Archers addicts 3!

I was really surprised to read a lawyer saying that the most likely reason for Helen to loose the baby would be if they felt she could not protect it - from Rob - once his behaviour was known. If she is caring for it OK she will get to keep it/him with her.

If the shop is shut any job is redundant I would have thought although they will have to take care. Their problem is that they are not only loosing that income - and sales outlet for their produce - it could affect the café and Emma and Fallon could look elsewhere. I do feel they need some employment law help.

Remember he was still looking for a job during this period and Tony and Pat knew about it although he tried to keep it quiet as he didn't want to do it. I don't know how that would affect things but he did come in on the idea that he was "helping" while Helen was "tired and not coping" so it could have been a time limited job anyway.

I don't know if the new baby would go to Rob (I'd like to see Ursula cope with that one ) if Helen has pleaded not guilty on the basis of self-defence and the defence of Henry but I don't know how much of that would come out at this point.

Do you have a sense that we are all channelling Miss Marple?

If they ask him not to return, I've sack him, will he take them to a tribunal. What a nightmare for pat and Tony. Just when the think it can't get any worse, the new baby will be placed with Rob.

I think he would get one Daddima

It will be interesting if they discuss his employment on air with Kirsty - and Tom - there They both had a sense of him pushing himself in and cutting Helen out. It might help them to see what was happening.

Agree with Gracesgran, and has Rob submitted a medical certificate?

You are right about Peggy changing her will merlotgran but once the can of worms opens up I bet they go over everything with a fine tooth comb

Looking at Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) employees must have an employment contract and the employer must pay Class 1 National Insurance contributions for their employee (or would do if not for their age or their level of earnings). However, as soon as someone accepts a job offer they have a contract with their employer. An employment contract doesn’t have to be written down.

Rob came in to job share with Helen though so that would take some working out. Also he is sharing with Helen and she may not be an employee as such. She could be self-employed, a director. SSP is £88.45 for up to 28 weeks so even if they have to pay he is not going to get rich! If it is pro-rata the days agreed, even less so. (I may be clutching at legal straws here though )

I listened to the beginning of the episode again and, as I thought, Tony and Pat agreed - not a word to Ursula, they don't want her getting wind of anything - so I do think Pat is being very careful rather than being a wuss.

If I remember rightly, Helen won't now inherit The Lodge until Tony dies so in RL, knowing that his daughter was living in an abusive relationship, he would probably change his will to prevent Rob getting his hands on it. They would also be relieved that he's not living in a tied cottage and refusing to budge.

You're right about inheritance being a minefield these days, Iam. We know two farming families where the younger generation were given financial assistance to buy their own properties in the village and that was the end of it. 'If you divorce, you sort it out yourselves like anyone else'. The farm's tied cottages were let out to people with no connections to the farm.

The days of two or three generations of a farming family all living and working in harmony are long gone.

Brookfield, take note!!

I agree Iam which is why Pat should and I hope, will take legal advice. If Helen does divorce him he will be after his "share" even though I agree, this may not have been his original plan.

This will run and run in the background after the trial so I don't expect anything to go quickly.

I've always felt that as well as increasing his ownership of Helen by marrying in haste and in secret, Rob had an eye to what he'd get from Bridge Farm and Peggy in the event that Helen died (handing the knife ) or they divorced.

Inheritance is a buggy with so many marriages breaking down. The idea of Rob benefitting financially in any way is nauseating.

We could almost be listening to different programmes mertlotgran. Although Ursula is upsetting in her manner I thought Pat was very calm and measured. Her daughter may be guilty of attempted murder - neither she nor we know what the outcome will be, and upsetting Rob/Ursula at this point will not make things any better. I do love Kirsty muttering under her breath though.

How do you know there was no contract? There may or may not be but very sensibly I would expect Pat to consult a solicitor - I hope she does - keeping everything above board and legal.

As for wills, I imagine Pat and Tony have left their share to each other in the first instance and then to Helen and Tom. If this is the case the do not need to rush to judgement on this either.

Why do you suppose they would take Rob back on? He may have some claim on Helen if he divorces Helen or she divorces him - I think unreasonable conduct would do it - but not otherwise.

Doubt if he'll be entitled to anything these days. Will probably be assessed ' fit to work' by next week.

Before Rob has a chance of throwing any spanners in the works I would lease the shop to Fallon and Emma for a peppercorn rent to begin with, persuade Kirsty to run it and leave Tom as procurement manager.

With Helen out of the picture, Rob can be kept at arm's length. He has not invested any money in Bridge Farm and I doubt he is entitled to SSP.

They need to disinherit both Helen and Henry. Tom is without a business partner now so either Tony or Pat needs to come out of retirement and focus on the farm.

They must not take Rob back on in Helen's absence. He has no claim on the farm at all.

They are so bloody wet though, anything is possible.

Good thinking about the will merlotgran.

He was (supposedly) looking for a job when he muscled in on Helen's. He doesn't have a contract of employment at Bridge Farm. He certainly didn't give up his job at Berrow Farm to help Helen and Tom set up the shop as Ursula implied.

