Fair City [News, Spoilers & Discussion v5] Read Post #1 Before Contributing

Raven Runner

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Does Leo want to manage the hotel with Jackie

I get the impression he wants to manage Jackie:)

sligojoek

Rose016 wrote: »

My eyes bleed .. my ears burn holes in my head..my skin has broken out in a nasty bad story line rash.. im sneezing razor blades as i watch this..continuing to endure my fair city penance...

For once i was happy to hear bambi floatty hands (kerri ann) talk sh1t because nothing else is making any sence n this prog

I thought you meant Leo there for a minute.

Raven Runner

Apologies if this was mentioned before but I still can't get over the fact that Michael survived falling down the stairs on a night out in Galway but a gentle jostle and he's gone to the next life. Where did Bob go I thought he and Rennae were together. Even though the writing is crap I still watch it for Tommy they should do a special episode in Kilkenny since he used to mention it non-stop during his early years would be nice to see some new scenery

coolhull

Raven Runner wrote: »

I get the impression he wants to manage man-handle Jackie:)

Fixed your post for ya, Ravren

Rose016

Raven Runner wrote: »

Apologies if this was mentioned before but I still can't get over the fact that Michael survived falling down the stairs on a night out in Galway but a gentle jostle and he's gone to the next life. Where did Bob go I thought he and Rennae were together. Even though the writing is crap I still watch it for Tommy they should do a special episode in Kilkenny since he used to mention it non-stop during his early years would be nice to see some new scenery

Tommy loved telling his tales of auntie kitty and his shooting expeditions...that went quiet after he held the misus and bob charles up at gun point

fin12

Here's a nice clip of Leo singing the Parting Glass:

fin12

Strazdas

fin12 wrote: »

why cant Debbie take a restraining order out against Cathal, the man kidnapped her and held her hostages ffs.

In fact, I would have thought it was a strict condition of Cathal's bail that he cannot go anywhere near the O'Briens. Hasn't he been charged with falsely imprisoning Debbie?

fin12

Strazdas wrote: »

In fact, I would have thought it was a strict condition of Cathal's bail that he cannot go anywhere near the O'Briens. Hasn't he been charged with falsely imprisoning Debbie?

I actually cant remember what's happening with him or what bail he is on, just keep remembering him asking her to change her statement.

Strazdas

fin12 wrote: »

I actually cant remember what's happening with him or what bail he is on, just keep remembering him asking her to change her statement.

From what I can see, there were two separate incidents that night : Cathal falsely imprisoning Debbie (and then going on the run) and Michael being injured in the struggle to free her. This being FC though, it's all become jumbled up.

Is nobody in Carrigstown aware that Cathal imprisoned Debbie and that Flynn held people hostage at the Station by the way? Cathal is going about his business as if nothing has happened and is even being treated as a reliable witness by the likes of Leo and Hughie.

The Talking Bread

ok,, i tweeted one of the writers involved and told him, I know citing precedents etc that there is no way that someone would be criminally liable for what happened. when he tried to claim he had spoken to legal reps before the story, l pulled him up on it, citing my knowledge in the area. he hummed and hawed a bit but then when i asked him to produce the precedents he disappeared....... I'm trying to connect to some of the other writers.

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/57613834.jpg

Mod: image removed.

monkey9

fin12 wrote: »

why cant Debbie take a restraining order out against Cathal, the man kidnapped her and held her hostages ffs.

She also seems to forget that Cathal was about to strangle her just before Tommy and Eoghan saved her. Ah but sure look it, those things can happen.

monkey9

Strazdas wrote: »

From what I can see, there were two separate incidents that night : Cathal falsely imprisoning Debbie (and then going on the run) and Michael being injured in the struggle to free her. This being FC though, it's all become jumbled up.

Is nobody in Carrigstown aware that Cathal imprisoned Debbie and that Flynn held people hostage at the Station by the way? Cathal is going about his business as if nothing has happened and is even being treated as a reliable witness by the likes of Leo and Hughie.

Actually, that's a very good point. Despite everything that happened that night, all that seems to be mentioned is that Michael had a brain haemorrage.

Everyone at The Station that night had accepted they were about to be shot dead, but their lives were saved at the last second. The main outcome from this is that Robbie has suddenly remembered he's adopted and that Carol doesn't get on with her sister. :pac:

coolhull

monkey9 wrote: »

Everyone at The Station that night had accepted they were about to be shot dead, but their lives were saved at the last second. The main outcome from this is that Robbie has suddenly remembered he's adopted and that Carol doesn't get on with her sister. :pac:

Yeah, being held at gunpoint by a really bad actor can sometimes have that effect on people. Well, in FC it can.

Strazdas

monkey9 wrote: »

Actually, that's a very good point. Despite everything that happened that night, all that seems to be mentioned is that Michael had a brain haemorrage.

Everyone at The Station that night had accepted they were about to be shot dead, but their lives were saved at the last second. The main outcome from this is that Robbie has suddenly remembered he's adopted and that Carol doesn't get on with her sister. :pac:

It's as if everyone in Carrigstown is unaware that Cathal held Debbie hostage and that Michael got injured when he, Eoghan and Tommy went to rescue her. Bizarrely Cathal is showing up in McCoys, the Hungry Pig and the Station, harrassing the O'Briens and nobody is even raising an eyebrow.

The Talking Bread

Sam Atwell: (Fair City Writer) Hi XXXXXX thanks for your passion and continued interest in the show. As I have said, according to our research and case studies there have been incidents where people have faced jail for involuntary manslaughter. We will play out the story through the year so I encourage you to keep watching. All the best Sam.


