Thread: Rewriting The Archers Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030228
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
I'm getting increasingly fed up with Rob, not to mention Helen's codependent behaviour. Could we derail that storyline, and maybe some of the others, into more satisfactory directions?

By the way, Jack didn't die - he's in a safe house where THEY can't find him...
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Have no fear, Tichner is heading for a fall. The brave Kirstie will unmask him soon, despite Helen's codependent and increasingly desperate denial. Rob is by far the nastiest, most menacing, character EVER on the Archers. Hazel's nastiness is mild by comparison and at least she stabs people in the front. Even the 'orrible Clive Horobin was easier to take. After all he was yer typical out and out villain. Whereas Rob ....
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
But Rob Titchner is true to life, as those manipulative controlling people are really like that. It's uncomfortable listening because it's so realistic. And it's true to the Archer's public education remit

He has inveigled himself in so thoroughly that removing him from Helen's life, without him cleaning out her bank account in passing, is going to be challenging. (If you ever get involved with someone whose previous partners have just disappeared in the night, be warned ...)
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
I haven't listened for years - is Rob worse that David [The Murderer] Archer and the truly evil Rooth?
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
It must be even longer since I listened to it - I don't think I was even aware that David and Ruth were evil ...

Actually, we caught an episode or two on our meanderings when we were home in November, and even with our sketchy knowledge of the plot, Rob seems like the scumbag's scumbag. [Eek!]
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Rob is chilling. We need various characters to talk to each other - Tom needs to talk to Tony, Kirsty needs to talk to Ian - for there to be a collective understanding of what's going on. And why isn't Pat more concerned? It's not normal for a pregnant woman to give up driving.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
The plot thickened tonight. Rob's mother, apparently warm towards Helen, is in on it, whatever "it" is.

But I agree with jacobsen. Listening to the episodes in which Rob plays a major part is reminding me of scary Dr Who episodes, where the temptation to hide behind the sofa became very strong. Or at least reach for the off-switch.

And it is a chilling storyline, about the power of a clever unscrupulous control-freak and his ability to gradually take over. I wonder if he has a "666" birthmark on his scalp .....
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Titchener is true to life, agreed, and the depiction of abuse is a proper piece of public education. But what always has me shouting at the Archers (OK, one of the many things that always has me shouting at the Archers) is the way that nobody, but nobody- and I include Pat, who is supposed to be practical and level headed- has ever consistently said to Helen 'look out, he's a wrong'un'. I mean, it's not as if he didn't have enough publicly known form (the way he left his former wife) or as if she didn't, for that matter (some absolute carcrash relationships and life decisions). I imagine this is necessary for dramatic effect but to me it seems to epitomise the utterly spineless 'whatever you want to do, if you really want to do it, is right and the worst thing anyone can be is judgemental' attitude that pervades the bloody programme. And then of course when this Titchener thing finally ends (assuming it doesn't end with him, Helen, and the ghastly sickly-sweet Henry all going up in flames, which is something devoutly to be wished- I have never, never forgiven Vanessa Witchburnher for killing off Nigel and allowing Helen to live) nobody, but nobody, will learn any lessons from it at all.

[ 20. February 2016, 19:52: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Rob is chilling. We need various characters to talk to each other - Tom needs to talk to Tony, Kirsty needs to talk to Ian - for there to be a collective understanding of what's going on. And why isn't Pat more concerned? It's not normal for a pregnant woman to give up driving.
It's not unknown, either, especially if she is finding driving uncomfortable or is having issues with blood pressure. Many of the things Helen is reporting are normal/ not unusual for pregnant women but not normally all at once. A wish for Rob to fall under a tractor is very strong: it's a pity that the abused cows of his intensive farming experiment aren't around to fall on him one by one... [Devil]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Albertus - have you ever tried telling your offspring that someone they are in the throes of passion over is a wrong 'un? Did it go well? How well has Brian's parenting style gone down with his children and step-children?

Being forceful or negative to a child about something they are passionate about tends not to maintain good relations with said child, particularly when they are adult. It tends to end up with the child going off and doing it anyway and excluding the parents.

Pat hasn't been positive about Rob Titchener, distinctly lukewarm about the shotgun wedding on holiday: but she's got an obviously sick child, with someone who appears as if he's doing everything to support. She's suggesting that people wait for Helen to have the baby and recover before they do anything drastic, which isn't unrealistic.

I suspect Helen is going to end up with horrendous post-natal depression, dealing with the child she didn't want, the product of a drugged rape when she was avoiding pregnancy. This one could run for a bit.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I would hope that if I were in that parent's position I would, because I loved my offspring, offer what i believed was good advice rather than support them to go to hell in a handcart. Anyway, what about Helen's friends? That they don't try to offer better advice is, to me, only more astonishing than the fact that Helen has any friends at all.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Originally posted by Rev per Minute
quote:
It's not unknown, either, especially if she is finding driving uncomfortable or is having issues with blood pressure.
It's not unusual to give up driving towards the end of a pregnancy, but Helen was only 12 weeks pregnant or thereabouts. She probably wasn't even visibly pregnant, so unlikely to be "uncomfortable." If she had blood pressure issues at 12 weeks, I would have expected that to be a major concern. I would be worried for any friend / relative whose health was poor enough to have to give up driving at 12 weeks; and yet Pat seems quite blase.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
There's nothing wrong with The Archers that couldn't be put right by Tom, say, running amok with a chain-saw . . .
 
Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
There's nothing wrong with The Archers that couldn't be put right by Tom, say, running amok with a chain-saw . . .
[Killing me]
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
I've put that one in the Quotes File!
 
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doone:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
There's nothing wrong with The Archers that couldn't be put right by Tom, say, running amok with a chain-saw . . .
[Killing me]
I don't think that Jazzer the pig man should be the first target!
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I think it might be more likely to be Jazzer doing the cutting up, actually. I mean, running amok with a chainsaw is a bit too, well, too...interesting... for Tom, isn't it?
My money would be on William going on a shooting spree. All Ambridge gamekeepers end up mad and dangerous, either to themselves or to others.
 
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
Aren't they already?
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Sorry, I hadn't realised that it was necessary for anything to be likely for it to happen in the Archers.
 
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
Isn't that partly why we are rewriting it?
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Shula's given up alcohol for Lent and put the money she's saved into the tin in the church.... I wonder how much money is in that tin?

Enough for Kirsty to take out a contract on Rob? Or only enough to tempt Alf?
 
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
I lost my car radio facility following a battery replacement, but it has now been restored. Can anyone update me on the Helen/Rob situation (I only listen to the radio in the car.)
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
You might find some answers here:

The successor to the Beeb's Archers message board

or here:

The other successor

I don't know as I renounced the Archers the day before Nigel fell.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
When did you stop listening, jacobsen?

Currently, Rob and his mother have been to visit Rob's old school, where they plan to send Henry. Helen has no idea that Rob plans to send her son to Boarding School and weirdly the school have agreed to send all communications to Rob alone. Also, the school don't want a report from Henry's current school; they're prepared to take a five year old boarder sight unseen. Rob has told Henry, but also told him not to tell Mummy he's going to Boarding School, as it is going to be a "surprise" for Mummy.

Presumably they don't have to make this bit believable as the story will reach a conclusion before poor lisping bed-wetting Henry finds himself packed off.
 
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
Last time I listened. Helen was in hospital following her collapse, being assured by Rob in the most gluey, ominous tones, that he was going to be her best help. with her all the time, not leaving her side...
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Since then he brought his mother up to "help." She has consistently undermined Helen. Basically, she has been Rob mark II. She (his mother) has decided that Helen will have a home birth, despite the fact that she had a high-risk birth last time. Oddly enough, the hospital seem to be ok about this. Pat is bewildered by the home birth plan, but Rob told Pat it was all Helen's idea. And Pat believed that.

It was Rob's Mum's idea that Henry should be packed off to Boarding School; she will pay. Rob and his Mum have agreed that they should present the Boarding School as a fait accompli to Helen, so they've been to the school and sorted everything out.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Helen is (finally) waking up, realising she's married a monstrous control freak. Tonight she phoned an abuse counsellor. Kirstie provided the number earlier this week. Helen was initially furious with her for even suggesting Rob was abusive, but the moves behind Helen's back to send Henry to a boarding school seem to have stripped the scales from her eyes.

But it ain't all over just yet. My guess is the scriptwriters will produce further crises.
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
Hoorah for Kirsty. I have been on listening strike for the past few weeks and only listened again on iplayer last night once it seemed safe to do so, from the Facebook Archers page!

A truly mammoth taking-down-of-Rob is now called for. Ideally featuring Tony, Kirsty, Tom & Pat, who hopefully will have recovered her brain by then. What have the scriptwriters done to Pat?
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
But why would it take this to make people realise what sort of person Rob is? There's been abundant evidence that he's a stinker, if not necessarily a wife-abuser, almost ever since he turned up. I agree that Pat, who used to be portrayed as sensible and if anything a bit pedantic, seems to have had both brain and backbone removed. Still, you'd think that Lilian, at least, who's knocked about the world a bit and may be drawn to the odd ratbag but never has any illusions about them (e.g. Matt), would have seen through him, but no. But then the golden rules of Archers scriptwriting seem to be that nobody ever learns from experience and if someone really wants to do something, that makes it all right. It really is a frighteningly amoral world down there in Borsetshire.

[ 26. March 2016, 13:56: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
I agree entirely about people never learning from mistakes. There are other people who are good at sniffing out wrong 'uns too. Lynda springs to mind - she worked out that Owen had attacked Kathy. One of the other Golden Rules of Ambridge is that actual proper 18 carat scandals are rarely mentioned after the fuss has died down - the business with Emma & Ed & Will, for example. Although I suppose chief gossip Susan might wish to keep that quiet....

I think the SWs are trying to give a realistic portrayal of a very clever & manipulative abuser and to that end Rob has had to fool everybody. But he's fooled them rather too well for my liking. Mind you, I've never been involved in a relationship like that, so perhaps it is realistic.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
The various characters know less than the audience, I assume. And real people can be slow to pick up on evidence, because "people don't behave like that". (I have been aware of a case where the manipulation was much more overt, and people still didn't believe it.)
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Yes, of course we have to remember that we have an overview that is denied to any one of the characters. Still, Rob, for example, seems to have been accepted remarkably quickly from a deservedly rather sticky start. It's Jemima's point about the amnesia that seems to affect everyone in Ambridge.
Oh, and on a bit of a tangent, giving that the Will/Ed/Emma thing was mentioned- there's an example of the really poisionous amorality, ior rather perhaps in this case warped morality, of the scriptwriters' world. Whatever you think of Will, your new wife running off with your brother and indeed hoping that her baby would be his rather than yours is something that most people would think it was reasonable to be pissed off about. But Will was consistently portrayed as the stubborn and ungenerous one for continuing to mind about it all.
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
Ah, but that's because he's Will, who is a patronising so and so, and intensely irritating, whereas Ed is just a bit lost, but a good guy at heart etc etc etc (Yes I have a soft spot for Ed)
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Will is a grumpy sod, in the grand tradition of Ambridge gamekeepers, but in this case he's got something to be grumpy about and his extended family gave him next to no support.
 
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
A bit of a problem. trying to support both brothers, the witless Emma and her unfortunate son, who is bound to grow up feeling adopted.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Yes, Emma really is witless, isn't she. Almost impossible to believe that two brothers could have fallen out over her. I can only suppose that she must have charms which are not, ahem, readily apparent to the radio listener.
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
She used to be much more interesting & have much more of a personality* than she seems to have now. I first started listening at the time of Ed & Emma's car accident.

*Or was totally lacking in morals, perhaps!
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Tichner is a monster but will not fall. That only happens in melodrama, fiction, except opera (Rigoletto). This is REAL. Evil dies content in old age surrounded by adoring brainwashed victims. Helen's only way out is over the edge of madness.

Who was that sinister bastard who intimidated Debbie and even Brian 15-20 years ago?

And I DID hide behind the sofa. My response now, when The Archers gets intense, is to turn it down to the threshold of audibility. I didn't know what to do with myself when Eddie got socially realistic.

As for Nigel. There is no God.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Letters in the Guardian

One points out Rob's other faults.

Given that the writers have consulted with appropriate charities, I think Rob will get his come-uppance. The listeners will have to be pointed to a way out, and not to despair.
 
Posted by Stumbling Pilgrim (# 7637) on :
 
Wasn't he still basking in the glory from his heroics in the flood for a long time? Maybe that's why people are reluctant to think ill of him.

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Given that the writers have consulted with appropriate charities, I think Rob will get his come-uppance. The listeners will have to be pointed to a way out, and not to despair.
I had this discussion with hubby in the car the other night (he's the fan, I only hear it these days when we're going somewhere when it's on). I think this is true,there has to be some kind of come-uppance if only for the sake of the series, I know of people who have stopped listening because this is just too uncomfortable. On the other hand, it's going to be difficult to do realistically because real life just doesn't have tidy conclusions to horrible situations. But as hubby said, it may just be that someone somewhere is listening and thinking 'that sounds like someone I know' - who knows but that it might do some good in the real world? (And yeah, Pat, give yourself a smack on the head and a good talking-to.)
 
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
Would it be too much of a coincidence if Rob fell off a roof?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
The problem with a sudden demise would be that, while satisfying the listeners who want his perfidy revealed and punished, and Ursula seen off as well, issues which have been raised elsewhere, such as the custody of children, would not be dealt with, and from the point of view of women who might be picking up useful information, this would be unhelpful.
More time consuming, while Ursula backs his claim, in court, that Helen, because of mental health issues, is an unfit mother, before all is revealed and he loses big time. (This is beginning to seem familiar. My mother had to serve as a witness for the mother in such a case, which the toerag and his dam lost.)
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Well, former wife Jess has now spilled the beans, entirely believably, about "monster" Rob to an increasingly aware Helen. This Sunday's episode could be 'verrry interrresssting'.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Yikes!
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Twitter has been responding. My favourite is this one
quote:
"If you are suffering domestic abuse you can ring the radio 4 helpline for a list of knife stockists in your area" #archers
There are some tweets pointing out that this gives out a message that it's too hard to leave. (But it isn't, you just do it by going when they are out to work and leave the place empty, and go somewhere safe.)
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Missed this- will catch up- but does it mean that with any luck Helen might get banged up for a few years? Getting rid of the two of them in one go would be quite a result, wouldn't it?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The story line isn't as straightforward as that Albertus. The women's aid groups (this story has been covered extensively across Radio 4 this morning) were saying that women are most at risk when they've decided to go.

(I walked out of a situation like that years ago. I am really, really hoping my parents, which is where I ran and who tried sending me back, are listening and paying attention.)
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I'm not sure he's dead. If he's alive, much more agonising mileage about Helen's alleged instability might lie ahead.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
And, with grateful thanks to Pam Ayres, who tweeted thus.

quote:

Gut-wrenching scenes to make you stagger
Helen stabbed him with a dagger
Lying in his bloodstained shirt
Rob got his pie and his dessert
A bit of a tension buster. His pie and his dessert indeed!
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Without custard!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Nice touch CK (overleaf). Clarrie Grundy (as voiced by Rosalind Adams) always reminded me of Pam Ayres. A national treasure, Pam.

