I am putting myself forward
to be the next chairman of the ±«Óătv. In the light of the decision of my good friend Lord Puttnam not to bother, I think it's time for a candidate to come forward to take the ±«Óătv forward, moving forward. That candidate is me. At this stage, I am only announcing my campaign slogan: "Let the Healing Begin" - but detailed policies will follow.
Obviously, I have oodles. But if you have any of your own that are worth stealing, that's what the Comment link is for.
Let the Healing Begin.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
I'd vote for you (if we were allowed to vote)...
So you have oddles, do you, Eddie? Does that mean we'll be having oodle soup on the beach later? (Sorry, I'll get my coat after that pun...)
Well done, Eddie. In the space of 24 hours you have
(a) been officially recognised as an Artist (thanks to WoyW and the PM listeners); and
(b) become a front runner candidate for the Chair of the Beeb.
As to policies (and bearing in mind that you may have some of this lurking in your oodles):
1) Bring back hanging - In this case, hanging microphones, instead of those silly clip on things;
2) Bring back corporal punishment (for recreational purposes only, though)
3) Make it an offence to walk while reading the news (well, I think most newsreaders would vote for you on that one, wouldn't they?)
4) Bring back Andrew Marr
5) Set strict limits on the thickness of spectacle frames for ±«Óătv personnel (Nick Robinson please note)
6) Ditto hairpieces (Melvyn Bragg please note)
My brain is buzzing, Eddie, as you can see. It's all soooooo exciting!
Lord Mair, I think your first move should be to directly switch the contractual ±«Óătv payments between Jonathan Ross and that nice man who presents that Radio 4 show on weekdays at 5pm.
Postpone the digital expansion until just before any of the viewing public is ready for it, not investing millions of pounds into it ten years too early.
Bring back Open University on ±«Óătv2 each morning. And not this new-fangled graphicy lark, but the bearded guy with the brown corduroy trousers who had a blackboard behind him, with his only prop being a piece of chalk.
Sack everyone in day-time TV.
Reduce soap-operas to one night a week. Having these things on every. single. night. with a 3 hour omnibus on Sundays is just ridiculous.
Put more Eddie Mair on TV.
I'm sure I can come up with more. If you do that Eddie, I'll even get a TV Licence again.
Hello Eddie,
Go for it!
But shouldn't that be... Let the Heelys Begin?
Be careful though or you might just fall backwards.
You little artist you.
I've just been told I am not permitted to welcome Jonnie back. Why is this?
Eddie,
I can hear a wood pigeon. I love it here.
Eddie, Will this affect your transition into the shoes of John Humprys though ?
We need a song to go along with the campaign.
Joe Cocker had a hit with 'Let the healing begin' ... not sure about the lyrics though.
I've Kept It Inside Much To Long
There's No Relief
Carry It Around Just Like A Stone
Too Heavy For Me
I Had Paid The Price
Of Standing On The Outside Looking In
It's Time To Let The Healing Begin
A Boy Is Strung Out He's Going Through Hell
His Mother Weeps
His Spirit Is Broken And There's Nothing Left
Just A Terrible Need
And The Days Are Marked By The Heaviness Of The Heart
It Never Mends
Until The Healing Begins
And The Tension Prowls The Streets Like And Animal
The People Stay Behind Their Locks And Chains
It's A Shame
When So Many Are Trying Their Best To Live As One
And The Smoke Form The Fires Covers The Sun
A Young Girl Is Lying In The Dirt
Her Dreams Ended There
Caught In The Crossfire On Somebody's Turf
Hatred In The Air
It's A Voice That Never Sings
A Winter Without The Spring
It Never Ends
It's Time To Let The Healing Begin
It's Time To Let The Healing Begin
I am feeling so dispirited, having posted and lost and been denied and errored and .... and.....
If you're going to let the healing begin, Eddie, can you start by healing the Blog?
(BTW some very good policy suggestions appear to have gone down the bog now. Your loss?)
