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

The Talking Bread

Mr E wrote: »

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

hi Mr. E can i ask you why boards provides us with the facility to colour text etc if it cant be used. I obviously used it to distinguish both replies from eachother. It was innocent stuff. I think there are far worse things going on in threads to be fair. Obviously there is nothing I can do to prevent you editing aand thats fair enough but I feel my posts were unfairly cited as "stupid" or "annoying", whatever your opinion on them may be. They get a positive response on the thread, otherwise I would gladly stop posting. And they don't seem to break any charter rules which are the guidelines I can only comply with.

the posters on this thread are all involved in this and we are having innocent fun. The pictures are nothing defamatory nor are they annoying nor stupid to most. I reply to you as a fellow poster, i hope you respect me as a fellow poster also, despite the authority you may have. Thanks.


Anyway, also, dont worry. I wont colour my texts or post the odd picture etc again but only because i dont want a ban.

Coat22

Can't believe people on here are getting so worked up about all the rubbish on Fair City when Coronation St are running a story along similar lines and FC actually ran a similar story last year.

It appears in soap world that self defence or accidental acts are not something a court would ever take into account.

Hence the Bishop girl kills her auld lad when she catches him in the act of trying to kill her mother but its covered up "or else you'll go down for it".

In Corrie Davids missus kills the drug dealer when he finds him in the act of trying to murder Sarah but they decide to bury him in the kitchen rather than call the cops "or else you'll go down for it"

Then FC (obviously upset that Corrie have nicked their mad outlook on justice) decide to out do them so:

- Michael is killed after being pushed aside to protect him from a mad kidnapper.
- Tommy figures this out but tells nobody "or else you'll go down for it"
- He eventually tells Eoghan, who goes into a panic that he will naturally do time for such a heinous act.
- Eoghan tells his family who all go into a flap, again all convinced "he'll do time for it"
- In the meantime, Cathal goes on the run, is caught, charged with abduction and murder yet not only becomes the first murder suspect to be allowed out on bail but is free to turn up everywhere the victim and witnesses are. He then breaks into the house and when Eoghan comes back to find him threatening his wife he does not of course call the gardai but rather shouts at him.

I won't even go into the Tommy script / acting etc. but it would all be rather laughable if licence money wasn't been spent on it.

Flippyfloppy

I'm sorry but this whole Twitter/Sam Atwell saga is making me think of Kathy Bates in Misery!

http://youtu.be/pO20qU-VwgA

Strazdas

dogcat wrote: »

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.

I would have though the fact that Eoghan and Michael were father and son and were not involved in an argument with each other at the time Michael got injured would make it very difficult to bring a prosecution against Eoghan.....it would be different if the the two of them were having a punch up and things got out of hand.

The Talking Bread

Strazdas wrote: »

I would have though the fact that Eoghan and Michael were father and son and were not involved in an argument with each other at the time Michael got injured would make it very difficult to bring a prosecution against Eoghan.....it would be different if the the two of them were having a punch up and things got out of hand.

but sure the boys "all over de interneh" were saying he never really accepted Michael into the family.......

And we all know if it says something "un de interneh" it's most likely true....

The Talking Bread

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

I'm sorry but this whole Twitter/Sam Atwell saga is making me think of Kathy Bates in Misery!

http://youtu.be/pO20qU-VwgA

As a certain someone may say, I find this post "stupid" and "annoying"!! :D

ha, it was a very futile exercise and it just left me more confused !i had to contact him to be fair. The plot is nonsensical and its been a topic of conversation on the thread for three weeks with almost all agreeing it makes no sense why anyone would consider Eoghan criminally, nor even negligentally responsible for his death! Its interesting to have got into the mindset of these writers who are a mysterious and alien force to us mere mortals "un de interneh"!!

ps, Kathy Bates was a writer, not sure you could give that title to these bunch!

MelanieC

Jeez,I think this is all getting a bit too serious. Of course the storyline is silly and unrealistic but as someone else said this is what happens in soaps. It's poetic licence for dramatic purposes I guess,wouldn't be very entertaining if everything played out nice and straightforward and true to life. These are soaps,not documentaries. Leave your common sense behind and enjoy!