[ 04. April 2016, 10:10: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
I think Clarrie Grundy is a national treasure, too - she's a saint! In her shoes I'd've ploughed all her menfolk under years ago!
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The story line isn't as straightforward as that Albertus. The women's aid groups (this story has been covered extensively across Radio 4 this morning) were saying that women are most at risk when they've decided to go.

(I walked out of a situation like that years ago. I am really, really hoping my parents, which is where I ran and who tried sending me back, are listening and paying attention.)
Sorry, don't follow you. I saw that's what they said and I pass no comment on whether women who kill or try to kill an abusive partner, rather than try to go, should be jailed. But I know that IRL they are and I was hoping that a period in HMP Felpersham would get Helen, who must surely be one of the most deeply irritating people in Ambridge (and she's got some competition) off the air for a bit.

Oh and agree with WW about Clarrie. In fact I think she's one of the best fictional Christians around (IIRC she does go to St Stephen's fairly regularly, doesn't she?).

[ 04. April 2016, 16:55: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Not clear cut because:

1. We don't know if Rob is dead yet or not;
2. We don't know what Rob was doing to Henry to trigger the attack*;
3. Rob put the knife in Helen's hands, to force her to hurt herself as the only way she was allowed to leave - she didn't go and find a weapon;

* That reduced to submission about the only thing that will trigger a reaction is damage to the kids. It's what made me see sense and go - my infant daughter being hit. I had enough wit to plan a way out, but those few weeks while I was holding it together and planning to leave weren't great. At least I was still allowed to work as I was main breadwinner.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
A good friend observed this morning (Facebook exchange) that she hoped Rob was dead, if not by knife then by drowning in custard! A truly unpleasant and pretty true to life representation of control-freak behaviour, even including the handing over of the knife. Helen's behaviour? Not so sure. That looked like 'created for dramatic effect'. The outworking follows in half an hour .. wonder what the audience figures will be?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Well, he isn't dead, or at least not yet. Storyline ongoing and I wonder where? Stock up with whisky, G&T, or chemical equivalents.

Compelling listening - seemed a lot more than 13 minutes.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Not clear cut because:

1. We don't know if Rob is dead yet or not;
2. We don't know what Rob was doing to Henry to trigger the attack*;
3. Rob put the knife in Helen's hands, to force her to hurt herself as the only way she was allowed to leave - she didn't go and find a weapon;
Oh, I see. Well, here's hoping.
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Many years ago [I think early to mid 1980s but who knows?] there was a play on TV in UK [possibly either on BBC2 or Channel 4] which was deliberately laid out to show that domestic abuse is not limited to working class families - it was groundbreaking at the time and was not comfortable viewing but was superbly done.

I've just downloaded and listened to the last two episodes - Rob is not a very nice man, is he?

I've often thought that Ambridge would be the perfect location for a nuclear testing site - can I press the red button, please?
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
p.s. If Rob lingers on for a year and a day before shuffling off his mortal coil then at least Helen can't be done for murder!
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
You had to hear the slow build up to this to fully appreciate the last two episodes. Really subtle controlling behaviour for a long time. About a month ago a former Archers writer wrote a script for Helen to say to Rob (it's on the Archers website*) because listeners were so frustrated.

This particular story line was the trigger for this thread. There has been a lot of discussion about domestic abuse in the papers, not just the Guardian, but the New Statesman and the front cover of the Daily Mail yesterday, and across other programming. Some has been debunking the disbelief expressed that this sort of behaviour happens.

It's been very clever because it's so difficult to explain how disabling that sort of abuse is, how being cowed into submission and fear leaves you with no ability to respond appropriately or understand the level of abuse. And the isolation leaves you with no checks and balances.

* that speech was given by an actress on Broadcasting House, the news programme on Sunday morning.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I think you also have to have lived with someone with anorexia to know how much the rest of the family starts tiptoeing around and accommodating them. There's always that (reasonable) fear that anorexia can be triggered again. Someone I follow elsewhere has just publicly said she's fighting anorexia for the third time - a woman with grown up children - partly to try and acknowledge to herself that she has a problem.

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Shula's given up alcohol for Lent and put the money she's saved into the tin in the church.... I wonder how much money is in that tin?

Enough for Kirsty to take out a contract on Rob? Or only enough to tempt Alf?
You got the answer to that one - £400, enough to tempt Alf.
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
That GBP400 sounds about akin to the GBP10 a day I used to spend on the bottle in the not-so-goo-old-days! But they are a long time ago now so prices may have gone up.