Chairman of the ±«Óătv?
Do you get a hat and one of those little ticket machines on a belt that bus conductors used to have?
"C'mon then. You've had that chair for an hour. That'll be another 50p or you'll have to stand for the rest of Today Mr Humphries."
My suggestion? Keep breaking the scandal; take last night, I assume that the lack of comment on the giant rabbit story is because the authorities have tried to silence truth about genetic monster manufacture.
I have my own theories....Quorn is just so meaty....hmm.
Anyway, I'd have loved to see a window on the rabbit man's world.
Well you could start by healing this blog - it's been terribly poorly for days. We've all been worried. Though judging by the number of comments so far today, maybe you've worked your magic already?
If you stand for Chairman, will you have New Blog Prince as your deputy? I think he deserves some recognition.
All the best for your campaign anyway.
Btw, you wouldn't be the first presenter to have made the transition to the boardroom. In NZ about 15 years ago, the morning "magazine" programme (9 - 12, live) on their equivalent to Radio 4 was presented by a woman, Sharon Crosbie. A couple of years after we left the country she became the Director - General of Radio NZ, & stopped doing the programme. I thought it was really sad - witty and talented presenters/ interviewers are much rarer than good bureacrats/ administrators. Aren't they?
What's up with this bog?
I am feeling so dispirited, having posted and lost and been denied and errored and .... and.....
If you're going to let the healing begin, Eddie, can you start by healing the Blog?
(BTW some very good policy suggestions appear to have gone down the bog now. Your loss?)
I think I can confidently predict that some of my postings will now appear over and over again, just like the Bush jokes yesterday.
But, on the positive side, the Blog appears to be back to normal. At last.
Eddie of the Magic Fingers has healed it.
Jonnie and Eddie: Alternative lyrics for the campaign:
When the storms of the day have all blown away along with fair weather friends
There's a place I can go where the wind doesn't blow
It's the best place I've ever been
You're a sight for sore eyes
When I need a friend
You're a sight for sore eyes
Let the healing begin
When the chips are all down and there's no one around
To count on like I count on you
I just picture your face and let it erase
All the pain I'm goin' through
You're a sight for sore eyes
When I need a friend
You're a sight for sore eyes
Let the healing begin
When I get lost and I can't find my way
And there's nowhere to turn at the end of the day
You're a sight for sore eyes
When I need a friend
You're a sight for sore eyes
Let the healing begin
You're a sight for sore eyes
Let the healing begin
[And most appropriate to our Lord Mair, soon to be successor to Lord Reith and others.]
Completely and absolutely bloggered.
Well, bogger me, if it isn't RJD.
Solutions to world crisis':
1) The resurrection of global media under ±«Óătv hierarchy of Eddia Mair (Chairman), Andrew Marr (Director of Communications), David Frost (NOT director of Communications) and Mark Mardell (Affiliated Supreme Being).
More to follow...
Solutions to world crisis':
1) The resurrection of global media under ±«Óătv hierarchy of Eddia Mair (Chairman), Andrew Marr (Director of Communications), Sir David Frost (NOT Director of Communications) and Mark Mardell (Affiliated Supreme Being).
More to follow...
Solutions to world crisis':
1) The resurrection of global media under ±«Óătv hierarchy of Eddia Mair (Chairman), Andrew Marr (Director of Communications), Sir David Frost (NOT Director of Communications) and Mark Mardell (Affiliated Supreme Being).
More to follow...
Eddie, how did PM do in the latest Rajar ratings?
There are a few articles saying that the Archers audience fell (personally, I blame the dreadful Ruth for that and that alone), and DID also fell a little, but no news about any other show (which is probably a good sign).
Blogtispated.
jonnie (7) I'm a bit worried about this. How's Eddie going to present PM if he transitions into a pair of shoes? And how does Mr Mair feel about the prospect of having to accommodate Mr Humphrys' smelly feet?
Good day Mr Mair,
Interesting suggestion you have there. If you think you've got what it takes to be chairman then why not?
I am sure that you couldn't do any worse. I also think the charmed life enjoyed with superior self-satisfaction by the ±«Óătv surely can't last much longer anyway – in spite of beliefs within the corporation that a bottomless pit of public money is no more than its due.
Making its case recently for a licence fee of something between ÂŁ180 and ÂŁ200 by the year 2013, Your current Beeb bosses reckon the extra tax is needed to pay for digital services and to replace endless repeats with new comedy, drama and entertainment. It's a thin argument and must appear so even to those corporation executives who press it.
The first question it raises is what licence money is spent on now, since endless repeats are admitted as an unsatisfactory menu? The second is why digital services in the ±«Óătv – not even the broadcast medium of first choice – should be funded by us, when every other media service must generate its own income for investment?
Thirdly, why is it assumed in the 21st century that the population is happy to throw good money after bad, with no option, when it has shown it would prefer to pay to satellite, cable and commercial digital services it trusts more for less biased broadcast news, quality drama, documentary and entertainment?
In the real world – which the ±«Óătv hasn't been acquainted with for years – competition for consumer loyalty is an accepted fact of life and value for money is a prerequisite of any supplier's relationship with the customer. In the rarefied ±«Óătv world, reality has been surgically bypassed.
While at Channel 4 three years ago, Director General Mark Thompson complained that the ±«Óătv was "basking in a Jacuzzi of spare cash." Just a few weeks ago, like Oliver Twist, he was reaching out a ±«Óătv begging bowl for more, in spite of warnings from MPs of the real risk of licence fee martyrs – people prepared to go to jail rather than pay an unfair tax.
Precisely what innovation or quality has he to fall back on to justify his claim on our incomes? Yes, the ±«Óătv did used to have a first-rate news service and proven pedigree. These days it begs, borrows, steals – and pays – from more reliable sources. What else – Dick and Dom, He's Having a Baby, EastEnders? Was moving heaven, earth and more public money than was decent, strictly necessary to secure the dubious talents of Graham Norton or Jonathan Ross or Bruce Forsyth dancing...again? I don't think there is no case for making the ±«Óătv a special case for which we are all forced to pay. There is though an urgent case for enforcing re-entry into the real world.
Eddie, I'd be interested in your "oodles" of policy details. But I really do think you should perhaps take a quiet stroll around Hammersmith Park at lunch time and think very carefully of what it is you want to become the chairman of. :-)
My previous attempt to post this was moderated, I see.
Eddie, could the current bloggage problems be due to just to many entries? In the same manner that the Day One Beach became unstable and started to sink?
In which case, someone had better archive the early entries, and that may well speed up the technical issues.
I'll email this as well, to be sure.
Big Sister (17 currently but possibly 23, 2 or 101 if this ever gets through)
I'm sure that you must have meant "Well, blogger me."
I did post earlier that Eddie shouldn't worry about having oodles. I have had oodles on and off for 12 years and there is nothing to be ashamed of. With the correct medication and a good diet the condition is manageable and should present no impediment to his aspirations to be Chairman of the ±«Óătv.
However if this, like other posts, gets bloggered, or I have the 502 message again, or I am told I am not allowed to comment again, I myself will challenge him and become a candidate for the postion of Chairman of the ±«Óătv. My campaign slogan is not yet chosen but will be much better than his.
First pledge: Ensure the 'submit your comment' buttons on all ±«Óătv blogs are idiot proof- (ie. prevent excessive clicking)....damn
RJD: No, I meant what I said. B*ogger is just too rude a word these days!
My oodles are kept in a pot and revived by hot water. They go quite nicely with dried up frog, in an Eastern kind of way. Dried up frog is, I find, best undessicated with lavish helpings of the best single malt. Or Jose Cuervo, if your initials are EM
(Hey, I just realised! my name begins with E! and the second bit begins with M ..... But I've got another bit after that. Does this make me superior to Eddie, I wonder?)
