How dim is Helen not telling everyone immediately that Rob had threatened her? Has she learnt nothing?

So what happens to Henry now??
Does he stay with Rob?? Surely he must be restored to Helen?

There will be a hurried meeting this week with Social Services after hours and hours of Henry having to repeat after Rob "I want to stay with Daddy"!!

Didn't think much of the missing last part of the jury suddenly deciding innocent.
However this forum has made the last hour more amusing - thanks everyone.
Mike

I'd been looking forward to this episode but it was, in my opinion, awful. A farce.

I agree- the ones I was on were all very well-behaved and genuinely wanted to thrash out all the details calmly and sensibly.


As for the episode- am I the only one who felt a scene was missed out? It suddenly went from lots of dissension to a verdict of not guilty. I honestly thought that from where it was left they were going to give a guilty verdict. When and how did all but one of them end up agreeing?

I'm going to mentally consign this episode to a bubble that doesn't belong to The Archers' canon; it felt too cliched and stereotyped even for TA. I know it's good to have a variety of opinions, but too much was shoe-horned into an hour. I'd rather not have had the episode at all.

Anyway- roll on Monday- normal service to be resumed

Now for community retribution to Rob please.
I want persecution on an expansive scale.

Most likely, the 2nd time I sat on a jury at Preston it was a case involving pimps, prostitutes and drugs . Most of my fellow jurors were horrid biggots just wanted to get off home and wanted the "tarts and wogs" ( yes that's how they were talking ) locked up. Well myself and another juror weren't having it and sent a note to the judge telling him what was going on. He dismissed the lot of them.
I could see the parents of one of the poor girls sobbing at the back of the court whilst their daughter tried to explain to the court how she had been controlled by these men.
I sat on another jury that day, the blokes were sent home.

I hope Lakielady managed to listen...

It was a let down, I agree

Do you really think that jurors know each others names and tittle-tattle?

Admittedly I have only experience of one attempted murder trial in The High Court which lasted for four days. A cross-section of people were there but nobody behaved like those people.

Of course, maybe we take things more seriously in Scotland.

I agree. Appallingly bad with every cliche chucked in as far as the jury.

It all just felt like cheap sensationalism aimed at an Eastenders audience rather than those of us who want something more intelligent.

Massive disappointment

Liverpool and London for mine- all took it very seriously.

Totally agree and wish I hadn't heard it at all.

I dare not listen in tonight, I usually just have the omnibus on Sunday, but as they actually had it on the news about the verdict tonight, I decided to tune into.......the Archers DS forum.......the best way to get the news. I take it they have acquitted Helen then.......so good, otherwise it would have set a bad example and perhaps persuaded women not to come forward or go to court.......good-o.......

I can breathe again, there is still a lot of mileage in this storyline.......as other FMs have said.......we have to hear from Rob, Arsula and the dreadful Father, as well as the sticky-beak and village know-all, Susan Horror-Bin Carter.......can anything shut up that awful woman. Now the writers can have a field day because I, for one, cannot work out what Rob will do next.......implode........lose his job.......kidnap Henry.......blame his obnoxious parents for how he has turned out, will he cry and play victim, or will he show his true colours........cannot wait ......

That seemed to be what they were getting at, and implying that his charming mask suddenly fell at the end, allowing the rest of the jury to make the link and sway them. However I still don't think that would have swayed Dennis (the macho bloke), so I don't see how they arrived at 10 to 1.

So depressing how people don't understand the concept of 'beyond reasonable doubt' and think it applies in reverse or it's just about what they think probably happened.

Likewise, I am just going to put it out of my mind as anything other than a rather ghastly error by the producers. Can't believe that they cheapened it to such a low level.

They all wanted to go home. So it was easy to agree not guilty. What a dreadful jury. Right conclusion but all to hasty at the end.

I've been on a jury and of course it wasn't a bit like that. My reference to "all human life" making up a jury was intended to reference that 12 strangers are always going to be a cross section of society looking at life from very different angles. The jury on the programme was just a wildly exaggerated cliche and I felt let down after two years of listening to a great broadcasting event.

I would like to think that everyone who performs jury duty takes it seriously?

,,,,,

Sorry can someone clarify as I thought it was unanimous. Was it 10-1?

I think they got it wrong all the way through. As you say they cheapend it to a very low level.three years this has been going, in less than an hour it's over.

Perhaps there will be a follow up with one of the jury characters who will reveal how the non-sequitur conclusion was reached?
That was very odd.

The Bruce-like juror (Dennis) and Nigel Havers seemed adamant... but one of them must have changed their mind

Yes absolutly. You are not alone!

Glad Poldark is on soon. Will be practically soporific in comparison.