One of my sisters in law was anorexic and bulimic and I understand from her that it is always there, hovering, waiting for a chance to return. A bit like the booze. Thankfully whatever issues I may have with my brother I don't think he's abusive.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
p.s. If Rob lingers on for a year and a day before shuffling off his mortal coil then at least Helen can't be done for murder!
You want to prolong the agony for another year? Kyrie eleison!
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Alas, that sensible rule is no more: see s1 of The Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996:

quote:
The rule known as the "year and a day rule" (that is, the rule that, for the purposes of offences involving death and of suicide, an act or omission is conclusively presumed not to have caused a person's death if more than a year and a day elapsed before he died) is abolished for all purposes.
So this could be drawn out, world without end.

Is Helen on bail? I think she should take Henry and flee the country. Forever. Please.

[ 05. April 2016, 08:35: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
...and can she take her entire extended family with her, please?
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Oh yes. It occurred to me this morning that another unexpected bonus might be that this could tip Pat, whose grip on sanity seems to have been rather shaky lately, over the edge and into long-term hospital treatment- or perhaps a prolonged episode of elective mutism, I don't mind which. Tony & Tom are low-grade bores who don't seem to be very high profile nowadays anyway, so I don't much mind what happens to them. The best of them- by far the best- is Lilian, who is wonderful. Let's keep her.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Tom will play an important role in the enfolding of the storyline. Watch this space.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Oh yes. It occurred to me this morning that another unexpected bonus might be that this could tip Pat, whose grip on sanity seems to have been rather shaky lately, over the edge and into long-term hospital treatment- or perhaps a prolonged episode of elective mutism, I don't mind which. Tony & Tom are low-grade bores who don't seem to be very high profile nowadays anyway, so I don't much mind what happens to them. The best of them- by far the best- is Lilian, who is wonderful. Let's keep her.
Part of the problem recently has been the way it has gone off-balance in terms of characters being "disappeared." I've not missed the near total absence of Kathy, but where's Jamie, Chris (Carter not Auntie), Alice, etc? And it's about time for the return of Mike, Hayley, Brenda et al too. And the return from bizarre Tuscan banishment of Oliver and Caroline.

Completely agree with the general Clarrie love-in. She's possibly the best broadcast representation of The Meek (TM) going. In my house growing up something would happen to her and my mum would come out with Monty Python's line about "it's nice the meek are getting something - they have a hell of a time..."

Oh God, I think I've just come out as an Archers listener. I don't feel relieved so much as dirty...
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
You love it, you slag.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Tom will play an important role in the enfolding of the storyline. Watch this space.
You seem to be very well informed...
 
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
She stabbed him! [Axe murder] [Axe murder] [Axe murder]
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
... And the return from bizarre Tuscan banishment of Oliver and Caroline...
Will Oliver return? Caroline has a history of husbands dying in mysterious circumstances and I'm sure she has enough put by to pay off the odd carabinieri or two!


[clarriety]

[ 05. April 2016, 14:10: Message edited by: Welease Woderwick ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Tom will play an important role in the enfolding of the storyline. Watch this space.
You seem to be very well informed...
Just guessing. My wife thinks that Tom and Kirstie are not over, and that Kirstie will seek him out as an ally in the forthcoming credibility battle. And Charlie will reappear for similar reasons.

Rob can lie for England. So he'll want Helen sectioned, himself as victim of her irrationality, the children (Henry and the unborn) in danger from her madness etc, etc.

And I'm open to offers from the scriptwriting team ...
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
And there was me thinking you might be Charles Collingwood or somebody.
There are, of course, victims of Helen's - longstanding- irrationality, but they are mainly herself and Henry (whose existence is entirely due to it).

[ 05. April 2016, 14:52: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And there was me thinking you might be Charles Collingwood or somebody.
some hope - I used to have good connections with 2 of the cast. Could we ever get any inside story? No we couldn't.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
How far in advance of broadcast did they know what was going to happen?
 
Posted by Rosa Gallica officinalis (# 3886) on :
 
I love this re-write.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
How far in advance of broadcast did they know what was going to happen?
about a month if they were involved in the storyline for the next month - each month's episodes used to be blasted through in a couple of days once a month. Didn't take long at all.

There were a couple of actors always on standby to come in a do some emergency lines if there was some sort of topical/national crisis - IIRC each episode has 2 mins or so of filler out of the 12 which can be cut out and the topical stuff dropped in without damaging the plot.

Can't remember when each month the recording is though so it's possible that this week's could have been recorded in the last week of March, and are the first of this month's cycle, or are anything up to 4 weeks old and are the last of the old cycle.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Some fairly obvious signs tonight that Helen's credibility is going to be subjected to a severe test. I'd say they are setting the scene for a trial.
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
So we'll potentially have yet another Ambridge Jailbird!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Rob's dad and mum are out for vengeance. At least the dad is. Ursula appears to do what she's told. And there is certainly a case for the prosecution. Plenty of mileage in that storyline.
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
Ohhhhhhh nooooooooo! </Ruth>

I think they are building to a trial. Not the trial I was hoping for though. I was hoping Helen would get out & Rob would go to court for all the very bad things he's done.

The confrontation last night between Pat & Tony, and Rob's parents, was altogether silly.

I love the Shambridge soundcloud! They have Lynda's sniff to a T.