Eddie,
The ±«Óătv is a global institution that should continue to be cherished. This is beyond dispute. However this does not automatically entitle you when you become chairman to an above-inflation licence fee. It is a right that has to be earned. Remember that. And, I don't think that in recent times, the ±«Óătv has done precious little to earn this right.
Quite the contrary. Far from getting its financial house in order, the ±«Óătv has continued to sanction highly inappropriate salaries for people such as Jonathan Ross, Terry Wogan, Jeremy Paxman, David Dimbleby, Andrew Marr and Basil Brush.
Furthermore no expense was spared when the ±«Óătv despatched a small army of staff, and celebrities, to cover events such as football's World Cup and the Ashes cricket battle. And another thing the ±«Óătv continues to show no inclination to slow down the expansion of its digital TV and radio channels, even though the audience figures are negligible in some instances. Finally, why was Huw Edwards sent to Birmingham on last nights 10' o' clock news. Was that really money well spent?
Perhaps if you stood on a ticket to pledge to cut the amount of time devoted by ±«Óătv News programmes to inward-looking mee-ja village navel-gazing, you might attract a decent amount amount of support.
If you expanded this pledge to include a war on the manufacturing of 'news' stories which are essentially shameless pieces of cross-promotion for other ±«Óătv programmes, masquerading as 'news' stories, then I think you'd be a shoo-in.
Good luck.
MotP (24);
You're probably used to taking more than your fair share of abuse. With a post like this that's probably justified.
I don't know about the ±«Óătv's "superior self-satisfaction" of which you speak. Jeremy Paxman lambasted the Corporation on the strength of its Green credentials within the last 24 hours. Hardly the action of a self-satisfied member of the ±«Óătv staff.
The (generally apolitical) Beeb is being foisted with the massive (ÂŁ600m) costs of a change to digital broadcasting from which all broadcasters will benefit, determined by the Government as a matter of political policy. At the same time it receives an increase in License fees below the RPI inflation which is use to determine wage settlements. Squeezed from above and below. Frankly the Gov't should have made a one-off payment to the Beeb to cover the costs of the digital switchover.
Prior to this the Controller has stated that he wants more new programming and less repeats, as you state. This would normally be held to be a good thing. You seem to be of this viewpoint yourself. Yet you then seem to be of the opinion that more quality new programmes can be achieved with a lower real-terms income and an imposed overhead.
The truly nonsensical argument is that any organisation can do more with less. On that basis if you are given nothing you can run the planet. Political parties are ridiculed when they assert that it is possible to cut substantial portions from spending and dramatically improve services. Yet this is what you propose.
You claim that the population is happy to pay more for satellite, etc. But the uptake of Sky TV in the UK & Ireland is less than one in three households and stable. Yes, a proportion will pay for these services. But not even a majority have chosen to do so.
Sky, for example, costs over ÂŁ600 per annum for its top level service with the addition of the High-Definition channels. That's around 600 channels in total. Most of which are utter dross. And that's in addition to the TV license fee. In sum total you could be talking around ÂŁ800 a year for this service.
Compared to that I can buy a Freeview box for about ÂŁ30 and get the most significant channels with no ongoing monthly fee at all. Just an annual License fee. Sounds like a bargain to me. And I would contend that the License fee is not money spent badly in any case.
I don't want the ±«Óătv to compete for "consumer loyalty". I want it to show high-quality drama, top-notch serials, hard news. I'm not a 'consumer' of television, I've never eaten one in my life, I'm a viewer. And I thank God that there is at least one TV organisation out there which doesn't have to pander to the wishes of the programme sponsors or the advertisers.
ITV could never produce a programme like 'Planet Earth'. And I hope that the ±«Óătv never strays into 'Big Brother' territory. Vive la Difference!