Me Sam, I'm sorry but can you just admit you have made an error on this. I am well versed in the law in this area and what Eoghan did that night carries NO weight in a case for involuntary manslaughter. No amount of you replying claiming case studies or precedents (which not surprisingly you have failed to furnish me with) will change the fact that this death was a complete tragic accident merely. Have a look at the legal requirements for Inv. Manslaughter, educate yourself. You have committed to this despite no legal research yet your blatantly too proud to acknowledge your error. It is extremely frustrating that simple things like this are not researched. As I said Sam I am speaking on behalf of a very large social media fan forum on this issue who are extremely perplexed how you have handled this.

The Talking Bread

It seems that the writers have really committed to their idiotic stance on this......


http://cdn.meme.am/instances/59757062.jpg

Flippyfloppy

Why the hell isn't Eoghan pointing them towards the footage on TomCam that Cathal has?

katkin

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Why the hell isn't Eoghan pointing them towards the footage on TomCam that Cathal has?

Exactly. Michael's death would surely be ruled accidental at an inquest, what motive had Eoghan to hurt his son while chasing his wife's kidnapper around a hotel. Anyway why didnt they just call the guards and get out of there.

The Talking Bread

The precise moment the scriptwriters told the O Brien actors about this nonsense plot twist


http://entertainment.ie/images_content/E%20Eps%20181%20The%20O'Brien's%20are%20stunned%20to%20learn%20Michael%20has%20passed%20away%202.jpg

Strazdas

The Talking Bread wrote: »

<SNIP>

Involuntary manslaughter in my book would be throwing a punch at someone and they fall and bang their head ie. the intention was to throw a punch at them but certainly not kill them.

Eoghan's case could only be seen as accidental death. They weren't even having an argument and the injury was a freak accident. To say that Eoghan 'killed' Michael would be actually be incorrect : Michael was accidentally injured when he was pushed out of the way by Eoghan for his own safety.

The Talking Bread

The following may result in you banging your head off a wall

Fair City Writer, Sam Atwell: Dear xxxx I am sad this has annoyed you so much but I have nothing to retract or apologise for. Our team has spoken to two solicitors, a barrister and a criminal law lecturer and we have most definitely been advised that Eoghan could be charged with manslaughter because Michael subsequently died because of Eoghan's conscious act. In our research we have looked at arguments for and against him being charged and have a long way to go in this story so I encourage you to continue watching the events that will play out. You do have a valid argument in saying he shouldn't be charged as we also have an argument to say he would and it is that, that will give us our drama. I take my job extremely seriously and am proud of the stories and the level of reality and research we undertake. I hope you continue to enjoy the show


Me i have continually asked you to provide precedents which you claim to have been given by these legal experts. I am very much convinced none such exist, of course. And you refusal to furnish me with them is strong evidence you are just pulling a fast one, re your excuses. There was no consciousness on behalf of Eoghan that his minor brushing against Mumbles (or Michael that you like to call him in Carrigstown) could result in any level of harm that could put him in danger. There needs to be either gross recklessness or criminal negligence and thereafter it must be shown recklessness was a blatant disregard for the dangers of a particular situation, wherein the perpetrator is conscious that his actions could cause serious harm to someone. it must be then shown to amount to guilty of Inv. Manslaughter that he showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime and deserve punishment.. You mean to honestly tell me legal experts looked at the Mumbles death events and concluded he could be charged based on the law in this area!!! Come on, Sam, lets be honest here. Even you are scratching your head on this one right now!!! The story is a fine mess. The fact a man is able to roam around a small village drinking tea and coffee in every establishment he can find all bloody day after holding one of its most popular residents at knife point and being indirectly the cause of her son being killed without anyone even having the consciousness to bat an eyelid at him makes it even worse. You can be proud in your plot writing, Sam, that is your freedom of choice but at least attempt to acknowledge when you ballsed a plot up. It will make you a more humble and respected writer and will help you learn from your mistakes.

The Talking Bread

I have finally figured it out!! Been trying to figure out who Heathers horrible strained voice sounds like!!! Listen to Fr. Vincent Stack, anyone notice a similarity in tone of voice when she is making her snidy comments to Farrah, Renee or Hughie.....

ps, if you don't agree, just enjoy this legendary clip anyway!!!

endofrainbow

the title of Heather's new book - Under the Tree (at Spar) ...

The Talking Bread

endofrainbow wrote: »

the title of Heather's new book - Under the Tree (at Spar) ...

And this should be Farrahs

http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/keep-calm-and-love-meeda-1.png

Mr E

The Talking Bread: Please stop with the nonsense pictures and annoying text formatting. Thanks.

dogcat

At least Fair City contacted people, no matter what they do. xD

dogcat

Also, TTB, in this report, I have found this
http://www.lawreform.ie/2008/290108-report-on-homocide-murder-and-involuntary-manslaughter.180.html

"Involuntary manslaughter currently comprises two sub-categories. First, manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act, where the killing involves an act constituting a criminal offence, carrying with it the risk of bodily harm to the person killed. The People (DPP) v Wayne O’Donoghue (2005), which involved an assault resulting in death, was a conviction for unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter. The second sub-category is gross negligence manslaughter, where the death arises from a negligent act or omission by the accused involving a high risk of substantial personal injury."

First of all, Michael's death was not the first subcategory, since I don't think brushing someone aside is a criminal offence. It could technically be the second sub-category due to the fact that Eoghan omitted this from his statement at first (but I'm not sure of this - if I'm wrong please correct me), however, he later admitted it so this does not entirely fall through. I am not an expert in law, and I just did some basic research, so please show me what part of the law it is in, I'm genuinely interested in it.

The Talking Bread

i have a feeling the fun in this thread may be sucked away soon. They are onto this. Ok guys, lets just talk about the rivetting plots going on.........

Mr E

The Talking Bread wrote: »

i have a feeling the fun in this thread may be sucked away.

Yeah, legal discussion will do that to any thread. :pac: