Archers addicts 3!

Tom will be a great help to Helen. Bonding with baby, Jack too.

Just had a look at the little column in the Radio section of RT, predict some shouting at the radio some time this week!

Was it you who mentioned the Archers Spoilers thread on Mumsnet phoenix. I keep popping over now and I saw the Radio Times ones ... very interesting

So who is right.....Pat or Tony?

PAT. Without a doubt.

She's finally found her backbone

Rob is Mr Ace Manipulator. He's up to something isn't he. Was he tape recording this visit to Bridge Farm, when he was oh so reasonable and Pat got cross and was intransigent to his kind and reasonable offer to swop Sunday for an overnight stay?

I'm afraid I think Tony is right about what they should do and why. I understand why anyone would be annoyed and Pat certainly sees through Rob's manipulative ways now, but to get Henry back I am afraid they must play the game and, to be honest, start trying to stand outside the problem as the courts will.

Was Pat always so reactive and short-sighted? She is being the same as she was about the police interview. I am wondering if I have missed knowing the character in one of my (short) times off from the programme.

Pat needs to back up her stance by getting some advice from their solicitor. If they just give in to Rob's demands it will be the thin end of the wedge. He's known about Father's Day for some time and was completely unreasonable on Single Wicket day so it cuts both ways.

She should also contact the school and explain that they were not informed that Henry had homework and maybe the school can assist with that?

Or they could wangle it so they have Henry on the day they visit Jack and take him to see his new brother?

Now, that would really piss Rob off put the cat amongst the pigeons

"Six months ago, new laws on coercive and controlling behaviour were introduced, targeting those who subject spouses, partners and family members to psychological and emotional torment - but stop short of violence."

This Law in Action programme was on this afternoon and tells of the first case to be prosecuted and found guilty under the new law. It's about 17 minutes long and refers to the Archer's story line.

Jack
Gideon
JACK
GIDEON
JACK!
GIDEON!
JACK!!
GIDEON!!
JACK!!!
GIDEON!!!
JACK!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wonder how Henry copes with his brother having two names?

Pat: Now, Henry. Would you like to see a photo of Jack?

Henry: Who?

Pat: Your baby brother, darling. Don't you think Gideon's a soppy name?

Henry: Chwist on a bike, Gwannee. I'm not telling Wob that!

Gosh the new spoilers and the Mumsnet chat is interesting:-) Who was it got me sneaking over there? I have a feeling I have to blame you Merlot


(thank you - I love it )

Not me, Graces I very rarely, if ever venture over to "The Dark Side" !

It's addictive.

Not the dark side - just their spoiler thread.

Please could someone possibly post a link to the relevant section on MN? Not only will it save me fishing in unchartered waters, but it might also prevent me from getting led astray by all other stuff on there!

PS I wonder if Rob is thinking of some sort of deal, the Archers can have Henry if he can have Giddyjack?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/radio_addicts/2659914-Orange-Is-The-New-Black-in-Ambridge-Just-ask-Helen-But-will-anyone-in-The-Archers-ever-ask-her-WHY?pg=6

This is the 'chat' one. Very funny and moves at a cracking pace.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/radio_addicts/2633443-Archers-spoilers-or-Archers-spoiled-You-decide-Thread-the-Second?pg=5

The spoiler one has at least a fortnight's worth of info.

Thanks merlot!

However tempting I couldn't become embroiled in Mum's net too, its addictive enough catching up on here, and listening to TA each night. My DH isn't impressed and says are you on that bloody Gransnet again! He's not called Rob btw. I heard the Law in Action prog yesterday Gg and it was so illuminating that the woman whose partner had gone to prison, although immensely relieved, felt at times she had betrayed him by reporting to police. It's like Stockholm syndrome isn't it?

Puzzled.......

1. Why doesn't Pat simply tell barrister and family what has been going on?
2. Why do people do things/agree to do things without consulting their lawyers?
3. Why doesn't Kirsty tell the barrister what her concerns were and why?
4. Why has Shula not told the barrister what a shifty lying toad Rob was in relation to the hunt incident?

etc.etc........

Because Pat, Kirsty , Tony and Tom are all innocents abroad when it comes to psychopathic, manipulative individuals like Rob. Plus they're still in shock because Helen is in HMP accused of attempted murder. Her new baby is in the clink with her and they don't understand just how much risk Henry is exposed to emotionally every minute of every day.

Shula hasn't told the barrister what a shifty lying toad Rob was because if she was to tell anyone, it should be the police team who are responsible for the investigation. That would land Shula in trouble because she lied to the police at the time. Also, I suspect Shula hasn't realised the significance of that incident. Ordinary folk bumble along doing their best. People who have worked in prisons, social work, the law, health visiting to name but a few, are more familiar with the dark side.

Ordinary folk bumble along doing their best. People who have worked in prisons, social work, the law, health visiting to name but a few, are more familiar with the dark side.

Blimey, that's a bit pompous, Iam

I live in a community that has witnessd two major and nationally reported serious crimes in the last fifteen years or so. I can tell you that ordinary folk do not just bumble along....They question, discuss, assist in enquiries, gossip (as all communities do) and speculate - because they possess a modicum of intelligence.

It's not convenient for the scriptwriters to have Ambridge folk involved in the Rob/Helen storyline so that's why Shula and others have been sidelined.

Kirsty, for instance, doesn't seem to have told anyone about the time she was flung out of BHC by Rob in a threatening manner. Ian and Shula have reasons for keeping their run-ins with Rob to themselves but Kirsty has nothing to hide.

It's not a bit like real life.

I think Iam is right merlot. The family live in a very pleasant community and have a very close and law-abiding family. They are just not used to dealing with the systems involved. If one of the members of the family had been in one of the professions Iam mentioned, or there was more crime in the area they would be more worldly wise. Whatever your experience it isn't theirs.

Perhaps one of the younger characters should go into a job where their descriptions of their day to day life would give the whole family more insight. Sadly, if they did, they would probably move out of the village.

Personally I think their best bet is that Kaz tells Helen that, if she wants to keep the children she has to "see" the things Rob did as being wrong. As "Lazigirl" commented on the real life case on Law in Action, even after the man was sent to prison the women in question still felt guilty. It is really hard to believe that someone you know well, who does nice things at times (even if for his own ends)can be so bad.

Sorry for irritating you again merlotgran, I didn't mean to be pompous. I was not being patronising about the bridge farm family and their friends, only pointing out recent experiences are outside their experience. Many of us make poor decisions when we're under severe, especially chronic, lasting stress, which is what Pat and Tony are doing.
It isn't real life, but my experience of real life suggest that it isnt a million miles from real life either.

When I said Pat in my post I actually meant Helen.

I agree that these are normal decent people who are wading through the mire of stuff they do not know anything about. I would though have expected them to err on the side of caution before doing anything and to talk to their legal advisors, for example about changing the access arrangements.