As for Sky, it makes no programmes whatsoever. It merely buys in 'content' from the USA. And it is the home of endless repeats of Star Trek, The Simpsons and so on. What proportion of Sky's main channel content is new, original and British? Single figures at a guess.
The ±«Óătv still has arguably the best news service in the world. Survey after survey has demonstrated that when any large or important event occurs the public tunes ito the ±«Óătv for its news. It is more trusted in that regard than any other broadcaster.
As for paying for content; that was mandated by a charter renewal a while back. The ±«Óătv was forced to spend some of the license fee commissioning programmes from third parties, including the mainstream commercial channels, in order to spread the money raised from the license fee amongst a larger pool of talent and encourage the growth of independent production companies in Britain.
I certainly wouldn't defend the ±«Óătv against any of the programmes or 'personalities' that you name (with the possible exception of Strictly Come Dancing). The programme examples you give were indeed risible and you could have added to that list (Vicar of Dibley and Jam & Jerusalem come to mind). The sums reportedly paid to Norton and Ross are scandalous, given the paucity of their talent.
In sum I believe that the ±«Óătv, or something very much like it, does indeed deserve to be made a special case. It makes mistakes, as I do, and I'm sure that you also do. But by and large it does a good job. And we should all regret the day when Public Service Broadcasting in the U.K. is dragged into the gutter of providing for the lowest denominator in television viewing. On that day I will switch off for good (and I don't watch that much now).
By the way, pease keep on making your contributions. They are as valid as anyone's hereabouts and well worth having. But when you get the criticism which often accompanies them please be willing to come in and respond to those who take a different view to yourself. Give a robust defence of your points of view. Don't simply light the blue touch paper and retire fast!
Si.
Eddie,
Don't forget to start using your slogan on air this evening; we'll all be listening for it.
Chairman Mair,
For your consideration:
1. Suspend the 6.30pm "comedy" slot until all R4 light entertainment commissioning editors have attended a reprogramming course deisgned to teach them what "funny" actually means. [Exceptions, obviously, for News Quiz and NOW show]
2. Rescue Fig Lover from the mire.
3. Deport Ruth.
4. Scrap Thought for the Day (and the morning service and all other programmes containing the falling cadences of CofE bishops - where do they learn to talk in that way?)
5. Nigel Rees? Don't get me started . . .
6. Issue edict that Jonathan Dimbleby must ONLY be addressed as David.
Put yourself back immediately, Sir Eric! Have you no shame?
xx
LadyPen
Hello there
An excellent proposal I must say! I would also vote for you.
May I suggest that your first task as Chairman - and in line with your slogan - would be to soothe the furrowed brows of the froggers here. Let the healing begin indeed - starting with healing the blog. The troops are getting restless out there y'know!
Second suggestion would be to make more use of that talented and extremely charismatic presenter - what's his name???........ oh yes, its Eddie - Eddie Mair. Yes give him some TV coverage - I'm thinking Have I Got News For You host, guest reader on the cBeebies bedtime story, guest reader on Jackanory, news reader, Crimewatch presenter, perhaps even a walk on part on Eastenders?? Yes he's under utilised that one...... perhaps he needs an agent??
Anyway that's my suggestion for what its worth - hope I haven't rambled on too long!
Rachel, I hope you include ISIHAC in the exceptions...
Rachel (29, point 6) Oh yes! that makes him soooo cross........!!!! Tee hee
Let the Healing begin ???!!
*You're not the Messiah you're a very naughty boy......*
Big Sis - why/how has Eddie been recognised as an Artist?
(hope this wasn't in the programme otherwise I'm gonna either look like a thicky or someone who doesn't listen...)
[btw still trying to think of a good testimonial for you....!]
I see my joke about oodles didn't pass moderation. I'll just eat the donut, then.
Sorry, Eddie! I didn't mean to double-frog, honest! It's just that the page never loaded to any of the usual suspects. I'll go and sit on the naughty step...
Whisht(40): Yesterday PM -> WOYW piece -> Art or not art? -> art critic says yes -> Eddie and Peter are artists.