[ 07. April 2016, 10:56: Message edited by: Jemima the 9th ]
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Rob's father, whatever his name is, treats Poor Usrsula exactly like Rob was treating Helen - but isn't Male Headship one of the DH subjects?

I've now listened to 4 consecutive days and I think I shall drop out again to preserve my sanity - it must be 12 to 15 years since I was a devotee and I know that I could so easily get sucked back into it all. And after 12 to 15 years nothing has changed except the characters are even less connected to reality than they were before!
 
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:

I think they are building to a trial. Not the trial I was hoping for though. I was hoping Helen would get out & Rob would go to court for all the very bad things he's done.

The confrontation last night between Pat & Tony, and Rob's parents, was altogether silly.

I agree. I wanted to see an end to it, Helen's release from Rob's grasp and nasty Rob off back to live with Ursula. This is far more messy and nasty and redolent of TV soaps that I don't watch because I get too involved. Although I don't like Helen as a character I don't think I can carry on listening to her suffering for another twelve months or more so I'm taking a break. I might keep up with the general story via Twitter instead.
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
Before the stabbing, I had stopped listening & was just reading the Archers facebook group. Worked very nicely. [Smile]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
There's a deadly plausibility to the storyline. Helen is charged with attempted murder, Henry is now a material witness and is being taken into care to prevent his "evidence" being "tainted" by Helen's family. The forensics are consistent with an unprovoked attack. Evidence of Helen's historical and present instability is strong, there are credible witnesses (including Helen herself now) to her threat to kill him.

The clear impact of the storyline is that once you recognise you are subject to domestic abuse, get the hell out of the situation before it destabilises you, eats away at your ability to know who you are any more. So far as the stabbing is concerned, it seems to confirm the Duke of Wellington's advice. "It is inadvisable to drive any one beyond a certain point.

Tonight's episode will probably be about bail, or the possibility of bail. And somebody needs to take Peggy's pen away.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
According to The Times, the agony is set to continue for another year.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Sorry, pressed submit too soon. Meant to add 'at least'. As someone has already said 'Oooooh Nooooo!'
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
 The clear impact of the storyline is that once you recognise you are subject to domestic abuse, get the hell out of the situation before it destabilises you, eats away at your ability to know who you are any more.
Is the moral really that? Isn't it that setting up a cosy dinner to negotiate leaving with a controlling partner is not a great idea? Going without discussion taking everything you might need would have been a lot wiser. Then any necessary negotiations can be held somewhere neutral with other witnesses and several exits to ensure a safe way out. Also only agreeing supervised access to any children.

The problem for Helen is that she had allowed Rob into every area of her life - her work, her house, her inheritance, her family, her bank account. Where was safe to run?

And I think that people are underestimating how destroying this controlling behaviour is really. This New Statesman story is from Helen Walmsley-Johnson comparing her own abuse to Helen's:
quote:
It’s the little things you notice first – the sulks, the sudden irritation, the criticism of your clothes, your weight, your hair, your friends, your family, your work, your slightly flabby upper arms, your A-cup breasts and why isn’t there a meal on the table at 6.30pm prompt when you know that upsets him...? But it’s dressed up as caring and you haven’t learned yet not to trust him. He wants you to wear that dress because you look so pretty in it. He only mentions you’ve put on a few pounds because he loves you. If only you’d let him take care of you... Slowly, slowly your confidence is eroded.
and a bit later:
quote:
You become compliant to such a nauseating degree, you sicken yourself.
Both of which twang visceral chords. She says it took her five years to put herself back together again, physically and emotionally. It probably took me as long.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Yes, this has to be condensed for dramatic purposes, I suppose. And actually if any woman were in a good position to get out, it's Helen- living near lots of friends and relations who would be supportive and with an abuser who is a relative newcomer in the community, and by no means universally trusted. But I'd imagine that few people who are being abused IRL are in such a fortunate position and so the demands of public service broadcasting quite understandably require that this be overlooked. It is, after all, fiction, albeit realist fiction with a purpose.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
 The clear impact of the storyline is that once you recognise you are subject to domestic abuse, get the hell out of the situation before it destabilises you, eats away at your ability to know who you are any more.
Is the moral really that? Isn't it that setting up a cosy dinner to negotiate leaving with a controlling partner is not a great idea? Going without discussion taking everything you might need would have been a lot wiser.
I think it's both. As you say, given the extent to which Rob had eroded Helen's freedoms, family and friends relationships etc, it was hard to see where she should run to. (We supported the refuge movement for many years. It was a way of providing an option for women who found themselves in that desperate situation. I did wonder whether the refuge option might have been included in the storyline.)

The meal decision was an absolute disaster but it showed the extent to which even Helen's judgment about what was safe had been eroded by the abuse.

The New Statesman link was excellent, BTW. Many thanks.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
I see it all now! The Helen-Rob storyline is a blatant piece of Brexit propaganda - Rob the domineering, oppressive, ruthless EU; Helen poor deceived Britannia. Who would have thought it of the BBC?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
The programme has now gone beyond anywhere susceptible to rewriting. Pat and Tony have taken Henry to see Rob, who has recovered mentally completely, in hospital, and Ursula has said she will take the child there without P&T in future. When he can't see Helen for fear of contaminating his evidence.

