Archers addicts 3!

Yes I agree, it would make sense to check things out with their solicitor, especially as Pat was stung by the prosecution witness issue (nonsense)
Luckygirl, I suspect Helen has some kind of post trauma syndrome and that's why she isn't shouting from the roof tops. She made a telling comment that she couldn't get Rob out of her head. Was it when she closed down in response to questions from Anna or Tom. You'd expect a barrister who specialises in domestic abuse to be aware of the possible impacts on victims. At sone stage in the criminal trial there will be expert assessments. Let's hope a diagnosis that's helpful to Helen is made.

Kate. A solstice party. A fire pit. What could possibly go wrong?

I am surprised the lawyer dealing with the issues of the children - I'm not sure if that's Anna or someone else - hasn't gone through what the tribunal (I know that isn't its name but I can remember what it is called) are looking for and what they expect. I am beginning to think Anna could make things clearer for Helen too and, if she can't I would like to know why.

AyjayF

Do you mean the family court hearing Gracesgran? I'm confused as well because I thought Anna was instructed to represent Helen in the criminal trial but she's also giving advice about the family court. Parents in Helen's situation would usually a specialist solicitor dealing with the two separate cases. Family lawyers tend to be very experienced and it isn't often necessary to instruct a barrister. I agree - Helen needs somebody, usually her solicitor, to sit her down and spell out clearly what's expected at the hearing in June. There should be a social work report and written evidence either statements from the parents or submissions from their legal representatives.
Still, as well all keep reminding ourselves, it's drama not real life.

That's the one Iam. I'm glad it's not just me. The only brush with the law I have known is supporting someone (personally not from a union or legal point of view) going though an employment tribunal and they had the structure of what the tribunal would look at explained very early on.

It meant they were able to keep a diary and write a historical review as an aid memoire for themselves of the history of the case knowing the things a tribunal would be looking for. I have to say it also allowed them to stand back a little from the personal hurt. I would have thought that an insight into this would have helped Helen.

So far the SWs seem to have played very true to what I understand as the way the legal side of things go. The characters have behaved much as we would expect they would in the circumstances, even if they have exasperated us, but I feel we could have heard a conversation between Tony, Pat and a solicitor allowing both them, as characters, and us, to understand what will happen and what the FC is looking for.

Poor Phoebe, what a pair of cackling harridans!
Ayjay -See you at the Solstice Party, I bet Toby won't be drinking herbal tea!!

I missed last night but hear that Kate is planning a fire to dance around at her solstice party. What can possibly go wrong?!
It's very Ab Fab isn't it, with Phoebe working studiously whilst her mother and aunt cackle, drink and continue to indulge themselves.

Sounds like good fun to me. I wonder how often Brian checks his wine cellar?

It is in a fire pit. Surely that will be safe ... [veryworried]

Oh, Tony. Why did you tell Rob about taking Pat to see GiddyJack?

It will all end in tears

Rob may well feel out-manoeuvred which may not go well for Henry.

Agree with you, Merlotgran. Rob seemed taken aback when he heard. What's the betting he takes Henry along to see his brother on Father's Day?

So Kate has put an invitation to her Solstice party on Facebook, how old is she, 15??

Summer Solstice party advertised on Facebook, fire pit - what could possibly go wrong. Eirel, I think you've put your finger on the problem with Kate. She didn't move on from being 15 so she still has the view that she is the centre of the Universe.

I haven't heard the last two nights episodes (our house is footie central) but will try and catch up today.

Kate's invitation on facebook took me back a couple of years when DGS's friend put an open invitation on fb to his fourteenth birthday bash which was being held on our field.

Shock! Horror! We managed to get it taken down but didn't know how many had seen it so we changed the date as a precaution.

It's going to be a fun episode I hope.

Tony is a plonker, numpty, eejit (and other things) of the first order!

It was the way Tony said, 'I may have mentioned it in passing' re the visit to the MBU

He said that to Rob??????

It would have been a carefully thought out phone call dealing wth Rob's demands and as they're all shit scared of him there would have been no passing moment.

Awful scriptwriting.

Don't you think Tony may well have behaved like that Merlot. He has still not realised just how bad Rob is - "evil personified" as the actor playing him said, so I think he may well of done. It will click but how often do you have to come to the conclusion that your daughter has married a "passive-aggressive narcissistic psychopath" as Timothy Watson added - or even how that will effect their behaviour. I think families will go on for years making excuses for such a person.

He doesn't need to realise anything other than what is staring him in the face. Rob is playing with them.

Never mind all the text book gobbledegook. He's Helen's father and Henry and GiddyJack's grandfather.

He should be closing ranks.

The man's a prat!

That's the other word I was looking for merlot ! Add "prat of the first order" to the list.

I agree about Tony, he should have caught on by now with so much at stake. I do agree that it's not easy for a family who've been duped as they have by Rob but loyalty and concern for daughter & grandsons should over ride. Bring back the "old" Tony I say. Oh and the old Pip and Tom. I can never tell who's speaking these days.?

Why haven't Pat and Tony learnt from their mistakes and consulted Anna before phoning Rob. I have just about had it with the crassness of this family

The "man" is a character and although you cannot see why he is behaving the way he is I can, so we have to assume not everyone behaves as you do/would merlot

I have no difficulty in believing the "Tony" we have got to know would behave in this way. I have more difficulty in believing someone would have all the knowledge we have when all they actually know is that their much loved daughter stabbed her husband and that there may be more to this than meets the eye. They will love her whatever they find out.

You having a go at me again, gracesgran even though others agree with me?

That's a pleasant change

Oh and funnily enough I do know he's a character.

Not quite being a simple bumbling soul, you understand.

I am not "having a go at you" merlotgran; it hadn't occurred to me - why would it? Others may agree but I see it differently. Surely, if we have learned anything over the last couple of days we have learned that is OK and people do not need to get angry because someone doesn't agree with their opinion.

You are entitled to an opinion, you are not entitled to expect everyone to treat your opinion as the truth or to expect them to agree with you. I understand you will not agree with my point of view; I do not agree with yours but it is still a valid point of view. That does not make it an irrefutable fact however many people agree with you - it is still an opinion.