Simon,
I feel the time has come for the ±«Óătv to lose its charter, and for an end to be brought to the unpopular practice of funding the ±«Óătv by charging the public an annual licence fee.
Despite all our money, the ±«Óătv no longer seems able to match the programme content, quality, and variety of many of their commercial competitors; nor will they ever have the incentive to do so while our money keeps flowing into the coffers – irrespective of service delivered, and whether we choose to pay it or not!
The audience figures (radio and TV) alone should indicate what the public thinks of the ±«Óătv. Now is the ideal time to take action – the unending, and churlish ±«Óătv feud with the Government (now almost an obsession) – is the final straw.
The ±«Óătv has long outgrown its original concept, and the arrival of news around the clock, seven days a week, has forced it into a whole different ball game in order to try and fill the hours with "news".
This was painfully apparent during the Iraq war – while our armed forces were fighting in Iraq, we had to endure the same amateurish video clips over and over and over again, while the "newscasters" pathetically asked "correspondents" around the world the most inane questions to try and pad out the hours given over to the coverage.
In my opinion the ±«Óătv no longer provides good (or even reasonable) entertainment programmes – rather they seem to rely more and more on forum-type programmes and one cannot listen to ±«Óătv radio, or view a ±«Óătv TV programme, without the inevitable "we want to hear your views – phone, text, email or blog us!" Which Simon, you know I don't do that often.
Gradually, the ±«Óătv is having to rely on the public to provide programme content for them. The ±«Óătv is a huge organisation (probably too big), with a professional website, and a wide range of merchandise that it markets via the Internet, through its broadcasts, and in the media.
Surely, with all the revenue these generate, it should stand on its own feet like all other broadcasting companies? I am Simon, entitled to my opinion as you are yours. But I think the ±«Óătv needs to be brought into the real world and quickly.
Whisht - oh I'm so glad you asked that one. I don't know the answer either, but I'll put my hand up and admit that I missed big chunks of the programme as I was driving through Fife, and didn't realise that they appear to have to put up with the most appalling radio reception - at least on car radios. Radios 4 & 2 got drowned out/turned to fuzz, much to my chagrin!
Hope this isn't too long?
MotPublic, ( 24). Since Eddie is exhorting us to brevity, can I just point out you have a redundant "of" as the last word of your post ? If you'd taken that off, probably the blog would work perfectly again. We mustn't overload the system, apparently.
I still think it's those photos, by the way. I knew they'd break it eventually.
Member of the Public - you are a journalist and I claim my five pounds!
ah, the good old days when we were able to go up to random people on the street, claim they were journalists and then mug them for a fiver.
[don't worry - just a riff on your name, not a comment about your sententious postings...]
;¬)
Whisht: Artist thingey - see Belinda (Wed. prog. if you want to listen again). Testimonial - Could be fun!
Lord Mair: Surely your motto should be Scottish Power?
Belinda & Big Sis - ok, I'll listenagaintoo.
Personally, I daren't "listen again" in case the system crashes and it somehow is deemed my fault.
What d'you want to be chairman for? He has no influence over anything: his role is to remind us that our proper emotions toward the ±«Óătv should contain an admixture of embarrassment. Which, obviously, you wouldn't be any good at.
Finally, why was Huw Edwards sent to Birmingham on last nights 10' o' clock news. Was that really money well spent?
To think that Coventry could have been achieved for almost the same money...
aw Big Sis - you're always looking out for us.
Thankyou, I'll listen tonight maybe. Although I haven't listened I do believe an artist can commission a piece of work to be done by others without his or her fair hand getting mucky with paint.
This was done by Yves Klein and Sol Lewitt well before Damien Hirst came on the scene.... but I'll listen first before going off on one!!
ta
Chairman Eddie,
±«Óătv1's "Five Days"? Wot's that all about?
PS If you tapped it and haven't watched it yet STOP READING NOW. Here's how the final episode should've been...
