Archers Addicts 2

I've long wondered if Stefan's body will be found buried on berries farm or nearby. Maybe scruff can sniff it out

Google, copy and paste Lazigirl. It works for me if I can remember what I am looking for in the first place!?

Thanks Gracesgran. It's not my memory thank goodness, I actually missed those episodes. Thanks for the dates, how do you know them? If there IS a murder it could be Stefan then? Rob def in frame and plot thickens. Quite scary.

19/05/2015 - The Archers
David and Jennifer interview Stefan, a worker at Berrow Farm who wants to stay anonymous. Stefan says he saw who he thinks was Rob blocking up one of the big concrete drains. Rob must have wanted to stop the water getting through to the drainage ditch, avoiding flooding the cattle shed. David decides to talk to Charlie.

25/05/2015 - The Archers
Charlie interviews the staff at Berrow Farm staff but no one seems to know anything about the culvert being deliberately blocked. Charlie's annoyed that he can't talk to Stefan, and criticises Rob for releasing Stefan to spend time with his family. Charlie's unimpressed when Rob dismisses the 'wild goose chase' - reminding Rob he nearly died in that culvert. Rob's keen to be informed when someone can actually substantiate the anonymous claim about a Berrow Farm employee interfering with the culvert.

We haven't heard any more about Stefan since ... ... ...

I think it was Pavel, Lazigirl.

And why didn't Helen get the toy out of the bin?

I can't remember who Stefan was (age related am afraid). Was he the one that Adam had a fling with?

Alea

He'd be even less of a problem if somebody could be persuaded to push him in the slurry tank.
Form an orderly queue ...............

Thinking of Stefan when I say he may be a murderer.

My memory would say that's right merlogran. Peggy did change her will and, instead of skipping a generation, left everything to her children. Also right about Blossom Hill Cottage - it's owned by Usher Franks and Helen and Rob rent it.

With Coercive Control (or whatever it is called) being a new law I wonder if, in order that Rob has no ownership of the farm, Helen would agree to having him charged. You cannot benefit from a crime so I wonder (lots of wondering) if this would mean he would loose any claim. Otherwise I imagine they would have to buy him out of any claim he made. Seems very complicated to me but as he may be a murderer he may not be so much of a problem

Can somebody bring me up to speed about the property ownership? I know Peggy changed her will after Tony's accident so he will now inherit Peggy's estate and in the past she wanted Helen to have a roof over her head but did she actually give her a property or just promise to leave her The Lodge in her will?

I thought Rob and Helen rented BHC?

Totally

What about the cottage which Peggy gave to Helen? Won't he be entitled to half of that if they get divorced? I agree that the farm and shop are a family business so he might not be successful there.
Also, we need Charlie back to voice his suspicions about what went on at Berrow Farm.
The hint about murder was something I read in my tv pages which said Ambridge could see its first murder. Perhaps that might refer to the mysterious disappearance of Stefan from Berrow Farm.
Lots to keep us wondering!

Where's the bit about a murder? I look at the RT online summaries and they're very brief.

I don't think he can automatically claim half of everything if Helen has to put a restraining order on him. The farm is a business with a lot of fingers in the pie and he's probably already spent Peggy's money.

Well I do hope there isn't going to be a murder, though I too have read the hints.
Just need Helen to get rid of Rob, take out an injunction and get her life back. Trouble is, he's now entitled to claim half of everything she has which I think was always his plan.

Just hope Jess doesn't betray her and tell him she and Helen have talked, he'll have an answer for that too, he'll say it's Jess trying to get him back!!

Whatever happens it's going to get messy.

My daughter was married to a lovely man or so we thought. She was vulnerable and suffering from depression and trying to extricate herself from an unsuitable relationship when she first met him and he was very protective and caring. Their relationship developed quickly and within 2 years they were married.
Cutting a long story short, over the next 8 years he became more controlling. He would dominate family conversations, cut short visits even when arrangements were made for them to stay several days, they would stay only a few hours. I was like Pat Archer, just seeing the charming side and just grateful that my daughter was being looked after and I tended to ignore the odd strange behaviour.
Alarm bells started to ring when my new daughter in law met him for the first time. She had experience in the past of living with a controlling partner so could see the signs. After my daughter and her husband had gone home my son told me that his wife felt that my daughter was in abusive relationship. I laughed it off. Later other people commented to me in the same vein and I started to look at things with fresh eyes. They finally split up 2 years ago at her instigation and she has blossomed. She has opened up to us about his Jekyll and Hyde persona and the non violent controlling behaviour he exhibited. Interestingly when I first met his father I noticed that he manipulated social situations in much the same way as his son. I remember saying to my daughter early in her marriage that if the son turns out like the father, run like hell! So glad she did.

You do all know I suppose that this storyline is going to end in the Archer's first murder ,or don't you read the DT?

Throwing away a child's special toy of blanket is really cruel.
Both my children had pieces of old flannette sheet whic they snuggled in bed until they were about 10. My son just decided he did not need his anymore.
When I was at work I heard about a domestic abuse case where a mum's partner cut the hair off the little girls doll. That to me seems even more cruel than cutting the childs hair. It's an attack on the little girl's baby.

I heard the womans hour interview with the sister of a victim about how Pat might not have realised what was going on. It was very interesting.

Thank goodness it's hurrying up now. I'm far more interested in how Helen is going to get her life back on track, deal with the fallout, not to mention the birth. Henry is going to ask a lot of questions......Bring it on!!

I wonder if she and Jess will keep in touch? It will be interesting to see if Helen's baby looks just like Ethan.

Do you think the bin men have been yet?

#quickwashshouldsortit.

Go for it Helen! I thought that Rob treating Henry so badly might tip the balance.

But the story is so unrealistic - there she is a virtual prisoner in her own house and the next thing she is meeting his ex-wife at the station!

Excellent interview, gracesgran thank you for sharing it. Isn't it every parent's/sibling's nightmare that a H/partner may not be all he seems and to see a personality diminish under his influence? [shiver]

Poor little Henry. My 11 and 9 year olds still enjoy cuddly toys. Not to mention my adult son.

The woman's hour interview was so enlightening and explained Pat's reasoning.

I do think this is a widespread situation....gasp.

It may be that his abuse of Henry will be what tips Helen into taking action.

I heard this on Women's Hour today. www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03pm4fr
"Ruth, a listener, describes how she missed signs of coercive control in her sister's relationship. In a similar way to the character of Pat in The Archers, Ruth failed to see the domestic abuse that was happening right under her nose."