And in fairness,Sam Atwell did respond and did so repeatedly and politely. This is the guy's job,no need to be condescending or disrespectful no matter what our thoughts on the story. Let's just do as he says and watch how it plays out - it provides as much entertainment on this thread as it does onscreen so happy days! :-)

The Talking Bread

MelanieC wrote: »

Jeez,I think this is all getting a bit too serious. Of course the storyline is silly and unrealistic but as someone else said this is what happens in soaps. It's poetic licence for dramatic purposes I guess,wouldn't be very entertaining if everything played out nice and straightforward and true to life. These are soaps,not documentaries. Leave your common sense behind and enjoy!

And in fairness,Sam Atwell did respond and did so repeatedly and politely. This is the guy's job,no need to be condescending or disrespectful no matter what our thoughts on the story. Let's just do as he says and watch how it plays out - it provides as much entertainment on this thread as it does onscreen so happy days! :-)

i don't think i was disrespectful at all in my messages. I was critical of the plot, not of him but god forbid we can't offer a critique. It was decent and nice of him to respond but he offered nothing in his replies bar politeness. As a scriptwriter for a show which is partly funded by the public, it wasn't the most difficult thing to reply.

Anyway, whats the point complaining about something if you don't offer an input. Reminds me of those who give out about politicians who aren't even bothered registering for a vote!!

I only watch the show for this thread also but this plot has bugged me a lot.

And I only sent him the message to post the reply on the thread! I amn't naive to think that its dramatic licence but the guy could have at least conceded that rather than claiming he had done huge research with legal experts to ensure the story was credible!!

Strazdas

MelanieC wrote: »

Jeez,I think this is all getting a bit too serious. Of course the storyline is silly and unrealistic but as someone else said this is what happens in soaps. It's poetic licence for dramatic purposes I guess,wouldn't be very entertaining if everything played out nice and straightforward and true to life. These are soaps,not documentaries. Leave your common sense behind and enjoy!

And in fairness,Sam Atwell did respond and did so repeatedly and politely. This is the guy's job,no need to be condescending or disrespectful no matter what our thoughts on the story. Let's just do as he says and watch how it plays out - it provides as much entertainment on this thread as it does onscreen so happy days! :-)

I imagine the point of the producers of all the soaps is that they are rather exaggerated and overly dramatised portrayals of people's lives. In reality, most people's lives are very drab and humdrum compared to your average soap character.....people don't have murder, blackmail, kidnappings, jail, drug addiction, previously unknown parents or siblings, countless affairs etc as part of their day to day lives. By their very nature, soap plots have to be over the top and melodramatic.

BettePorter

I think in the case of the eoghan/Michael culpability issue, the problem isn't entirely with the storyline itself but moreso with the choreography of the scene. Had Michael attacked the guy and then eoghan had pulled him off and to do so had to actively punch him or elbow him in the face with at a bit of force we could at least have something to debate.

As is, he all but brushed past him. Ive had more physical contact with someone standing beside me in a shop!

The scene was badly choreographed.

coolhull

At this stage, I'd say poor Eoghan is nervous of even passing someone in the street, in case he accidentally brushes off them and they end up in intensive care

JP Liz V1

coolhull wrote: »

At this stage, I'd say poor Eoghan is nervous of even passing someone in the street, in case he accidentally brushes off them and they end up in intensive care

They should make Eoghan the accidental serial killer of FC

The Talking Bread

BettePorter wrote: »

I think in the case of the eoghan/Michael culpability issue, the problem isn't entirely with the storyline itself but moreso with the choreography of the scene. Had Michael attacked the guy and then eoghan had pulled him off and to do so had to actively punch him or elbow him in the face with at a bit of force we could at least have something to debate.

As is, he all but brushed past him. Ive had more physical contact with someone standing beside me in a shop!

The scene was badly choreographed.

you are an animal. Go to the Hungry Pig and confess your sins.

Strazdas

Yvonne Doyle will be appearing in the Mrs Brown's Boys Christmas special as Mark's new girlfriend

sligojoek

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

They should make Eoghan the accidental serial killer of FC

Rose016

Wonder has pete and dolly retired.? Or has wardrope run outta headscarves for dol

Pretzill

I too am on the no way Eoghan would face charges for the elbow incident. But...the gaurds (Deegan) has not seen the video footage - even though we have - so he has this:

Eoghan " Someone killed Michael?"
Cathal "I didn't touch him"
Eoghan "It may have been yer man - I wouldn't trust him"
(Watches video)
It was me!!
Eoghan to Deegan "I don't know what happened it may have been yer Man..."
Tommy to Deegan "It was yer Man I saw it all"
Tommy to Deegan "Actually it wasn't I was mistaken."
Eoghan to Deegan "I Killed...Michael!"

