In and amongst all the whining and whingeing and insults from the lower echelon of forum members on Digital Spy's soaps' forum, particularly on the thread found here, "Sharon Deserves to Be in the Vic", yet another cri de coeur from vaslav37, the forum's resident "All-Things-Masood" cheerleader, joy of pat either refuses to be beaten or simply can't (as opposed to "won't") see sense.
She reiterates:-
This is all about the Masoods taking over the Vic. It simply ain't gonna happen, and it won't happen.
Artistic licence is one thing. When it becomes blatantly in conflict with what the real and present world is, then it becomes a lie.
Example: Years ago, a historical film was made about Mary, Queen of Scots, starring Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson. Vanessa played Mary and Glenda played Queen Elizabeth I. It's well-known historical fact that the Queens in question never met each other in real life. Yet the film included a scene where they both met. The actual dialogue from the scene was lifted from a couple of letters they exchanged, but it was more dramatic to concoct a scene where they confronted each other face-to-face.
That's artistic licence.
The Masoods are practicing Muslims, which means they do not drink. They don't eat pork. During Ramadan, they fast. Their religion proscribes drinking or engaging in a trade which is dependent on the sale and servicing of drink. When they originally bought the restaurant, there was a big debate when things didn't take off about including an alcholic bar. Zainab was stringently opposed, and the only way around the dilemma was their hiring of a barman who was not Muslim who would mix and serve the drinks.
Besides, as PrincessPerfect points out, a restaurant's forte is food, not drink; whereas people come to the Vic, primarily, to drink. If (and that's a big if) the Masoods became landlords of the pub, who would serve behind the bar? Not Zainab or Masood. Certainly not Tamwar.
They would have to employ non-Muslim staff, and what would they do? Sit upstairs in the pub and count the money? They couldn't take delivery of stock, and even the food they served would reflect their religious practices and dietary laws.
To show Masood and Zainab serving behind the bar and bantering with the punters is not "artistic licence." It's a blatant untruth, and the BBC would be open to all sorts of criticism from people who would know better. And even moreso, the show would lose more credibility.
In point of fact, until recently Zainab would rather die than be seen in the pub. She rarely is - the Saint George's Day fiasco being a creation of Bryan Kirkwood's which was neither true nor factual. Actually, she would rather have died than cook in that kitchen along with Ray, Cora and the like. When she and the Beales ran Masala Masood, the kitchen had to be strictly according to halal specifications.
There's a reason that the Masoods, more than any other residents of the Square, are the characters seen the least in the pub, even though Amira and Shabnam drank on the sly and AJ, a non-practicing Muslim, drinks openly.
She reiterates:-
At the end of the day, it's drama so we can use artistic licence
This is all about the Masoods taking over the Vic. It simply ain't gonna happen, and it won't happen.
Artistic licence is one thing. When it becomes blatantly in conflict with what the real and present world is, then it becomes a lie.
Example: Years ago, a historical film was made about Mary, Queen of Scots, starring Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson. Vanessa played Mary and Glenda played Queen Elizabeth I. It's well-known historical fact that the Queens in question never met each other in real life. Yet the film included a scene where they both met. The actual dialogue from the scene was lifted from a couple of letters they exchanged, but it was more dramatic to concoct a scene where they confronted each other face-to-face.
That's artistic licence.
The Masoods are practicing Muslims, which means they do not drink. They don't eat pork. During Ramadan, they fast. Their religion proscribes drinking or engaging in a trade which is dependent on the sale and servicing of drink. When they originally bought the restaurant, there was a big debate when things didn't take off about including an alcholic bar. Zainab was stringently opposed, and the only way around the dilemma was their hiring of a barman who was not Muslim who would mix and serve the drinks.
Besides, as PrincessPerfect points out, a restaurant's forte is food, not drink; whereas people come to the Vic, primarily, to drink. If (and that's a big if) the Masoods became landlords of the pub, who would serve behind the bar? Not Zainab or Masood. Certainly not Tamwar.
They would have to employ non-Muslim staff, and what would they do? Sit upstairs in the pub and count the money? They couldn't take delivery of stock, and even the food they served would reflect their religious practices and dietary laws.
To show Masood and Zainab serving behind the bar and bantering with the punters is not "artistic licence." It's a blatant untruth, and the BBC would be open to all sorts of criticism from people who would know better. And even moreso, the show would lose more credibility.
In point of fact, until recently Zainab would rather die than be seen in the pub. She rarely is - the Saint George's Day fiasco being a creation of Bryan Kirkwood's which was neither true nor factual. Actually, she would rather have died than cook in that kitchen along with Ray, Cora and the like. When she and the Beales ran Masala Masood, the kitchen had to be strictly according to halal specifications.
There's a reason that the Masoods, more than any other residents of the Square, are the characters seen the least in the pub, even though Amira and Shabnam drank on the sly and AJ, a non-practicing Muslim, drinks openly.
I don't like how you talk about others, but this is the perfect post.
ReplyDeleteNo,I'm sorry, but you've just revealed your own stupidity - and cowardice by not using any sort of name, instead being safely anonymous. You DO realise I know your IP?
ReplyDeleteWell I actually enjoy Emilias thoughts and comments. OK, not the personal attacks, but as she has been banned from many sites, she has to defend herself somewhere.
ReplyDeleteHer comments about the show are mostly insightful and usually on the button. She usually gets the "whoddunt" stories well before anyone else, and her money is on Derek for Shagger. I am wondering if a Dark Horse, such as Syed might be in the frame. Guilt over his broken marriage and daughter perhaps? (just trying to come up with an alternative for Derek, of which there is little).
It is peoples choices weather they choose to read here or not, you actually have to go to an effort to click onto the site. I also agree with Emilia about the Vic, why would you have two alcholics running it?
It has taken me about 5 goes to publish this, so again, if you really dont like it, is it worth the effort?
Professor Plum