I agree but I think Helen is going to need a lot more help that Jess can give. I am hoping that, as a previous poster has said, Henry knows a lot more than we imagine. If someone can get him talking (maybe child services or something) he may have the key to Rob's downfall.

Nobody else really has much on Rob. He has been very clever. He nearly got cross with Henry the other day (just before the reading of the Grimm's Tale) and maybe he will lash out at Henry at some point.

But having Jess giving evidence will help. She can corroborate the view that Rob is a nasty control freak. Also she can say what they'd been discussing when they met. It will all help to build a picture about what Rob's really like and that she'd advised Helen to leave him.

My thoughts, too, and the same goes for Shula's evidence of his violence, if she comes clean, and the abuse help line woman. And the poisoned water if he did that, which I think we all believe he did! The charge is attempted murder, which means that she intended to kill him, so the prosecution will have to show what a wonderful kind caring loving person he is and that whatever drove her to stab him is in Helen's unbalanced mind. The defence are entitled to bring in evidence to show what he's really like. In fact it's pretty much all they've got other than Helen's word against his, and Kirsty, who never actually saw anything, as far as I can remember.

Nothing can start getting better until Helen starts talking. I thought that when she lost Henry that would be the start of her opening up but it seems not.

Love her or loathe her, Peggy has got some strength of character, hasn't she?
A showdown with Peggy and Ursula would be fantastic. *fingers crossed*

Perhaps Peggy will be able to persuade Pat and Tony to start doing some detective work on Rob, instead of weeping and wailing and feeling sorry for themselves.

Just in case anyone didn't already know, there's a weekly Archer's newsletter.
Mine came today and its an e-mail I always read.

You can sign up for it here.
https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/newsletters/ar...ammes/b006qpgr

Thanks to the e-mail, I read this interesting article.

http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-ra...00516&ns_fee=0

I'll shut up now.

That would be sublime! Oh and the waiting for the Rat B****rd's true comeuppance is killing me! Where's a good sillage pit when we need one?

If Peggy gets wind that Ursula is bemsirching her family reputation and that this might have adverse effects on Peggy's respectability, Peggy will grind Ursula into the ground and feed her eyeballs to the cat.

^^^^^ ... and then get back to more pressing issues like tweaking her will and writing to the bishop about female vicars.

Thanks for the link - a really interesting read!

Thanks Diamond Doll

I'm looking forward to clicking the links when I've finished my chores.

Helen's bucked up her ideas

She's due a bit of luck, so I think she'll get the place at the mother and baby unit.

I don't, The producers are loving nothing go her way.

Well I'm sure it's nothing personal. Someone said earlier in the thread that it's just part of the dramatic tension IE that 'they will demolish Helen in order to make a dramatic turning point in the story.' I think that is pretty certainly the case.

Sorry fredster but I disagree with you.

I find it very realistic and not at all like the norm for soapland where everything is done and dusted at high speed.
What is happening is totally believable and I find myself thinking about it at odd times during the day.

In my eyes (or more accurately in my ears) everyone involved in this, is playing a blinder brilliantly and believably.

You are right of course, I hate this story line real as it is. What I really find nasty is the using of Henry he is only a little boy not allowed to see his Mummy. He is living with a man who is not his real Father who is turning him against his Mum. If that isn't bad enough there is also the cruella Asular,Moho I am sure is not a loving Granny type.

For soapland, its a real gritty saga and I think that it why it is so compelling. In reality Henry would be manipulated and kept away from his mother. Its just a tad unusual for a soap to be so realistic and to pull at the heartstrings quite as much as this does.

It sounds like you have absolutely suspended disbelief Fredster. Nothing wrong with that either. It is a testimony to how well this plot is being performed. But don't worry too much about Henry.

When you do just remind yourself he isn't a real 5 year old boy so isn't being used, exploited or hurt for the sake of drama. And for further reassurance the child that plays Henry records his lines separately and not in conjunction with the recording of the drama. Louisa Patikas ( Helen) says she has never even met the Henry actor.

In fact I have just been looking for the name of the actor playing Henry and his age; chances are he is a child somewhat older than 5. However I can find no trace of the actors name and age anywhere. Is anybody able to find it?

Didn't Shula and some of the other Archers actresses used to voice the child characters? I'm sure I read that somewhere, though it was years ago, and I've been trying to work out which of the current cast was playing Henry

Yes I believe that did used to be the case. And it may still be so. It would explain the lack on internet footprint fo the actor. The child voices are not usually very convincing and I think it only in the past few years that the children in the drama ever had a line. The used to be like the saying "seen (albeit in the minds eye) and not heard.'

It sounds like he's played by a child from what the one who plays Helen says. I couldn't bear Henry in happier times - he used to make my head spin with his shouting, but I'm finding him very convincing now. Henry sounds really sad.

Oh gawd - bleedin Henwy last year. "Mummay, mummay, MUMMAY!"

Like the village of the damned.

It was a bit nightmarish

He always sounded like he was jumping up and down when he spoke/shouted

They were, and horribly unrealistic they were too. Helen Worth - Gail in Corrie - was in great demand for playing young boys, I recall. Although not necessarily in The Archers.

These days they're always children but i think that in the more dramatic scenes especially they're not interacting with the actors at the time of the recording, their lines are recorded and edited in. Sometimes you can hear the difference. So with the very little ones it's just a game they're playing with adults they know well and trust.

Makes sense I guess. Better for the Henry to be playing on ipad and eating a McDonalds when doing his lines rather than being deafened by Helen wailing.