The only problem with this story line is that the initial scene of Michael's injury was too cut and dried - we shouldn't have witnessed it as viewers - therefore we would have a few suspects therefore building drama and may never have suspected it was a tragic accident - but the set-up and the writing is dreadfully poor.

But if it was top notch we probably wouldn't have as much fun slagging it off!

BuilderPlumber

Coat22 wrote: »

Can't believe people on here are getting so worked up about all the rubbish on Fair City when Coronation St are running a story along similar lines and FC actually ran a similar story last year.

It appears in soap world that self defence or accidental acts are not something a court would ever take into account.

Hence the Bishop girl kills her auld lad when she catches him in the act of trying to kill her mother but its covered up "or else you'll go down for it".

In Corrie Davids missus kills the drug dealer when he finds him in the act of trying to murder Sarah but they decide to bury him in the kitchen rather than call the cops "or else you'll go down for it"

Then FC (obviously upset that Corrie have nicked their mad outlook on justice) decide to out do them so:

- Michael is killed after being pushed aside to protect him from a mad kidnapper.
- Tommy figures this out but tells nobody "or else you'll go down for it"
- He eventually tells Eoghan, who goes into a panic that he will naturally do time for such a heinous act.
- Eoghan tells his family who all go into a flap, again all convinced "he'll do time for it"
- In the meantime, Cathal goes on the run, is caught, charged with abduction and murder yet not only becomes the first murder suspect to be allowed out on bail but is free to turn up everywhere the victim and witnesses are. He then breaks into the house and when Eoghan comes back to find him threatening his wife he does not of course call the gardai but rather shouts at him.

I won't even go into the Tommy script / acting etc. but it would all be rather laughable if licence money wasn't been spent on it.

All the soaps copy each other and also revisit and copy old stories from themselves. Characters like Bill Taylor, Marty Halpin, Sylvester Garrigan, Paddy Bishop and Thomas Flynn and perhaps Cathal Spillane? are all variations on Billy Meehan: some following Meehan's gangland background, others following his violence towards women. Meanwhile, Corrie had their similar violent thug hiding behind respectability in Richard Hillman. Marty Halpin seemed a cross between Meehan and Hillman for one.

Soaps that are on for a long time like both FC and Corrie have 2 traits: they come up with some genuinely good storylines but also come up with rehashing these over and over. All the current storylines in all the soaps are a variant of what has gone before.

I do switch off when soaps are focused only on who is having an affair. This has well and truly been done to death. Anything relating to gangland or criminality is generally interesting but some of these stories are done better than others. Meehan and Hillman were classics for certain.

As regards our TV licence being wasted, I would point more to all the poor reality TV, Irish country music, reality music competitions, chatshow guests (and hosts!!), etc. that are being forced on us along with the salaries of many of these poor chatshow hosts. Fair City and other soaps, even at their worst, along with soccer or other sports (if you are into these) are the only thing often on that are watchable. I could flick through 20 channels and it is all either reality TV, poor music or repeats.

Coat22

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

All the soaps copy each other and also revisit and copy old stories from themselves. Characters like Bill Taylor, Marty Halpin, Sylvester Garrigan, Paddy Bishop and Thomas Flynn and perhaps Cathal Spillane? are all variations on Billy Meehan: some following Meehan's gangland background, others following his violence towards women. Meanwhile, Corrie had their similar violent thug hiding behind respectability in Richard Hillman. Marty Halpin seemed a cross between Meehan and Hillman for one.

Soaps that are on for a long time like both FC and Corrie have 2 traits: they come up with some genuinely good storylines but also come up with rehashing these over and over. All the current storylines in all the soaps are a variant of what has gone before.

I do switch off when soaps are focused only on who is having an affair. This has well and truly been done to death. Anything relating to gangland or criminality is generally interesting but some of these stories are done better than others. Meehan and Hillman were classics for certain.

As regards our TV licence being wasted, I would point more to all the poor reality TV, Irish country music, reality music competitions, chatshow guests (and hosts!!), etc. that are being forced on us along with the salaries of many of these poor chatshow hosts. Fair City and other soaps, even at their worst, along with soccer or other sports (if you are into these) are the only thing often on that are watchable. I could flick through 20 channels and it is all either reality TV, poor music or repeats.

