|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Dec 24, 2016 21:02:39 GMT
Coronation Street was stupid tonight. As if a court would rule for somebody to be chucked in prison over Christmas. Especially when said person has a young kid. It would surely have to be one heartless judge to let a young child to be without his mother on Christmas Day because she committed a crime. It's not the child's fault!
|
|
|
Post by Timelord007 on Dec 26, 2016 7:11:33 GMT
Well it is a soap opera.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Dec 26, 2016 9:39:23 GMT
Still has to be somewhat believable.
|
|
|
Post by omega on Dec 26, 2016 9:42:38 GMT
Narratives tend to ignore some aspects of law when it's convenient. In Arrow season 2, Moira Queen is on trial and Laurel, a close friend of the family and one-time love interest to Oliver Queen (the main character and son of the woman on trial), is the lawyer for the prosecution. Sure, it screams CONFLICT OF INTEREST to anyone with even a basic level of how the courts work, but as long as it adds drama and tension let's ignore that.
Another courtroom trope that would so not fly in real life is when the characters do unusual things to conceal evidence, buy time to find more, give their case credibility it doesn't have or to cover up that they don't have much of a case at all. On TV and in movies? It's funny, so lets do it. In real life? Contempt of court and a fine for wasting time. In Big Bang Theory once Sheldon wound up in traffic court and created an elaborate argument that boiled down to that he couldn't face his accuser (the traffic camera). He got thrown in jail for pissing off the judge, being found in contempt of court and had to pay the fine. The writers still got jokes out of this, but at least it portrayed the justice system in a more accurate light than most shows do.
|
|
|
Post by omega on Dec 26, 2016 9:44:46 GMT
Still has to be somewhat believable. If people in soap operas engaged their brains then we wouldn't have over half the storylines we've got over the years. Just how many problems could have been solved by communicating or talking it out?
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Dec 26, 2016 10:24:22 GMT
Narratives tend to ignore some aspects of law when it's convenient. In Arrow season 2, Moira Queen is on trial and Laurel, a close friend of the family and one-time love interest to Oliver Queen (the main character and son of the woman on trial), is the lawyer for the prosecution. Sure, it screams CONFLICT OF INTEREST to anyone with even a basic level of how the courts work, but as long as it adds drama and tension let's ignore that. Another courtroom trope that would so not fly in real life is when the characters do unusual things to conceal evidence, buy time to find more, give their case credibility it doesn't have or to cover up that they don't have much of a case at all. On TV and in movies? It's funny, so lets do it. In real life? Contempt of court and a fine for wasting time. In Big Bang Theory once Sheldon wound up in traffic court and created an elaborate argument that boiled down to that he couldn't face his accuser (the traffic camera). He got thrown in jail for pissing off the judge, being found in contempt of court and had to pay the fine. The writers still got jokes out of this, but at least it portrayed the justice system in a more accurate light than most shows do. But suggesting that a judge would chuck a mother in jail and leave her four year old son on her own? That's a step too far into fantasy in my opinion. Still has to be somewhat believable. If people in soap operas engaged their brains then we wouldn't have over half the storylines we've got over the years. Just how many problems could have been solved by communicating or talking it out? True, but this is less about brain-engaging and more about unbelievability.
|
|
|
Post by omega on Dec 26, 2016 10:39:55 GMT
Narratives tend to ignore some aspects of law when it's convenient. In Arrow season 2, Moira Queen is on trial and Laurel, a close friend of the family and one-time love interest to Oliver Queen (the main character and son of the woman on trial), is the lawyer for the prosecution. Sure, it screams CONFLICT OF INTEREST to anyone with even a basic level of how the courts work, but as long as it adds drama and tension let's ignore that. Another courtroom trope that would so not fly in real life is when the characters do unusual things to conceal evidence, buy time to find more, give their case credibility it doesn't have or to cover up that they don't have much of a case at all. On TV and in movies? It's funny, so lets do it. In real life? Contempt of court and a fine for wasting time. In Big Bang Theory once Sheldon wound up in traffic court and created an elaborate argument that boiled down to that he couldn't face his accuser (the traffic camera). He got thrown in jail for pissing off the judge, being found in contempt of court and had to pay the fine. The writers still got jokes out of this, but at least it portrayed the justice system in a more accurate light than most shows do. But suggesting that a judge would chuck a mother in jail and leave her four year old son on her own? That's a step too far into fantasy in my opinion. If people in soap operas engaged their brains then we wouldn't have over half the storylines we've got over the years. Just how many problems could have been solved by communicating or talking it out? True, but this is less about brain-engaging and more about unbelievability. You've got more heart than the writers in Coronation Street. Out of curiosity, what what the crime? Your original post lacked a certain degree of context over that. If it was a serious enough crime, then in the eyes of the law the verdict would be justified. If it was something like shoplifting, then it would be overkill. If there are others who can care for the child, then surely that too would be taken into account. Christmas is when big things usually happen anyway, like when Tracey was released from prison, so this was probably the big event for Christmas 2016.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Dec 26, 2016 18:32:48 GMT
But suggesting that a judge would chuck a mother in jail and leave her four year old son on her own? That's a step too far into fantasy in my opinion. True, but this is less about brain-engaging and more about unbelievability. You've got more heart than the writers in Coronation Street. Out of curiosity, what what the crime? Your original post lacked a certain degree of context over that. If it was a serious enough crime, then in the eyes of the law the verdict would be justified. If it was something like shoplifting, then it would be overkill. If there are others who can care for the child, then surely that too would be taken into account. Christmas is when big things usually happen anyway, like when Tracey was released from prison, so this was probably the big event for Christmas 2016. It was only a sham marriage to let an illegal immigrant into the country. Maria agreed to it so a gay man could be with his UK boyfriend. Hardly serious enough to warrant an arrest over Christmas.
