DS Forums

 
 

The Archers!


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-09-2016, 10:41
gomezz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Buckingham
Posts: 28,597
You mean Helen is gonna need a bigger knife?!
gomezz is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 12-09-2016, 10:43
dippydancing
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,216
You mean Helen is gonna need a bigger knife?!
She is going to need to go full Katniss Everdeen!
dippydancing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2016, 10:46
dippydancing
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,216
Or whichever Game of Thrones badass female character. With less nudity.
dippydancing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2016, 11:40
Eittol96
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 388
As far as I am aware Usha Franks still owns Blossom Hill Cottage - as stated on the BBC Archers website. Peggy did live there, as a tenant, until she moved in with Jack Wooley in the Lodge (which she has said she will leave to Helen in her will).

Rob was living as a tenant in Blossom Hill Cottage before he and Helen got together/married. Jess even referred to Heln living in "her home".

Does anyone know differently as to this and why people are suggesting that Peggy will sort out Rob and Blossom Hill Cottage?
Eittol96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2016, 12:10
Welsh-lad
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid Wales / Canolbarth Cymru
Posts: 37,555
As far as I am aware Usha Franks still owns Blossom Hill Cottage - as stated on the BBC Archers website. Peggy did live there, as a tenant, until she moved in with Jack Wooley in the Lodge (which she has said she will leave to Helen in her will).

Rob was living as a tenant in Blossom Hill Cottage before he and Helen got together/married. Jess even referred to Heln living in "her home".

Does anyone know differently as to this and why people are suggesting that Peggy will sort out Rob and Blossom Hill Cottage?
I expect it's because people thought Peggy owned Blossom Hill because she used to live there, isn't it?
I used to think this until about a month ago.

Perhaps people also think Peggy is a formidable person who holds some status in the village and her treatment of Rob will be influential?
Welsh-lad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2016, 12:24
praggs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 82
I noticed that on the i-player the one line introduction for next Friday is 'Rob gets a letter'.

Could it be an eviction notice? Justin turning him down? Hmmmm....
praggs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2016, 12:34
Welsh-lad
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid Wales / Canolbarth Cymru
Posts: 37,555
Hopefully Charlotte, the childminder, will read the media coverage and run for the hills.

He'd begun his charm offensive on her.
Welsh-lad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2016, 12:50
praggs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 82
[quote=Welsh-lad;83910974]Hopefully Charlotte, the childminder, will read the media coverage and run for the hills.

If Helen gets custody she'll not be needed, I expect.
praggs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2016, 13:48
fredster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 23,464
[quote=praggs;83911157]
Hopefully Charlotte, the childminder, will read the media coverage and run for the hills.

If Helen gets custody she'll not be needed, I expect.
I wonder if he will try it on with her. Why bring her into the cast for such a short time otherwise? Maybe he will get custody of Henry.
fredster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2016, 14:03
Ashford Steve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 734
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
On the one hand, maybe I'd like episode with some of the jurors, letting us know who stood up and said 'No' to Havers' attempt to steamroller the jury into a guilty verdict.

On the other hand, I'm enjoying my own mental gymnastics as I try to work it out for myself. After all, given only 15 minutes an evening - or the Sunday Ominous option - we're by now surely used to piecing together those parts of the Rob/Helen story which were only ever implied.
Ashford Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2016, 14:19
Ondine
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 907
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
Surely the whole point was to make us think Helen was going to be found guilty and then as we all sat there listening for the verdict it came as not guilty so we could all cheer out of our despair.
Ondine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2016, 14:21
SepangBlue
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,524
Now at last we've got a verdict, but the saga won't end there, will it? Rob's not going anywhere and there are two children to consider ... cue massive custody battle (yawn).

I've only heard The Archers in tiny bites extremely infrequently (usually if I was ill in bed as a child in the fifties), but my wife has always been a devotee, to the point that she won't answer the phone if The Archers is on! However, this long drawn out domestic abuse storyline has really turned her off the programme, to the point that I don't think she'll ever pick it back up again.

If it's done that to her, I can only imagine that there are droves of listeners who have felt similarly alienated and have probably dropped it too.
SepangBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2016, 14:46
Welsh-lad
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid Wales / Canolbarth Cymru
Posts: 37,555
On the one hand, maybe I'd like episode with some of the jurors, letting us know who stood up and said 'No' to Havers' attempt to steamroller the jury into a guilty verdict.
.
I did find that element enjoyable. It started with Nigel Havers being very entitled and business-like, thinking he could rig things the way he wanted.