Completely agree with the amount wasted on reality sh1te, chat show sh1te etc but that doesn't excuse them wasting money on FC sh1te. If they can't do it right then don't do it. Is RTE there to serve the public or as a sponsor of the arts, giving crap writers and crapper actors jobs they wouldn't have a hope of getting elsewhere?

Anyway I think you missed my point in the post - its not that its a rehash of some gangster storyline, its that its a rehash of some mad theme where someone dies in perfectly explainable circumstances (mostly as they are in the process of trying to kill someone else) but the death is covered up and we have to endure months of crap.

Anyway, got to say I've been reading back on this thread and it was one of the funniest things I've read in months. Can't wait for tonights episode now to catch the reviews on here tomorrow.

zoobizoo

Can I just congratulate Leo's hands which have been playing a blinder in the last few episodes........

They seemed to be hidden for a while but they're back!! And they're moving around... a LOT!

dad my phone is hoping with all the texts lol

The Talking Bread

[Deleted User] wrote: »

dad my phone is hoping with all the texts lol

The girl is almost 20 (looks 30!) and we are expected to think people her age are immature or evil enough to text her a horrible rumour that emerge two hours ago that her father was responsible for her brothers death. I mean who was even in the Hungry Pig that started circulating something so vicious without the facts?? Leo?

Where is Lois Lane to report on this story a local murder on her doorstep she's be all over it

and Jackie looking for a chef for her hotel when her son is already one or didn't attemot to snag Dean away from Lousie

Strazdas

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

All the soaps copy each other and also revisit and copy old stories from themselves. Characters like Bill Taylor, Marty Halpin, Sylvester Garrigan, Paddy Bishop and Thomas Flynn and perhaps Cathal Spillane? are all variations on Billy Meehan: some following Meehan's gangland background, others following his violence towards women. Meanwhile, Corrie had their similar violent thug hiding behind respectability in Richard Hillman. Marty Halpin seemed a cross between Meehan and Hillman for one.

Soaps that are on for a long time like both FC and Corrie have 2 traits: they come up with some genuinely good storylines but also come up with rehashing these over and over. All the current storylines in all the soaps are a variant of what has gone before.

I do switch off when soaps are focused only on who is having an affair. This has well and truly been done to death. Anything relating to gangland or criminality is generally interesting but some of these stories are done better than others. Meehan and Hillman were classics for certain.

As regards our TV licence being wasted, I would point more to all the poor reality TV, Irish country music, reality music competitions, chatshow guests (and hosts!!), etc. that are being forced on us along with the salaries of many of these poor chatshow hosts. Fair City and other soaps, even at their worst, along with soccer or other sports (if you are into these) are the only thing often on that are watchable. I could flick through 20 channels and it is all either reality TV, poor music or repeats.

Corrie have gone down the criminal / gangster route a couple of other times with Jez Quigley and Callum. They have been overly reliant on sensational and frankly far fetched murder stories in recent years though, way too many of them for a tiny street.

The Talking Bread

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Where is Lois Lane to report on this story a local murder on her doorstep she's be all over it

and Jackie looking for a chef for her hotel when her son is already one or didn't attemot to snag Dean away from Lousie

Nina generally hops onto an investigation a decade a few years later when people don't give a toss: Mary Hallin, Billy Meehan, Paddy Bishop. In fairness to her though, she was up to date with the intriguing illegal potato planting empire of Charlotte and Cass.

desbrook

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Nina generally hops onto an investigation a decade a few years later when people don't give a toss: Mary Hallin, Billy Meehan, Paddy Bishop. In fairness to her though, she was up to date with the intriguing illegal potato planting empire of Charlotte and Cass.

Actually she never sussed it was a scam. Just a vehicle to get her involved with Charlotte/her jailbird lover's cousin.

The Talking Bread

desbrook wrote: »

Actually she never sussed it was a scam. Just a vehicle to get her involved with Charlotte/her jailbird lover's cousin.

Give her a couple of years she will figure out there was something fishy going on

The Talking Bread

Lets try and be positive about this episode, in honpur of my friend Sam Atwell. No criticism, see how long we can go...

Summer wind

Ooooo Jackie and Leo on the nightshift:)

bottlebrush

Between Cathal popping up everywhere, and KerriAnn popping up everywhere else.....does either of them ever sit down?