involved - a verbal is enough.

    But if there is a child who *normally* resides at the location (even if they were not there at the time of the incident) then the police attend and send a report to social services.

    If other SS departments are run like ours (and I think it's a national thing), then as Sophie is under 18 years old and was present at the time, then Kevin and Sally would also have been contacted by social services.

    No wonder the police are under such a strain on resources.
  • Options
    ThumbolinaThumbolina Posts: 3,982
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If this was real life [which it isn't] would the licensee be able to be absent for so long leaving the pub in the hands of two convicted criminals who were unable to get a licence?
  • Options
    john176bramleyjohn176bramley Posts: 25,049
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Don't know if this one has been mentioned.

    The builder boyfriend of Liz keeps pressurising Steve to pay for the work he did at the pub saying he needs to pay his men. He actually said Steve only had to pay for materials, not labour. I reckon the materials (bag of plaster, roll of wallpaper, ect) would come to £30 at most, is he really that desperate for £30 and can't Steve just give it to him out of the till?:confused:
  • Options
    stevepjkstevepjk Posts: 2,794
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    getting totally into the legalities of child protection Tracey should not be allowed anywhere near Amy as she lost custody of her because she sold her to the croppers

    along the same lines Clare shouldn't be able to move to France with Joshua without the concent of Matt Rasmden who's his boilogical father with visitation rights

    now had Clare been bumped off with Ashley the Matt could have taken custody of Joshua and adopted Freddie as he'd be an orphan
  • Options
    MartinRosenMartinRosen Posts: 33,063
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The builder boyfriend of Liz keeps pressurising Steve to pay for the work he did at the pub saying he needs to pay his men. He actually said Steve only had to pay for materials, not labour. I reckon the materials (bag of plaster, roll of wallpaper, ect) would come to £30 at most, is he really that desperate for £30 and can't Steve just give it to him out of the till?:confused:

    So following on from your comment, even if Steve pays, there is no money there to pay his men !
  • Options
    IndegIndeg Posts: 1,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    stevepjk wrote: »
    getting totally into the legalities of child protection Tracey should not be allowed anywhere near Amy as she lost custody of her because she sold her to the croppers

    along the same lines Clare shouldn't be able to move to France with Joshua without the concent of Matt Rasmden who's his boilogical father with visitation rights

    now had Clare been bumped off with Ashley the Matt could have taken custody of Joshua and adopted Freddie as he'd be an orphan
    I thought Claire formally adopted Joshua. Besides which, Matt may have visitation rights (I'm not sure how formal that arrangement was anyway), but did not have parental responsibility which, unless the parents are married, must be applied for in court. Legal parental responsibility is what counts in terms of being able to take a child overseas - the simple fact of being the biological parent carries no legal weight.


    Regarding Nick's offer to run the bookies for Peter until he's back on his feet - just how many salaries can the bookies support, realistically? It is currently Peter and Leanne's sole source of income, and also employs John - who would surely be the most obvious person to step up and manage the place, with Leanne's support, while Peter is laid up, since he is already trained. Can they really afford to also employ Nick, who doesn't know the business at all? Plus, I find it hard to trust him, and feel that Peter shouldn't either!
  • Options
    SylviaSylvia Posts: 14,586
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    adwalton wrote: »
    Was all the food on Christmas day provided free by the management (who happen to be deep in debt)? Nobody seemed to be paying for food. The whole street simply piled in and started tucking in.
    No wonder Steve has no money.

    Also have you noticed that fashion victim Becky never ever wears the same outfit twice - does she buy it all on Steve's credit card?
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,285
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    grey wrote: »
    So Tracy walks into the Rovers and throws her weight about.............literally and figuratively
    Then goes into the pub's private quarters and abducts a child
    This, after being convicted of murder
    Any licensee would hve barred her within minutes of her first visit. If she refused to leave the police would have been called and hauled her straight back to jail

    I dont get this storyline. She is only out on licence until the new court case....how can she just take the child I thought Steve had full custody?

