Coronation Street - Suspension of Reality (Part 8)

1394395397399400544

Comments

  • Janet43Janet43 Posts: 8,008
    Forum Member
    What with Ann Kirkbride out with exhaustion and her character's absence just being ignored, and now Simon Gregson off with a "mystery illness" what on earth is going on with Corrie?
  • Tt88Tt88 Posts: 6,827
    Forum Member
    Eurostar wrote: »
    Agree completely that she's gorgeous and she looks young for her age too. I still think having a son would be a complicating factor vis a vis her love live though. Who was looking after him this evening while she was in the pub flirting with Luke by the way?

    They wouldnt work.

    Her last love of her life was marcus, and she was desperate to move out of the flat and buy a big house with him and have more kids. Marcus was a midwife, living at eileens so shouldve been loaded, yet between them they were always being turned down for mortgages.

    So why on earth would she want to be with luke? If she was desperate to be settled down in a posh house and have more kids she would be looking at someone older and more established, not just a young apprentice regardless of what he looks like.
  • ewoodieewoodie Posts: 26,539
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tt88 wrote: »
    They wouldnt work.

    Her last love of her life was marcus, and she was desperate to move out of the flat and buy a big house with him and have more kids. Marcus was a midwife, living at eileens so shouldve been loaded, yet between them they were always being turned down for mortgages.

    So why on earth would she want to be with luke? If she was desperate to be settled down in a posh house and have more kids she would be looking at someone older and more established, not just a young apprentice regardless of what he looks like.

    What a good point!
  • GrannyGruntbuckGrannyGruntbuck Posts: 3,638
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why did Roy say that Todd had chased off the hooligans?

    They were already running away before Todd even started to chase after them for all of 15 yards.
  • ewoodieewoodie Posts: 26,539
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why did Roy say that Todd had chased off the hooligans?

    They were already running away before Todd even started to chase after them for all of 15 yards.
    Look. Todd has to be a hero. Todd has to be beaten up. Todd has to be in hospital. So that Eileen can wail and cry and carry-on and all can be forgiven. ;-);-);-)
  • stevepjkstevepjk Posts: 2,794
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Sandra Bee wrote: »
    OK, they have explained Deirdre's absence (albeit pathetic) from Tracey's wedding because of Bev's bereavement but how on earth can they explain her further absence in the wake of what's been going on. They can't, surely.

    TPTB just didn't think it through properly in the first place. There is so much going on in the Barlow household at the moment that her absence is unbelievable.

    I think the scene with ken and carla was meant to be ken and Deirdre

    Must admit I didn't see that ending coming, thought they'd do a bonie and Clyde and hide out in a secluded corner of outer Urmston till things die down a bit
  • EurostarEurostar Posts: 78,519
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tt88 wrote: »
    They wouldnt work.

    Her last love of her life was marcus, and she was desperate to move out of the flat and buy a big house with him and have more kids. Marcus was a midwife, living at eileens so shouldve been loaded, yet between them they were always being turned down for mortgages.

    So why on earth would she want to be with luke? If she was desperate to be settled down in a posh house and have more kids she would be looking at someone older and more established, not just a young apprentice regardless of what he looks like.

    Yes, this is the problem. They have Maria down as a gorgeous man magnet but they're completely forgetting she is a single mum, which would be a bit of a barrier to who she dates. What would she want with Luke for example.......just a casual fling and sex I presume? That's certainly what Luke must be after.
  • mrsdaisychainmrsdaisychain Posts: 3,433
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    What I find amazing never mind anything else is Maria's little fella Liam is Michelle's deceased brothers child yet you never see any interaction with her and the little boy.
  • kevthelutonbeekevthelutonbee Posts: 1,165
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    How did the police know where to look for the piece of scaffolding pole?

    Why were they investigating a crime they had already gained a conviction for?

    How did they know that Tracy was off to see Rob?
  • GrannyGruntbuckGrannyGruntbuck Posts: 3,638
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    How did the police know where to look for the piece of scaffolding pole?

    Why were they investigating a crime they had already gained a conviction for?

    How did they know that Tracy was off to see Rob?

    Rob told Carla that he had thrown the pipe into the canal.

    Tracy Lurve phoned the police en route to Rob to alert them to the fact she was meeting him at the derelict factory.

    They were investigating a crime for which they already had a conviction because new evidence came to light!

    You really must pay attention! :p
  • tuppencehapennytuppencehapenny Posts: 4,239
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I was chuntering away during Corrie last night, even more than usual. How on earth can the police arrest and charge Rob with murder or issue his photos to newspapers saying he's wanted for murder when someone else is in prison for the same crime, based on a completely different scenario?

    Would there not be extensive and lengthy legal processes to go through before Peter was exonerated and released? They already have a killer, in jail, even though we know it's the wrong one. Can you charge a second person for the same crime, based on a completely different interpretation of the evidence (such as it is)? They can't both be guilty, and Peter is still in prison.
  • GrannyGruntbuckGrannyGruntbuck Posts: 3,638
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I was chuntering away during Corrie last night, even more than usual. How on earth can the police arrest and charge Rob with murder or issue his photos to newspapers saying he's wanted for murder when someone else is in prison for the same crime, based on a completely different scenario?