|
|
bobod
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,759
|
Post by bobod on Dec 26, 2016 20:20:07 GMT
Coronation Street was stupid tonight. As if a court would rule for somebody to be chucked in prison over Christmas. Especially when said person has a young kid. It would surely have to be one heartless judge to let a young child to be without his mother on Christmas Day because she committed a crime. It's not the child's fault! Um... you do realise courts don't base their verdicts on what time of year it is, right?
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Dec 26, 2016 20:23:51 GMT
Coronation Street was stupid tonight. As if a court would rule for somebody to be chucked in prison over Christmas. Especially when said person has a young kid. It would surely have to be one heartless judge to let a young child to be without his mother on Christmas Day because she committed a crime. It's not the child's fault! Um... you do realise courts don't base their verdicts on what time of year it is, right? Maria is the mother of a young kid though. Why would they rule to send her to prison and thereby leave a four year old kid without his mother at Christmas over a mere sham marriage?
|
|
bobod
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,759
|
Post by bobod on Dec 26, 2016 20:35:00 GMT
Um... you do realise courts don't base their verdicts on what time of year it is, right? Maria is the mother of a young kid though. Why would they rule to send her to prison and thereby leave a four year old kid without his mother at Christmas over a mere sham marriage? Because that's how the law works.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Dec 26, 2016 20:58:57 GMT
Maria is the mother of a young kid though. Why would they rule to send her to prison and thereby leave a four year old kid without his mother at Christmas over a mere sham marriage? Because that's how the law works. So you're saying any judge would make the heartless choice to leave a four year old on his own without his mother at Christmas? Sorry but I don't buy that. I think any judge who would do such a thing would deserve to be fired from his or her job.
|
|
bobod
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,759
|
Post by bobod on Dec 26, 2016 21:08:22 GMT
I'm saying that any judge who based their sentence on it being Christmas would lose their job.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2016 12:18:08 GMT
Um... you do realise courts don't base their verdicts on what time of year it is, right? Maria is the mother of a young kid though. Why would they rule to send her to prison and thereby leave a four year old kid without his mother at Christmas over a mere sham marriage? Because it's the responsibility of social services, not the court system, to deal with the child,
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2016 12:19:15 GMT
Because that's how the law works. So you're saying any judge would make the heartless choice to leave a four year old on his own without his mother at Christmas? Sorry but I don't buy that. I think any judge who would do such a thing would deserve to be fired from his or her job. The judge possibly feels her actions make her an unfit mother.
|
|
|
Post by omega on Dec 27, 2016 12:26:30 GMT
Sounds like Maria showed bad judgement in an attempt to abuse loopholes in the law. The fact she was raising a child indicates her poor judgement was worse than it would have been if she didn't have the child. It may be unfair to you, but I can't argue with the verdict. The fact it happened at Christmas is unfortunate, but irrelevant to the case. If any judge were more lenient to women with children, it'd set a dangerous precedent, as well a criticism of discrimination on gender and maternal grounds. Just because someone is a main character doesn't mean they'll get a more lenient sentence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2016 12:47:54 GMT
It's nothing more than the UK soap trope of someone having to suffer a horrible Christmas. Corrie used to be lighter but ever since Eastenders had the highest rated tv broadcast EVER in the UK with Den serving Angie with divorce papers, soaps have had misery and Christmas walking hand in hand. 30 million people, more than half the country, watched that and 30 years on the record still stands. I'd say Maria on Corrie got off lightly - if she lived on Albert Square where more than a dozen characters have died at Christmas, she'd probably be long dead What did Tennant say in The Impossible Planet? "No turning back? That's almost as bad as nothing can possible go wrong, or this is going to be the best Christmas Walford's ever had." It's just what soaps do at Christmas. Some laughs, but more tears.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Dec 27, 2016 13:27:00 GMT
Maria is the mother of a young kid though. Why would they rule to send her to prison and thereby leave a four year old kid without his mother at Christmas over a mere sham marriage? Because it's the responsibility of social services, not the court system, to deal with the child, Social services are hardly going to be a replacement for the boy's own mother. It would surely be cruel in real life to basically punish a four year old child.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Dec 27, 2016 13:27:52 GMT
Sounds like Maria showed bad judgement in an attempt to abuse loopholes in the law. The fact she was raising a child indicates her poor judgement was worse than it would have been if she didn't have the child. It may be unfair to you, but I can't argue with the verdict. The fact it happened at Christmas is unfortunate, but irrelevant to the case. If any judge were more lenient to women with children, it'd set a dangerous precedent, as well a criticism of discrimination on gender and maternal grounds. Just because someone is a main character doesn't mean they'll get a more lenient sentence. Then do it for both mothers and fathers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2016 13:54:36 GMT
Because it's the responsibility of social services, not the court system, to deal with the child, Social services are hardly going to be a replacement for the boy's own mother. It would surely be cruel in real life to basically punish a four year old child. But this is what happens in real life. This isn't soft and fluffy like Doctor Who.
|
|