Regular listeners are giving up.

This needs to make use of the reboot, the other trouserleg of the Ambridgeverse, sharpish, or it will be shown to have descended into a complete slurry pit (though of less value). As for being of use to the victims of DV and coercion, it's more likely to help the abusers by making the victims see no way out, with their children being handed over to the control freaks.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
This one is complicated: Rob has parental responsibility as Helen agreed this when he said he wanted to adopt Henry. He hasn't adopted Henry or obtained a court order as that meant being checked more than he wanted (DBS). Parental responsibility requires the consent of the mother, the birth certificate of the child and ID. With parental responsibility his rights trump those of a grandparent, even a blood relative.

No-one has told Pat and Tony that Henry is not allowed to see his legal parent, not the police, not the social workers. And that parental responsibility order can only be dissolved by a court. It's probably an oversight by the police and social workers, but there's not much Pat and Tony can do when Rob demands to see him.

Normally all the adults who have parental responsibilities have to agree what happens to the child, but with Helen in prison, Rob is in charge. The only way of preventing Rob doing what he wants with Henry is by application to the courts for a prohibited steps order or to dissolve his parental responsibility order.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Which is I'm sure the point the scriptwriters want to bring out.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I'm not sure I'd want to rewrite the script at this point. The official scriptwriters seem to be handling this part of the storyline with skill and realism. But it remains painful to listen to.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The tweet along mob are fairly unhappy about this line too, and the Archers twitter account has been joining in. The Archers twitter account has put up a blog explaining why Henry can live with Rob, because they are both witnesses for the prosecution and the parental rights situation above. They are getting advice on this story line, they haven't made anything up.

Someone is saying the school should be intervening, but in my experience, the school will be keeping an eye on the situation, but will not necessarily intervene. They will be monitoring, but will not necessarily involve social care unless there is a problem that indicates he is in present danger - and an incident that seems to be over and the child is back in safety is not a reason to involve social care.

Whether Henry's school will offer any intervention depends on the availability of school provision: if there are any mentors or counsellors, the child's behaviour and the needs of the other children. Five is really too young for mentoring so unless there's a child counsellor available and the child shows that he needs that support, it's unlikely.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Why it is so uncomfortable is that we all know that Rob Tichner is a Grade A++ bastard because we've been allowed to eavesdrop on his bastardy. The net result is that the police and the law just look and feel wrong. But that's because we've been allowed to see what coercive control really looks like and what it does to victims. Painful and educational at the same time.

Where is Jess? Where is Charlie? They will be along at some point, that's for sure.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I do think that the change on collection, with Ursula telling the school, before the court hearing, that P&T would not be allowed to collect Henry would not have been accepted without paperwork. But I'm not sure whether a note from Rob, or Rob's Mum would be enough.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I winced tonight. Would a judge really have denied bail to a heavily pregnant women, given the conditions Helen's counsel was prepared to agree to on her behalf? Coupled with Pat's complete stupidity in her police interview (which led to her being a prosecution witness), that really did seem to be piling on the agony for dramatic effect.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Didn't hear this evening's, but on (was it?) Tuesday when Pat was wailing about feeling so stupid all I could say was 'that's because yyou are'. She used to be rather a shrewd and level-headed character, didn't she? But over the last few years she's turned increasingly into a Soil Association certificated version of Jennifer Aldridge. I do wish the writers wouldn't sod about with characters like that.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Albertus - you and most of the Archers tweet along group. There's a lot of moaning about how little continuity there is - with us mostly pointing out inconsistencies. Pat was at Greenham. She'd know a whole lot more about police procedures from that experience that she's being given credit for now.

Barnabas62 - apparently the Archers have been consulting with Birth Companions a charity that works with mothers giving birth in prison. Also, because I looked, magistrates cannot give bail for murder and they can choose not to give bail for attempted murder if they think there are additional risks - pretty much as handed down. It's probably back down to the apparent viciousness of the attack. Although there have been suggestions that Rob might have made things worse deliberately - the wrist slash suggests him grabbing the knife. (Very ambiguous that incident in sound effects alone.)
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Yes, they have messed around with Pat's character for the sake of the story line. Also the arraignment was part of a preliminary hearing before a judge, not a magistrate. The judge has discretion over bail and was certainly within her rights to interpret the results the way she did. But the witness-tampering argument was very weak, given the bail conditions applied for. I just thought it unlikely.

(I note that folks are drawing some parallels with Tess of the D'Urbervilles; a bit of a stretch but I see where they are coming from.)

[ 06. May 2016, 00:46: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Helen had a referral to a psychiatrist while she was pregnant; but now she's stabbed her husband, she appears to be being treated as though she has no psychiatric issues? How does that work?

I'm also cross that Pat has turning into a hapless, helpless hand-wringer.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Sean O'Connor, the current but soon departing script editor, said in an interview that this story line is based on Tess of the d'Urbevilles and Gaslighting and a Conrad, but mainly Tess.

