While we’re on the subject, what exactly are Freddie’s bail conditions? As I recall, the original reason he couldn’t go home was because the police didn’t want him destroying evidence before they’d finished searching his room. I thought the continued ban was Lizard’s own idea, as part of her attempt to get her licence back?
The bail conditions make no sense once any searches were completed.
If they didn’t want him on licensed premises, because Dealer, then there is an assumption that he would reoffend and bail should therefore not have been granted at all…
If it is contact with the great and innocent British public at a commercial venue that was the issue, then are we to take it that the stables no longer has any customers at all?
What we heard, on 5th August, was Elizabeth telling Lily about it. As I wrote elsewhere:
I have tried to find out the reason, and this is what I can find:
Lowfield, Sunday 5th August, 2018
Elizabeth has found out that Freddie won’t be able to return to Lower Loxley even if he is bailed. She calls Brookfield and Lily calls Kenton. Neither of those work out and so Freddie has to stay, much to his disgust, with Shula.
The police apparently made it a condition of his being bailed rather than held on remand that he was not allowed to live at home: the exact words used to break this news on air, in conversation between Lily and Elizabeth on the phone, were
“As soon as it’s over you can get him out of there and bring him home.”
“No. No. That’s just it. I can’t.”
“Why? What are they going to do?”
“I’ve had an update from Patrick’s legal assistant: if Freddie’s charged, he can’t come back home again to Lower Loxley. It’s the scene of the crime, where he was caught dealing – they can’t let him come back here in case he --”
“Oh, you’re kidding me!”
“Oh I don’t know, it’s a conflict of interest or something, his bail conditions, it’s just not allowed.”
We were never told “in case he” what. I am unsure what it might be: any ideas, anyone? What conflict of interest might it be?
I don’t think any of the authors was to blame; that falls on the people who decided that all children must take examinations about their work, which will not have been in the minds of Austen, Dickens, Hardy and the rest.
I think “targeting your audience” ought to mean writing with more or fewer hard words depending on whether you are writing for adults of children, and shorter sentences and paragraphs for the latter and for people born after say 1960, who don’t cope well with “hard” writing: Titty in Swallows and Amazons, set in the 1920s/30s, had read Robinson Crusoe in the original by the age of twelve, but I don’t suppose anyone her age since about 1950 will have done so, and precious few adults today do either.
Diana Wynne Jones was always glad that her books were more likely to be banned by librarians in the Mid-West than used as exam-fodder by people in Oxford, Cambridge or London. When people started to write Learned Essays Interpreting Her Work, she signed in a resigned way and allowed as how she expected the sort of people who wrote books on books not to understand her books.
She did get slightly peeved by the essay predicated on the idea that she had used (for which read plagiarised) ideas from a book she had not read – especially since there was and is sod-all connection between the book in question (which she then read, slightly anxiously in case she had in fact copied from it by accident) and the work of hers which was said to be on themes explored in said work. She said bluntly that it wasn’t, and if that was what people wanted to read into it, the operative words were “read into”, not “take from”.
Then the teecher what chose it wanted a talking to.
Oddly, he was a great teacher AND person, and always gets a mention in Danny Boyle’s stuff as his inspiration.
He led me to a Grade A A level despite loathing 50% of his choices.
He was famed for not making me get me hair cut, even as it reached my shoulders … until he was given a talking to by the head. His quote to me, in front of the whole class, was “… now, quite frankly I don’t care how long you grow your hait. Indeed, I find it quite fetching. For me you could grow it until it could be tied to the hairs on your behind … but when I get in trouble because of the length of YOUR hair, that seems a little one-sided. I’m sure you’d agree”.
I got it cut that evening.
But his choice of work for us to study was appalling. Verging on the deliberate. I wonder if it was for a bet.
I forgot to mention that he had us read ‘Little Women’.