The way Jackie undermined him unremittingly until the tables turned and everyone began listening to her was pretty well crafted.
He was impotent and rather isolated at the end.
Welsh-lad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2016, 14:47
Welsh-lad
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid Wales / Canolbarth Cymru
Posts: 37,555
Surely the whole point was to make us think Helen was going to be found guilty and then as we all sat there listening for the verdict it came as not guilty so we could all cheer out of our despair.
Dramatic volte-face!
Welsh-lad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2016, 15:04
dippydancing
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,216
I did find that element enjoyable. It started with Nigel Havers being very entitled and business-like, thinking he could rig things the way he wanted.

The way Jackie undermined him unremittingly until the tables turned and everyone began listening to her was pretty well crafted.
He was impotent and rather isolated at the end.
Was he though? Dennis and Blake's Damascene conversions were certainly all off-stage but they'd been with him all the way.
Which leaves Parveen, Holly, Jackie, Tristan and Lisa as not-guilty-ers and the remaining silent 3 lurkers whose views we never heard.
(I'm sorry that I'm giving this daft episode so much thought, but here we are)
dippydancing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2016, 15:14
An Thropologist
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 16,156
I did find that element enjoyable. It started with Nigel Havers being very entitled and business-like, thinking he could rig things the way he wanted.

The way Jackie undermined him unremittingly until the tables turned and everyone began listening to her was pretty well crafted.
He was impotent and rather isolated at the end.
Worse than that he spoke to her in a patronising manner casting her as 'little old lady'. When he spoke to her initially he raised hsi voice as if she was hard of hearing and then said "Don't worry Jackie you haven't missed anything" as if she was not quite the full ticket.

Then when he realises she will not be dearied. He says things like "Well so far love you seem to be in the minority". When Jackie initally said she thought she was not guilty.
An Thropologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2016, 15:15
Welsh-lad
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid Wales / Canolbarth Cymru
Posts: 37,555
Was he though? Dennis and Blake's Damascene conversions were certainly all off-stage but they'd been with him all the way.
Which leaves Parveen, Holly, Jackie, Tristan and Lisa as not-guilty-ers and the remaining silent 3 lurkers whose views we never heard.
(I'm sorry that I'm giving this daft episode so much thought, but here we are)
Well done for remembering all their names! I'm still going on the names of the actors
The tables did gradually turn; Catherine Tate (Lisa?) started off with some outrageously thick views but I thought she began to come around to Jackie's viewpoint as she began reflecting on her own experiences
Nigel Havers was pushed more and more back on his heels until he revealed his own very personal reasons for disbelieving Helen (divorce, limited access to his children etc)

As you say, perhaps it does not deserve too much analysis as it was, in general, bollocks.
Welsh-lad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2016, 15:17
gomezz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Buckingham
Posts: 28,597
Was he though? Dennis and Blake's Damascene conversions were certainly all off-stage but they'd been with him all the way
In some ways Dennis was the worst of the lot not caring if the defendant was guilty or not but prepared to vote whichever way got him out of there soonest.
gomezz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2016, 15:30
dippydancing
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,216
Well done for remembering all their names! I'm still going on the names of the actors
The tables did gradually turn; Catherine Tate (Lisa?) started off with some outrageously thick views but I thought she began to come around to Jackie's viewpoint as she began reflecting on her own experiences
Nigel Havers was pushed more and more back on his heels until he revealed his own very personal reasons for disbelieving Helen (divorce, limited access to his children etc)

As you say, perhaps it does not deserve too much analysis as it was, in general, bollocks.
I've just heard the repeat ep, otherwise I'd never have managed. Oddly enough, I found the voices of Nigel Havers and "Nigel Pargetter" hard to differentiate on at least 2 occasions, but since they were cut from the same cloth it didn't really matter.