"Wow what a last episode – so much happened and so much fell into place. Then right at the end the final twist that none of us were expecting, and although we’d had our suspicions about who’d done it we really weren’t expecting the reason why it was this person…
There were loads of side stories, like the paedophile who took the youngest daughter, the reporter’s story, the various police staff, the grand-parents, great granddad, the younger two children, etc – however from what I saw, the following seems to be the main salient points leading to the conclusion.
It was indeed the flower seller who had kidnapped the wife – Leanne. He had come over to England from Macedonia towards the end of the conflict and started the flower selling business near to where Matt – the black guy – and Leanne lived because he was plotting to kidnap Leanne. He was plotting the kidnap because he was intending to start a blackmail as retribution for the loss of his own wife who was killed in army crossfire in Macedonia during the conflict.
Matt had been in that English army platoon that fired the bullets and had been led by Matt’s sergeant friend – Gary. However before putting his kidnap plan into place he was taken by surprise when Leanne turned up in the lay-by to buy the flowers from his van.
He decided to grasp his opportunity but just as he grabbed Leanne the big white van pulled up – blocking the view from the kids sitting in her car. The driver of the van was the guy who ran the kennels where Leanne and the children had earlier picked up the new dog.
The dog-guy saw the struggle taking place and argued/shouted with the flower seller, however after a while he could see that the flower seller was taking no notice and as the flower seller was so big and intimidating, and the dog-guy was a bit timid, eventually the flower seller threw Leanne in the back of the flower van and the dog-guy drove off. The flower seller took only seconds pack up the rest of the van and pulled away straight after the dog-guy’s van had left.
The dog-guy was really shaken up and mixed up by the episode and had convinced himself that the reason Leanne had been found dead was because he had failed to intervene and he’d convinced himself that as a consequence he was responsible for her death – he felt that he had killed her. Later in the series he came forward to the police and being a bit simple and confused, the only thing he could say to the police was to keep repeating that he had killed her.
Meanwhile, earlier the police had tracked down the flower seller in the flower market after he’d imprisoned Leanne in a hut in the forest. But their inquiries didn’t lead to a conclusion worthy of pursuing. He was biding his time ready to start the blackmail.
The ex-husband was really still in love with Leanne and the eldest daughter had gone over to France to stay with him after Leanne had gone missing. Seeing how distraught the eldest daughter was, he started to become quite concerned himself.
The eldest daughter persuaded him to come back to England to help find Leanne. On his return he used some inside contacts he had in the police to learn what they were thinking about the flower seller and followed the scent himself. He had more luck than the police and followed the flower seller to the hut in the woods where Leanne was being held hostage.
She was tied and messed up but generally unharmed. In the process of rescuing Leanne, while the ex-husband was fighting with the flower seller, Leanne hit and killed the flower seller by bashing his head in with a piece of wood. Since the ex-husband had been in trouble with the law earlier in life, he didn’t want to be associated with a killing and persuaded Leanne that they should bury the body in the woods. Leanne and the ex-husband continued to argue about this while covering over the body and during the argument it came out that getting back at Matt about the platoon killing his wife wasn’t the real reason the flower seller kidnapped Leanne.
It was actually to get back at Gary – it turned out that she’d been having a long time affair with Gary. In fact during the argument, Leanne also told the ex-husband that the affair had started while she was married to him and in fact the eldest daughter was Gary’s love child. While the ex-husband was stunned by this revelation Leanne ran off leaving the ex-husband in the woods.
By now the ex-husband had had enough and returned to France – leaving behind of course, the eldest daughter who he now had no further interest in.
Meanwhile Leanne has run out of the woods very much alive. Where did she go? How was she killed and end up floating in the boat lake? And, who dunnit?
- we all know it wasn’t Matt – cos he is just too nice a guy, and really loved her
- it wasn’t the simple dog-guy – he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and just mixed up
- it wasn’t the flower seller – because Leanne was still alive when he was killed
- it wasn’t the ex-husband because Leanne had run off and he’d gone back to the France.
