If she had been charged with murder then being a parent would have no bearing at all, still goes on remand. If she has been charged and remanded surely Corrie would have mentioned it? This storyline is now officially pear shaped

the police must have a duty to alert social services that a child's welfare might be affected when a lone mother is remanded and if necessary the child would be take into care.

does anyone think these stories through/

From Corriepedia

"1987 Susan ended up pregnant to Mike. However, she didn't want to have the baby as she wasn't in love with Mike any more, so went to have her pregnancy terminated and later claimed she miscarried, but Mike saw right through her and knew she'd had an abortion. She later left Weatherfield once again. However, she never had an abortion and gave birth to son Adam on 3rd May 1988, but never told her father Ken.
Many years later in 2001, Ken discovered Susan's secret after son Peter let it slip during an argument that Susan never aborted Mike's baby. Ken went to Glasgow to visit her, but she begged Ken not to tell anyone. Ken however let it slip to Deirdre, who in turn told her ex-lover Dev Alahan, who informed Mike. Mike was angry and demanded that he wanted to see Adam. Susan decided to up sticks once again, but when trying to escape with Adam, she ended up in a car crash and was killed. Adam however managed to survive the crash. Susan was buried next to her mother Valerie. "

It does add:

"Susan not aborting Adam (as revealed in 2001) is somewhat of a retcon in the series continuity. Susan did not "pretend" to abort Adam to escape Mike, she aborted her child as she wasn't yet prepared to have children yet. Also despite Ken only finding out in 2001 that he had a grandson and it is spoken like he hasn't seen Susan since her departure in 1987, he did in fact visit her off-screen in that time."

But that's no different to any other continuity blunder in Corrie. To avoid going insane, we have to take the last account put out by the writers - in this case Susan lied about having an abortion. Of course, no woman has ever lied about an abortion, has she?

Being pedantic, surely it should be "by Mike" ?

Thanks, I'd forgotten that scene.

I really don't know what point you are trying to make. The fact is in 2001 (sorry, not 2000 as I incorrectly wrote), the Coronation Street production team decided to re-write history regarding Susan and Adam. It was quite clear that Susan had had an abortion in 1987 and she had no reason to lie about it, she wanted Mike but not a baby. Why are you finding this so hard to accept?

I added:

But that's no different to any other continuity blunder in Corrie. To avoid going insane, we have to take the last account put out by the writers - in this case Susan lied about having an abortion. Of course, no woman has ever lied about an abortion, has she?

Why are you finding it so hard to accept that I acknowledge the writers have changed the story from she did have an abortion to she lied about having an abortion?

I only added the last sentence because some seem to believe that if a woman says she has had an abortion she has in fact had one. Some say she DID have an abortion, but he writers have decided she didn't. We have to accept the current story or the rest makes even less sense.

Is it just me or do other folks wonder why the Bistro hasn't been closed down for food hygiene issues.

No one seems to wear any protective clothing or hair covering in the kitchen and odd people are allowed to walk in and out as they please.

Zeedon works with food without anything on that 'thing' on his head, heaven knows what is living in there, perhaps ingredients for birds nest soup?

That "thing" on his head reminds me of a Cossack hat.

Is it because it's a SOR and this is the SOR thread?!!

Rather than "I am going to prove you wrong" thread.

well yes they would do, it happened on some sort of Police camera action show I caught last week The police arrested the mum and took the child to the police station whilst they sorted things out. They were talking about social services but the child eventually went to relatives. i suppose in this case they know Liam is with kirk, we just havent had it spelt out.

They would probably say the same if they called social services about Kirk, they know he's with Liam so he ok. No need to send him to relatives.

So are there no CCTV camera's in Dev's shop surely they would see Asha and Aadi scratching the lottery ticket on that so wouldn't the ticket be now null and void?

Or wouldn't that count now if Bethany paid for the ticket? In which case she never did anyway unless she paid off-screen.

Good to know that Kirk is in good hands, Liam would also be able to look after Beth, he would be glad to have another dog to see to after losing Ossie.

Aren't Asda and Aldi two lovable little scamps!

Stealing lottery cards from their father, selling flowers stolen from a cemetery, lying to and manipulating their minders and thick as two short planks.

Dev must be the proudest father in Weatherfield!

I agree and Dev never talks about Amber anymore either.

And Aldi's a future golf champion! (Oh, oops, Dev's forgotten about that!)

No.

Except the members on the SOR thread.

He has probably been banned from all golf clubs since he and Asda stole all the flags from the course and sold them.

it is Jeremy kyle-speak. if a child is born as a result, the male becomes 'father to the child', or even 'potential father to' the child. the mother is of course a 'bird'.

people seem to take notice of that clown and his deliberately dumbed down English than they did to their teachers.

please excuse my dodgy keyboard and the lack of capital letters.

Thanks for the clarification. I don't watch Jeremy Kyle so had no idea he had changed the English language !

Don't you start!


Those kids! They're so funny with all their little tricks and ruses. Mary makes their homework fun, gets them ready for bed and reads them bedtime stories. THAT is not natural at their age. They should be learning to be independent individuals at their aga and they should not be pandered to by one of the local nutjobs and their father who is no better.

What will happen with this latest scheme of theirs? Will Dev and Mary gang up together and it will be all Erica's fault? Why can't Dev send them off to live with one of his lovely comedy aunties or uncles in India?

Watching today - a few episodes behind - it was the episode when Eileen is told of the scam. It seems she had no idea, despite working at the sales office just in front of the site - and didn't ever wander on site for a look?

Anyway, it led me on to thinking about the current "major" story lines - The Barlow Clan with Pirate Ken (replacing the Connors for now), the Maria Murder and the Great Apartment Con.

Worrying that the producers see these as acceptable and credible stories, isn't it?

Adorable, aren't they. Though a teeny SOR that Adi, scion of the Alahan empire, wouldn't be able to divide 300 by 3.

I fear the kids are somehow connected with Mary's googly-eyed moment about family or friends being all that mattered, and rushing out of the pub. Brace yourselves for a Mary-Poppins type sl in which she transforms them into well-mannered geniuses.