Yet when he told them Kevin had lost a child they ignored him.

I'm looking forward to seeing skint Fiz and Ty try to make ends meet. I don't suppose we'll be seeing them in the cafe or pub for months while they're economising

Actually it was that when they first met in the 70's, he was'nt yet a millionaire. But yes, Ahern was married to one.

The question was about Audrey, her relationships and Brits. I suppose the answer is Corrie is a soap and it certainly doesn't represent real life and any 'spare' characters are partnered up.

Melisende_PF - Please don't think that relationships or much else in Corrie are in any way representative of life in the UK. Perish the thought!



I don't and I don't like those dayglo choppers either.

Fiz's teeth are so awful she looks like she would be at home on the Jeremy Kyle Show. I know it's bad to criticise the personal looks of someone and I don't think she should get those awful choppers but she could get them tidied up a bit. Mind you, they are in keeping with the part she plays. Sorry.

As ewoodie said, Corrie were trying to make up for their mistake of forgetting that Kevin had lost a child from when Jenny kidnapped Jack in her last stint. I think with Jenny mentioning it this time we are meant to believe that Kevin told her the last time she was there although as we all know Kevin never did.

Don't get why he felt it was important enough to apologise, why do soap producers take themselves and a fictional soap so seriously, talk about first world problems or what.

At the time she was married to Peter Hook, most definitely not a millionaire at the time!! Why think he is a millionaire because he played in a band?

I expect a few people cried over it so he felt like he should apologise to make them feel important.

I forget not so much what happened in the past, but who it happened to because they use the same story over and over with different characters and it's easy to forget who it was on any particular occasion. When something's questioned or raised I'll look up Corripedia on

www.coronationstreet.wikia.com/

for what happened to a particular character or the archives on

http://www.corrie.net/updates/updates.html

for what happened in a story to refresh my memory. If I and others can do that why don't the writers do the same when planning something?

But is it really that important that the producer of a fictional programme feels he has to apologise for it?

No - they shouldn't get it wrong in the first place.

or, resurrecting a comment I've made a few times before, return to using an archivist. It can't be too difficult to employ someone to keep an eye on the characters/story histories - as they used to ... Daran Little ...

"While at Manchester Polytechnic, he wrote his dissertation about Coronation Street. After graduating in 1988, he was taken on by Granada Television as an archivist. He has written several books, both fiction and non-fiction, about the show and its characters and co-wrote Betty Driver's autobiography."

But does it really matter that they did, I don't think it does that's my point .

Quite.

I wonder when we can expect the baliffs knocking on Fiz and Tyrones door that should be worth a few chuckles.

all characters have history which is an integral part of them and it's important to remember that so it makes sense in future episodes.

I Remember a few years ago they wanted Tania Pooley to come back in and the actress Eva Pope said no, because there was no way Tania would ever return as when she left everybody hated her for what she did to Raquel and Des, deliberately splitting them up just because she could. She had no family there, no connection with the place, so why return.

even way back in the depths of history viewers remembered Ena Shaples not wanting any éclairs with her half dozen 'fancies' in the first episode, so were rather surprised a decade later to see her eating one. back then the writers did not expect the show to run and people to build up a history of the character's back stories.

in the future we expect them to remember that adult Hope had cancer as a child or Amy is lactose intolerant so drinks black coffee because we will remember those things

They used to employ an archivist. Wasn't it David Nugent or his wife - or am I remembering that incorrectly? Certainly doesn't seem as if thy have one now.

Thanks, it's an important distinction. I'll remember that if the topic crops up again.


One of their creditors would have needed to take them to court first, and win their case. (Okay, there are a few exceptions to this).

Which minor point didn't stop the bailiffs turning up for someone else : wasn't it Owen?

Well it seems to have been forgotten that Tracy had a kidney transplant and would need to be on anti-rejection medication for the rest of her life, and lets not forget part time epilepsy sufferer David Platt who would need to take medication to lessen the chance of a seizure but might still be prone if he got stressed yet is the centre of a pretty stressful situation of covering up Callums death yet seems to be coping pretty well with it.

Soaps often do get debt related stories wrong in that respect which is why I made that comment in the first place.

They have mentioned Tracey a few times, for instance when she and Rob were talking about her lack of a kidney, and she did collapse with a kidney infection a while ago and ended up in hospital. They asked her if she was taking her ant-rejection drugs regularly.

David's been OK on his medication, which nowadays is pretty good, until he had a seizure when out with Max, who had the sense to hone Nick.

Oh I was just making the point that some people only seem to complain when certain things get forgotten, it doesn't bother me at all that things get forgotten in soaps as I am not one of the anal types that require them to be 150% correct every time and I certainly wouldn't cry about it and expect the shows producers to apologise for it, I blame the soap production team to a certain extent because they take themselves far too seriously by trying to be social commentaries rather than completely fictional dramas.

And I mean all soaps not just Corrie.

It's not complaints as such. More frustration that if viewers know what happens in certain situations or remember what happened to a character or place in the past, why can't the writers who get paid to produce what we see do some research.

But someone must have complained otherwise why would the producer feel as if he needed to apologise which in truth he didn't need to do as it wasn't that important.

As for frustration, I guess I am just unfortunate that I have real issues to get frustrated about.

The tabloids picked up the Kevin had a son who died story.