Bloody Hell, Pat and Tony. WAKE UP. You need to disinherit Henry PDQ. You can always re-write your wills at a later date. Rob is after the farm. He doesn't give a shit about Helen and Henry.

Sick pay for Rob? Am I mis- remembering or did he just take over Helens hours? Was he ever officially employed?

I missed Thursday and Friday's episodes so looking forward to the omnibus. Helen has always been a complex character. I was genuinely fed up when she persuaded the agency that having child in the way she had Henry was a good thing. I feel strongly that children have a right to information about their birth parents, no matter what. I expect she has some information about height, interests etc and I hope these days the medical background of the doner would be shared.
However, she loves Henry and until Rob arrived, he was always the centre of her universe. I hope my views on this aren't offensive to anyone but she was relatively young and during that story line, I was shouting at the radio (again) 'what's going to happen when she meets MrRight and they have a baby)

At the risk of patronising - it honestly does not surprise me that Helen's behaviour is frustrating so many of us. As for direct questions, I suspect Anna has to be careful not to lead, to put ideas on Helen's head - Anna needs the truth from Helen and like everyone else, I'm waiting for Helen to begin to open up to Anna.

No you are not the only one,merlotgran. I have stopped listening to the Archers as it is so boring and frustrating.

No. I'm not saying we shouldn't analyse the characters and I would have thought that was perfectly clear.

What I did say was that no matter how much we do analyse them it is a drama and as listeners we are in the hands of the scriptwriters because it's a story. I'm obviously not as into it as you are, gracesgran so rather than try and interpret their behaviour I'm usually shouting at David/Shula/Jennifer/Adam/Tom to SAY something that might move things on a bit.

I bet I'm not the only one.

#lowboredomthresholdme

Are you saying we should not analyse the characters in a long running drama just because some choose to call it a "soap" Merlotgran.

You say that someone would have realised by now what had been going on. That is just as much an analysis of the characters as they have been written as anything anyone else has said. I disagree with you but they are just two opinions of the characters in a drama; neither are right neither are wrong.

I like to try an understand the character and to try to interpret why that particular character would behave in the way that they do and, if that is different to what I might have expected, why that might be. I also find the new information I am gleaning about the law, etc., fascinating and am grateful to those who add to my knowledge.

We are all different Merlotgran and I am sorry you are finding TA tedious.

The problem is that no matter how much we analyse their feelings/actions etc., The Archers is a radio soap, an entertainment programme that got a huge surg in ratings thanks to the DA storyline.

It's getting tedious now. I don't want twelve minutes of Helen staring at the wall or Pat being all waily. It needs to move in a direction that will interest us and somebody having the gumption to express their doubts about Rob's saintly behaviour would be a step in the right direction for bored listeners.

The only one who has come close is Carol but as she's Anna's mother she'll probably keep her opinions to herself.

I wonder if Anna is taking care not to prompt Helen Merlotgran. Something needs to trigger her into talking though as she is such deep despair at the moment.

With a 14 minute programme - including the dumpdedums - I suppose they just don't have time but we know the villagers - especially the ones who don't know the characters involved (in my experience) will be gossiping away

I am not sure anyone has begun really to put two and two together yet, Merlot. People tend feel deeply disturbed by something so out of the norm and, as yet, the idea that he is both coercive and controlling isn't occurring to them imo but I think Shula's reaction was interesting; it was almost as if she surprised herself with the depths of her feelings about him - she may find that makes a lot of sense as things unravel. Once the idea of c & c begin to do the rounds many two and twos will be put together but others, I think, will still only see one side of Rob. Perhaps Helen pleading not guilty will set them thinking too.

Tom is feeling very out of his depth both with the issues with Helen and with running the farm - Tony and Pat are not a lot of help with the farm at the moment. I am hoping that Kirsty will be a friend to Tom (although I can't see them getting back together at this point) as she has many skills that could help and has matured into a very clear thinking person.

Can Anna not ask Helen WHY she reckons Henry is unsafe with Rob?

Seems an obvious question to me

They all womble around not communicating with eachother in Ambridge. My village and surrounding community has weathered the storm caused by two very serious and much publicised events so I know that people talk ALL the time. They may lower their voices in shops, pubs, outside the school etc., but gossip is rife and opinions aired.

When David spoke to Pat he must surely have been thinking back to when he and Jennifer met Stefan. Shula had her memory jogged last night and as far as I know, Tom is not wearing a gag. Those who have doubts about Rob would be dropping hints by now and where the heck is Ian?

Susan Carter is the token village gossip. That's not how it is in real life.

I was fascinated by Anna's insight into how Helen must feel. It made me wonder if she would be able to have a psychiatrist sit with them; I have no idea if that's possible (?). Helen can still only remember hazy details of the night of the incident, but she does need to decide how to plead and she has little time left. Anna's said last week she could see an inner strength in Helen when she was talking about the children but my thoughts are that she needs to get her started talking about good memories of Henry, then it will all come tumbling out - but what do I know. I could do with a tame psychiatrist and a tame lawyer to explain

Bloody hell Helen if you don't get a grip soon you will lose Henry - and me as a listener.