So now we get to Sarah, the black haired young lady who found the missing son in her garage. We always thought there was something strange about her and it turns out that she was truly weird. She was in fact Leanne’s twin sister separated at a young age.
After tea one day when they were 4 years old, Sarah had gone upstairs to the toilet and saw their mother in bed with another man “doing it”. At that same time her father who’d just arrived home from a business trip a day early also came into the bedroom. Leanne was downstairs watching TV.
Sarah was very close to her father and seeing how distraught her father was, she grabbed the bedside lamp and smashed her mother over the head with it. The lover fled and her father grabbed her mother and tried to resuscitate her. There was blood everywhere, Sarah’s father couldn’t bring her back to life, and he hugged her desperately as he staggered around the room in his despair. To Sarah it looked like he was dragging her round the room.
Sarah was committed to a mental institution, and her father committed suicide soon after as he couldn’t cope with the horror and loss he’d witnessed that day. Leanne who knew nothing really of what had happened was adopted by Barbara and John Poole. In the institution Sarah blotted out most of her memory, including the fact that she had a twin sister, and she adopted a new name for herself. She was diagnosed as “recovered” when she was 18 and released from the institution to commence a “normal” life. In her early 20’s she stumbled across an internet site that revealed the trauma of her early life, her original name and that she had a twin sister.
Now, back to the present day, now in her early 30s, Sarah was a regular at the gym where Matt and Gary worked and she discovered that Leanne – who she realised was her long lost twin sister – was having the affair with Gary, was pregnant with is child, and Matt appeared to know nothing about what was going on.
This was starting to bring back the memories of how she’d found her mother and her lover and the horror her father had experienced at finding them together in bed. The terrible act of murder she had committed and blocked out of her memory for all those years came flooding back and seeing history seemingly repeating itself with Leanne and Gary caused the hatred to well up inside her and she flipped. Before she could act however Leanne was reported missing and imagine her surprise when she found Matt’s young son hiding in her garage.
Later that day while in the gym working up a sweat on the jogging machine trying to run off the anger that still boiled inside her, Leanne came running in from the woods looking for Gary to save her. She was in a terrible state. Gary was out and they were all alone in the gym.
Sarah’s emotion all erupted out and she confronted Leanne. In the ensuing struggle and in Sarah’s anger she hit Leanne in the face with a dumbbell and killed her outright. After she’d dumped Leanne’s body in the lake, she set about befriending Matt and the rest of the family as she felt that everything would be rectified and her life would become whole by her becoming the perfect wife and mother to make up for the massive failings of her own mother and Leanne.
It was granddad that eventually triggered the police to find out the truth – it was something Sarah said to him one day when she visited him with Matt’s children in the old peoples home. He became suspicious of Sarah’s true identity and told the young reporter who via internet and record searches tracked down the truth and alerted the police.
Meanwhile the relationship of Barbara and John Poole (Leanne’s adopted mum and dad) was coming under strain after Leanne’s body was discovered. He took an overdose and was taken into hospital. Sarah associated this with her own father’s suicide and blaming what seemed to her to be yet another wife causing heartbreak for her husband she broke into the Poole’s house late at night and was standing over Barbara with the bedside lamp held above her head ready to smash it down when the police broke in…"
Sorry it was a bit long. Once I'd started I couldn't finish :-)
I see Eddie has now dropped in a subtle hint at 17:50 so little doubt about the intention.
I hope Eddie, should you get the job, you'll still pop up and say hello from time to time ?
I see Eddie has now dropped in a subtle hint at 05:50 so little doubt about the intention.
I hope Eddie, should you get the job, you'll still pop up and say hello from time to time ?
Philip (52),
I admire your stance against the call for brevity, as it is indicative of one who will not submit to the cruelties of current culture of blame. But I can't imagine that this stance helps.