    Would there not be extensive and lengthy legal processes to go through before Peter was exonerated and released? They already have a killer, in jail, even though we know it's the wrong one. Can you charge a second person for the same crime, based on a completely different interpretation of the evidence (such as it is)? They can't both be guilty, and Peter is still in prison.

    They didn't charge him
    They arrested him on suspicion of murder. Any charge will be made at the police station.
  • EurostarEurostar Posts: 78,519
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I was chuntering away during Corrie last night, even more than usual. How on earth can the police arrest and charge Rob with murder or issue his photos to newspapers saying he's wanted for murder when someone else is in prison for the same crime, based on a completely different scenario?

    Would there not be extensive and lengthy legal processes to go through before Peter was exonerated and released? They already have a killer, in jail, even though we know it's the wrong one. Can you charge a second person for the same crime, based on a completely different interpretation of the evidence (such as it is)? They can't both be guilty, and Peter is still in prison.

    You most certainly cannot open a police investigation into a murder that has already been solved and for which a person has been convicted and sent to prison for life, which means the storyline is a massive SOR.

    Police could only reopen the investigation into Tina's murder if Peter managed to clear his name at the Court of Appeal. This means there would have been no need for Rob to go on the run, and Tracy should not have been arrested.
  • EurostarEurostar Posts: 78,519
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    They didn't charge him
    They arrested him on suspicion of murder. Any charge will be made at the police station.

    You cannot be arrested for a crime that has already been "solved". As far as police are concerned, Peter is the killer.
  • jackoljackol Posts: 7,887
    Forum Member
    Rob told Carla that he had thrown the pipe into the canal.

    Tracy Lurve phoned the police en route to Rob to alert them to the fact she was meeting him at the derelict factory.

    They were investigating a crime for which they already had a conviction because new evidence came to light!

    You really must pay attention! :p

    They cannot do that until Peters conviction has been quashed
  • GrannyGruntbuckGrannyGruntbuck Posts: 3,638
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Eurostar wrote: »
    You cannot be arrested for a crime that has already been "solved". As far as police are concerned, Peter is the killer.

    You can if new evidence comes to light!
  • jackoljackol Posts: 7,887
    Forum Member
    They didn't charge him
    They arrested him on suspicion of murder. Any charge will be made at the police station.

    There was no crime
    to b e arrested for
  • GrannyGruntbuckGrannyGruntbuck Posts: 3,638
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jackol wrote: »
    They cannot do that until Peters conviction has been quashed

    New evidence means the police can investigate.
  • jackoljackol Posts: 7,887
    Forum Member
    You can if new evidence comes to light!

    NO you cannot until Peters conviction is overturned
  • Chiltons CaneChiltons Cane Posts: 23,587
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    What I find amazing never mind anything else is Maria's little fella Liam is Michelle's deceased brothers child yet you never see any interaction with her and the little boy.

    You hardly ever see any interaction with Maria nad the child! When she is constantly down the pub who ha shim then? And don't get me started on her dog. At least Eccles gets screen time!
  • David1964David1964 Posts: 1,226
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jackol wrote: »
    They cannot do that until Peters conviction has been quashed
    You can if new evidence comes to light!
    jackol wrote: »
    There was no crime
    to b e arrested for
    New evidence means the police can investigate.
    jackol wrote: »
    NO you cannot until Peters conviction is overturned
    Eurostar wrote: »
    You cannot be arrested for a crime that has already been "solved". As far as police are concerned, Peter is the killer.

    There seems to be 2 sides to this debate, is there a legal expert who can confirm the facts, one way or another? :)
  • David1964David1964 Posts: 1,226
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tt88 wrote: »
    They wouldnt work.

    Her last love of her life was marcus, and she was desperate to move out of the flat and buy a big house with him and have more kids. Marcus was a midwife, living at eileens so shouldve been loaded, yet between them they were always being turned down for mortgages.

    So why on earth would she want to be with luke? If she was desperate to be settled down in a posh house and have more kids she would be looking at someone older and more established, not just a young apprentice regardless of what he looks like.

    That's an excellent point but why would the script writers let a previous story line get in the way of what they have dreamt up for character this week? :D

    PS I wonder if Tims illiteracy story line will be resurrected when things calm down in the Barlow household?
  • GrannyGruntbuckGrannyGruntbuck Posts: 3,638
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    David1964 wrote: »
    That's an excellent point but why would the script writers let a previous story line get in the way of what they have dreamt up for character this week? :D

    PS I wonder if Tims illiteracy story line will be resurrected when things calm down in the Barlow household?

    It will! ;-)
  • EurostarEurostar Posts: 78,519
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    You can if new evidence comes to light!

    Only if they believed Peter and Rob had murdered Tina together.

    They could certainly reopen the investigation if Peter was on remand awaiting trial, but once he was convicted, the matter was done and dusted.
  • EurostarEurostar Posts: 78,519
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    David1964 wrote: »
    There seems to be 2 sides to this debate, is there a legal expert who can confirm the facts, one way or another? :)

    Once a person has been convicted for murder and sent to jail, that's the end of the matter as far as the police are concerned......they're the ones who assembled the evidence and said that the accused was guilty.

    "New evidence" coming forward is of no use or interest to them, not even in the form of direct confession to the murder. They could only reopen the investigation after the convicted person has managed to clear their name in the courts.
This discussion has been closed.