Archers addicts 3!

Lully, Stefan worked for Charlie at Berrow Farm. At the start of the deluge which caused the Am to burst its banks, he saw someone (he was certain it was Rob) stuffing something (Fallon's missing bunting?) into a vital culvert which diverted the floodwater away from the farm and towards the village instead.

He told all this to Jennifer and David (head honcho flood man) but then disappeared shortly afterwards. Rob said he'd been suddenly called home to Poland? because of an illness in the family.

No surprises tonight:

Bruce is an arse, Ursula is a vision of what Helen would have become if she had stayed with Rob, Pat needs to put her brain in gear. Susan seems to have forgotten her own spell in clink, Harrison needs to listen to Fallon.

Well done, Tom.

Bruce and Ursula turning up at Bridge farm will surely make the Archers close ranks???

As Susan gets older she should be learning some tact. Not much hope of that.

Remind me about Stefan again please someone. Poor memory!!!! (Even though I can remember Shula and Neil in a hayloft once.....should I tell Susan? )

My name is Gracesgran and I am addicted to the current Archers story - and not getting anything done either Merlotgran!

Thank you for the links. The second one makes Helen's case sound worse than I expected it to be ?

www.telegraph.co.uk/radio/what-to-listen-to/helen-titchener-now-faces-a-legal-nightmare--if-only-rob-had-die/

This one is grimmer......for Helen.

I rally MUST get on with some housework!

www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/apr/05/the-archers-abuse-storyline-helen-rob-radio-4-tony-hall

Is there a link to the article suzied? I suppose a year would be about right as I am always amazed how long it can take things to come to court.

Thanks for the interesting article, suzied.

I'm all for not rushing the storyline and coming up with a typical 'let's move on now' soap ending but it will obviously divide the village and might swamp any future plots.

How many episodes will just be about Helen and her fight for justice? I think it will be a shame if the scriptwriters start chucking in the occasional bit of rubbish for light relief like the ridiculous stock cube incident.

Lully, Didn't Jennifer go with David to meet Stefan?

They are obviously going for authenticity rather than a pat, easy ending in order to give a true representation of the situation.

It is spine chilling but I have understood more about the emotional, psychology aspects of DV than I did before.

We could be in for a.long run with opinions split in the village. God help us, Susan is one of Rob's fan club and I think Jennifer quite likes him too. We are yet to hear from that lot.

Good article. Thanks.
Good to note that the Justgiving Helen Titchener page has raised over £100,000 for Refuge- this will be their highest ever donation.
Another article in today's Guardian states that the Helen/Rob story has over a year to run!

Gracegran, thank you for the link, as you say an interesting article.

The Archers was Right to have Helen Stab Rob

Interesting article!

I think it's script writers.

Sorry-what's SW?

I wonder if Charlie will hear about what's happened on the agricultural grapevine?

He has so much on Rob it would be a shame for the SWs to waste it.

I understand about no comment stuff now but it must be terribly frustrating for detectives. How can they get anywhere with enquiries?

Hey - I agree with you merlotgran.

Usha isn't a criminal lawyer Alea, her colleague presumably is, hence the no comment advice.

Rob successfully groomed Pat. I had no sympathy for her to begin with but every time she tried to talk to Helen she had her head bitten off. Tony encouraged her to keep a distance. Helen hasn't been the easiest of daughters and Pat and Tony didn't even like Rob to begin with.

Every time Pat tried to question what was going on with Helen she was either pacified by Rob/Ursula or told to back off by Helen.

She couldn't win.

Why couldn't Helen have Usha(sp?) ??
I do hope Pat and Tony get their heads round this before Ursula and Bruce appear..

The 'no comment' stuff follows good legal advice. Helen isn't fit to be interviewed and is likely to say all kinds of stuff (as she has already) that may incriminate her, unfairly. Her solicitor gave good advice and thank goodness for once, Helen followed sensible advice.

What's all that "no comment" stuff?
At least Tom can see something wasn't right.
And no, I don't feel sorry for Pat. She's a bright assertive woman but never questioned why Helen was gradually disappearing and Rob was taking over.

Another "well done" to the SWs from me. Obviously Helen would have been told to say "no comment" so that sounds true to the circumstances and also difficult for her as she would be inclined to answer the questions.

I thought the reaction to the child services people by Tony and Pat was how it would be for a family who have never had anything to do with them too.

Merlotgran, I wonder if any of us, in these circumstances, would do ourselves any favours?

Tom's comments begin the unravelling ...

I felt really sorry for Pat

Helen's solicitor sounded just like Rob

Helen really doesn't do herself any favours.

What a let down tonight's episode was! Helen and her "no comment"

Henry's interview would be by specially qualified police/sw and videoed so it could be used in any criminal or civil proceedings. Given Rob and his parents are certain to claim H shouldn't be with his mother such an interview should help the little boy. Well, we hope so anyway,