    Stupid storyline....boo hiss.
  • Options
    PyramidbreadPyramidbread Posts: 10,452
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    grey wrote: »
    So Tracy walks into the Rovers and throws her weight about.............literally and figuratively
    Then goes into the pub's private quarters and abducts a child
    This, after being convicted of murder
    Any licensee would hve barred her within minutes of her first visit. If she refused to leave the police would have been called and hauled her straight back to jail

    Except that Tracy would blab to the police straight away about Max, opening up a can of worms
  • Options
    teenagemartyrteenagemartyr Posts: 6,782
    Forum Member
    I agree with the previous posts regarding Ken and Deirdre's attitude towards TracyLuv's antics. Surely they'd never condone all of her drama and I can't believe that Deirdre turned on Gail in the pub. The quote "Oooooh shut up Gail! Why do you have to make everything about you?!?" made me cheer with glee though :o

    I also thought that Deirdre randomly screaming "TRACYLUV!" across the cobbles on Christmas Eve was quite random. Hysterical, but it seemed very contrived and was clearly put in to make fans laugh.
  • Options
    crystal_methcrystal_meth Posts: 8,379
    Forum Member
    Bev Collard got married October/November time, when they filmed those episodes, so Liz was sent off to Spain.

    Doesn't explain her protracted disappearance and the fact her trip to spain has never been mentioned except once after the fact. Now every single person on the street has apparently now forgotten she ever existed... :confused:
  • Options
    crystal_methcrystal_meth Posts: 8,379
    Forum Member
    I agree with the previous posts regarding Ken and Deirdre's attitude towards TracyLuv's antics. Surely they'd never condone all of her drama and I can't believe that Deirdre turned on Gail in the pub. The quote "Oooooh shut up Gail! Why do you have to make everything about you?!?" made me cheer with glee though :o

    I also thought that Deirdre randomly screaming "TRACYLUV!" across the cobbles on Christmas Eve was quite random. Hysterical, but it seemed very contrived and was clearly put in to make fans laugh.

    I can understand Dreary snapping at mentallist Gail, which was hilarious IMO, but yep as for the rest, completely agree.

    Why is it taken for granted that when someone like Tracy pops up from nowhere they'll automatically be able to stay at their parents? And as if Ken & Dreary are going to see that little girl pulled from pillar to post, let alone facilitate Tracey to abduct her. :mad:

    Traceyluv was a bit inexplicable because the very last person you'd expect to see on a cold dark winter night in a snowstorm is your daughter who's banged up. Most people would say, gosh that person looks like Tracey. Especially Dreary who if her glasses are anything to go by doesn't exac have 20:20 vision.
  • Options
    crystal_methcrystal_meth Posts: 8,379
    Forum Member
    SOR: Eileen being 'the voice of reason' I don't think so. Tracey kidnapping Amy being 'perfectly normal and something to get used to' erm.... no. Sorry scriptwriters we don't buy storylines by being dictated to via Eileen's thoughts, you have to make them a bit convincing.

    Fruitbat, yes. PMSL
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 78
    Forum Member
    Leaving Amy on her own with Eccles was a bit irresponsible as well, I know that it's not exactly a suspension of reality but would you really leave the kid on her own with the dog in the back yard? I know I wouldn't, and I love dogs!
  • Options
    teenagemartyrteenagemartyr Posts: 6,782
    Forum Member
    So Becky screeched the street down just a fortnight ago when she was irresponsible enough to let Max go AWOL, but thinks it's OK to take someone else's child from the next door's back garden without permission?

    I don't know whether this is SOR or just another aspect of Becky's ridiculous personality. (I do agree that Steve should have Amy, but Becky really isn't helping matters).
  • Options
    teenagemartyrteenagemartyr Posts: 6,782
    Forum Member
    vikki13lou wrote: »
    Leaving Amy on her own with Eccles was a bit irresponsible as well, I know that it's not exactly a suspension of reality but would you really leave the kid on her own with the dog in the back yard? I know I wouldn't, and I love dogs!

    I thought the same! Over the wall is a pub's smoking bench and they left the back gate wide open.
This discussion has been closed.