Hardy's well known melodramatic streak seems to have passed him by, and bending the continuity of the characters to fit a Victorian melodrama with a different agenda has not endeared him to long term listeners. (Hardy was writing to chronicle a way of life in the countryside which was rapidly disappearing in his lifetime with the advent of machinery and the industrial revolution moving people from the countryside to the cities.)
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Is Helen going to end up being hanged then? To do that, not only has Rob got to die within a year and a day of the event, but there's got to be both the wrong result in the Brexit referendum, and a change in the law that is unlikely to happen.

I'm so glad I'm doing other things at 7pm every evening.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Helen had a referral to a psychiatrist while she was pregnant; but now she's stabbed her husband, she appears to be being treated as though she has no psychiatric issues? How does that work?
It may not be known to the police. And unless I've missed something, it may not yet be known to Anna the defence lawyer. So far as I can make out, Helen has been quite unable in her conversations with Anna to see factors that work in her favour. (Like her conversation with Rob's ex-wife Jess for example.)

Anna observed to Tom and Tony that she just wasn't sure how much of Helen's normal thinking processes had been shut down by Rob's manipulation and dominance. And that strikes me as very realistic, based on my own experience of counselling victims of abuse. It's very hard to see things straight when someone you love has been mucking around with your understanding.

That part of the storyline I have no problem with, in fact it's one of the most insightful issues which has been portrayed.

(I missed tonight's episode, BTW.)
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Sorry, I know this is a serious storyline, but

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
.... Helen's normal thinking processes....
[Killing me]
When has she ever, ever, seriously thought about anything, as opposed to floundering around in a fog of wish-fulfilment and making up superficially coherent arguments to justify doing what she wants to do?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Fair enough. I suppose "normal for Helen" has often been a bit short on sensible, which makes "abnormal for Helen" even more likely to lead to her short-changing herself.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
True, very true.
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
quote:
Is Helen going to end up being hanged then? To do that, not only has Rob got to die within a year and a day of the event, but there's got to be both the wrong result in the Brexit referendum, and a change in the law that is unlikely to happen.
Thanks. I was feeling a bit glum, and you really got me laughing!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Thought I'd bounce this. All in all, a pretty remarkable "non-everyday story of country folk".
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
According to this Government research paper (pdf) 8.2% of women and 4% of men suffered domestic abuse in 2014/15 before the introduction of the offence of coercive abuse. It is a lot more common than is realised.

Not sure the jury deliberations worked as an Archers episode, but the trial through the week was interesting.
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
I thought the trial was brilliantly done - though I haven't been in a courtroom, so I could be wildly wrong. I'm very, very glad indeed that Helen was found not guilty - I think there would have been outrage if she'd been sent dahn (even though that's what I was afraid would happen).

I listened to the mega-episode last night, and cried at the end. Then I listened again this afternoon, and cried all over again.

And it's also brought us the joy of Bruce, in all his moustache twirling evil.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
The jury room discussion was, scarily, remarkably similar to the one jury I was on. Also an abuse with violence case. What surprised me was the numbers who were biased by their own strongly held views. It was very hard to get folks to look at the evidence. Made me wonder about the jury system.
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
My jury service left me with the opposite thoughts - a very un-sympathetic accused (due to the type of crime, and who he was), and a jury who on the face of it looked more likely to rush to judgement than your average 11 punters (I, the 12th, am a Guardian-reader with a bleeding heart, obviously).

He went down, but quite a while after I'd got bored of trying to think of reasons why he might not be lying. They gave him a really fair go.
 
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
I've become something of an Archers addict in recent years and was gripped by the Rob/Helen storyline, although it was infuriating at times - not the slow twisting of the abuse, which was horribly believable, but the unrealistic reactions from some of the other characters, e.g. Pat being turned by the script-writers from a strong woman into an unobservant wimp.

I've served on a jury three times and none of my fellow jurors were as tetchy and bigoted as some of the jurors at Helen's trial! [Eek!] At the very worst, a few simply didn't want to engage much with the process (which does make you wonder about our justice system, as Barnabas said) but NOBODY was as awful as some of those characters.

I thought Anna did a pretty good job as defence counsel. I was very irritated by Pat's pathetic wittering while Helen was giving her testimony. Loud, agitated whispering is NOT allowed in court. No way would I jeopardise my loved one's trial in that way. The old, intelligent Pat would not have behaved so stupidly, IMO.

Rob is utterly loathsome - just the sound of his voice puts my teeth on edge - but so brilliantly played by Timothy Watson that I feel sorry for the actor, he will always be overshadowed by this role. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
'It's not over till it's over, and sometimes it's not over even then.'

This storyline could go on for another two or three years, apparently. Rob hasn't gone away. The scriptwriters have plenty of scope for inventiveness - battles over custody of the children, attempts to take them out of the jurisdiction of English courts, child abuse (of Henry, perhaps), the cricket team (next summer), the Ian - Adam relationship, village gossip, poison pen letters, harassment, stalking perhaps - the possibilities are endless. Perhaps the whole series should be renamed 'The Titcheners'.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0