In some ways Dennis was the worst of the lot not caring if the defendant was guilty or not but prepared to vote whichever way got him out of there soonest.
So he could try chatting up Holly again: no chance there mate- she's now bff with Jackie
dippydancing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2016, 15:55
An Thropologist
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 16,156
In some ways Dennis was the worst of the lot not caring if the defendant was guilty or not but prepared to vote whichever way got him out of there soonest.
Well that directly apes 12 Angry Men. Juror number 7 (Jack Warden in the original) has tickets for a sports event that evening and will vote with either side if it gets him out in time.
An Thropologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2016, 16:03
cika
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,147
[quote=fredster;83911666]

I wonder if he will try it on with her. Why bring her into the cast for such a short time otherwise? Maybe he will get custody of Henry.
I agree she must have some other purpose but I can't see Rob getting custody of Henry in the circumstances. Maybe social services might allow unsupervised access for one or both children if she's also there? That would put the cat among the pigeons. She's qualified, I presume, I wasn't paying a great deal of attention to her introduction? So she will have been CRB checked. It's a bit of a stretch but it's hard to see she was for if she doesn't stay.

She is being played as sounding quite soft and gullible so maybe Rob will go home and turn on the waterworks and she'll believe he's been horribly wronged and wants to stay and help him. There must also be a reason for having so many of the jury from hell originally believing his side of the story, too. Not everyone in the village will believe the verdict, I don't suppose.

It could split the village - half will be building a wicker man and the other half preparing a ducking stool.

I think I'm going to enjoy the probably slow unfolding of Rob's come uppance a lot more than the coercive abuse part. Although I can envisage Helen driving me nuts if she continues to keep things to herself. Which she has to if the storyline is going to have legs.
cika is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2016, 16:12
fredster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 23,464
Now at last we've got a verdict, but the saga won't end there, will it? Rob's not going anywhere and there are two children to consider ... cue massive custody battle (yawn).

I've only heard The Archers in tiny bites extremely infrequently (usually if I was ill in bed as a child in the fifties), but my wife has always been a devotee, to the point that she won't answer the phone if The Archers is on! However, this long drawn out domestic abuse storyline has really turned her off the programme, to the point that I don't think she'll ever pick it back up again.

If it's done that to her, I can only imagine that there are droves of listeners who have felt similarly alienated and have probably dropped it too.
I have always been an avid Archers addict. But must admit to delving in and out during the past year, especially where Henry was concerned and was switching on and off last night. But now hopefully I am back on track unless Rob does anything nasty which, I think is on the cards.
I just want normal Archers back.
fredster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2016, 16:15
praggs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 82
Was he though? Dennis and Blake's Damascene conversions were certainly all off-stage but they'd been with him all the way.
Which leaves Parveen, Holly, Jackie, Tristan and Lisa as not-guilty-ers and the remaining silent 3 lurkers whose views we never heard.
(I'm sorry that I'm giving this daft episode so much thought, but here we are)
I'm glad you cleared that up (3 silent ones), I thought I'd lost the ability to count!

I liked Parveen, very level-headed. Couldn't believe the islamophobic comments.
praggs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2016, 16:43
An Thropologist
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 16,156
[quote=cika;83912750]

I agree she must have some other purpose but I can't see Rob getting custody of Henry in the circumstances. Maybe social services might allow unsupervised access for one or both children if she's also there? That would put the cat among the pigeons. She's qualified, I presume, I wasn't paying a great deal of attention to her introduction? So she will have been CRB checked. It's a bit of a stretch but it's hard to see she was for if she doesn't stay.

She is being played as sounding quite soft and gullible so maybe Rob will go home and turn on the waterworks and she'll believe he's been horribly wronged and wants to stay and help him. There must also be a reason for having so many of the jury from hell originally believing his side of the story, too. Not everyone in the village will believe the verdict, I don't suppose.

It could split the village - half will be building a wicker man and the other half preparing a ducking stool.

I think I'm going to enjoy the probably slow unfolding of Rob's come uppance a lot more than the coercive abuse part. Although I can envisage Helen driving me nuts if she continues to keep things to herself. Which she has to if the storyline is going to have legs.
Either would liven up the Village fete. Both seems like over kill.

Rob could of course have absconded with Henry since Friday. Did anyone listen at lunchtime today? Which episode did they broadcast? Did they do both Friday evening and Sunday evening?
An Thropologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2016, 16:49
fredster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 23,464
[quote=An Thropologist;83913121]

Either would liven up the Village fete. Both seems like over kill.

Rob could of course have absconded with Henry since Friday. Did anyone listen at lunchtime today? Which episode did they broadcast? Did they do both Friday evening and Sunday evening?
I read last night there is a custody hearing on 14th September. So, don't think he will disappear. Knowing him he probably is sure he will get custody.
fredster is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:11.