She did snooker herself. She's confessed that she threatened to killl him.

Even a country (non-QC) solicitor would have tried to make her come to and co-operate, sorry. It's not believable.

I agree.
I think we are mostly familiar with the caution that is read out to a person being arrested, viz:

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you rely on in court. Anything you do say can be given in evidence."

For someone in the vulnerable position Helen is the best advice is to remain silent. Helen can make a statement at any time in the future.

Yeah but it's been misjudged hasn't it because she did mention when questioned that she threatened to kill him.

Had she been read the caution when she mentioned that?

Yes she said it last night when being interviewed. The 'no comment' routine went on until the officer began needling about Henwy and how Helen must have been furious with Rob for wanting him sent away for schooling. She then proposed that Helen had threatened to kill Rob (probably based on Ursula's statement) and Helen said "Yes I did"
Then she had the hysterics and the officer ended the interview with switching the tape off.

I remember the police doing the same thing with Dev in Corrie many moons ago when Mad Maya had been trying to kill him and Sunita. "I'll killl you/him/her" is one of those things people say without meaning it literally, which is what Dev said to the rather stupid police at his interview. I bet even police officers have said the same thing themselves. It usually means absolutely nothing.

I can totally buy Helen putting herself in trouble during the interview, after-all, she did factually try to kill Rob, even though we get why, it's not really the Police's job with a violent attack to wonder why - just what happened and how and the why pops up much later as a means of securing conviction. How calm, focused and precise with word would any of us be if we were being interviewed. There are a few moments I've wanted to scream "no Helen!" or "no" whomever but of course, it's not me and if it were me, I'd probably say totally the wrong thing and get myself charged and convicted without even realising it and I wouldn't call myself stupid by any measure.

I suspect the best hope for the Defence now appears to be to pray that Rob survives and can be torn to shreds in the Witness box at trial, showing him as the two-faced b*****d he is. I am not an advocate for violence most of the time, but my God he deserved it for torturing us listener's for all this time! And yes, ironic if Helen's saviour is Jess in the end (a priority for the Defence to find her I should think), but it's looking a bit more likely isn't it, since Kirsty's evidence hasn't helped and they didn't go down the 'escape route' path. Certainly the Police have what they want now, so unless Henry says something else or somebody else shows up like Shula to testify what she knows of him and starts shedding light on the odious s**t's crappy character. Perhaps playing the long game and out-doing them at their own dreadful game is what you need to do to survive as a Tichener woman? Interesting reason to reconsider Ursula as well....

I cannot hold it in any longer - Peggy Woolley! I got so bloody cross! Wanting to send a card to the Ticheners, I mean of all the bloody things she could suggest. This woman supposed to be Helen's grandmother and all she's interested in is the fuss outside her door and how much it affects her and how embarrassing it is. Jesus! You would have thought that Helen was the abusive partner and not Rob. I can understand feeling conflicted and searching your memories and impressions to see where you missed something or could have done something but there doesn't seem to be nearly enough of that. She doesn't even seem to care that much about Henry's well-being, which should be the priority you would have thought, rather than anything else. One of my least favourite, if not my least favourite character.

Peggy is just so irritating where's her concern for her granddaughter for God's sake.

PMSL at Peggy's ideas for silencing the press yesterday

I can't believe Helen's family and Kirsty think she should just be allowed home. I realise they're upset but that's no excuse for losing the power of rational thought. They know she stabbed Rob, and although they, and we, know she had been abused by him, nobody else does because Helen won't tell them.

Helen arrested is super irritating I was only on her side briefly because Rob was so terrible and I'm afraid I'm back to disliking her now she's got shut of him. I can't decide whether Rob dying and Helen being charged with murder () would be worse for her than Rob surviving and trying for custody of Henry (if he adopted him) and the new baby. Whichever - that's what I want to happen

Oh we all love Peggy on here.
No-one wishes she had drowned in the flood. Honest

I had the exact reaction you had to her sticking her sanctimonious beak in!

It's the wailing. The wailing is very shrill.

Do you thinkthe subplot to this will be New Tom and Kirsty getting back together?
They surely can't shunt her off again after she's been confidante to Helen; and she and New Tom have been having loads of little chats and supporting each other between wails.

Bridge Farm Archers have had a bit of an annus horribilis what with New Tom jilting Kirsty, Tony being punctured by that dangerous bovine, and now psycho Rob being chopped up by Helen the walking blancmange.

She's a mean-minded, prejudiced, judgmental old bat and well past her sell-by date. Remember her (not very) thinly-veiled racism when Usha moved into the village, and how she stopped going to St Stephen's when Alan married her?

I also think she was very nasty about Chris when she first moved in with her. I can't bear the woman.

Lol, it has been pretty grim for them.

Mind you, it's not been a good year for most of Ambridge, with the flood and subsequent fallout, homeless Grundys, Scruff on the missing list, Heather-pet's roadside cark and so on. It's about the darkest I can remember it being.

Did anyone else shout "Well you should know!" at the radio when Susan Carter was talking about what it'll be like in prison for Helen? She's my second least favourite character after Peggy Bloody Woolley.

But as Susan is now almost an Aldridge, she's drawn a veil over her past as a jailbird!

I couldn't believe bloody Peggy yesterday! Honestly, who gives two hoots about the Titcheners! I'm still surprised that nobody other than Kirsty had any suspicions about Rob - not even the Germaine Greer of Ambridge herself, Pat bloody Archer!

The more Peggy has aged, the more self-absorbed she is. Manipulation through what she wants to leave to them is one thing that comes to mind.

With respect she stopped going to St Stephens when they had Janet Fisher; a female vicar as their parish priest. She returned to St Stephens when Janet left and Alan arrived. Meanwhile it was Shula who had been friends with Janet and had had an affair with Usha's former partner Dr Locke that objected to the marriage of Richard and Usha. Her objection overtly being that she felt the Vicar's wife should be a Christian.

But Peggy is very judgemental I agree.

We can always rely on Hazel to tell her to get stuffed though

I too have been inncredulous about Pat's lack of perspicacity in this matter. I know what the writers are trying to convey. They are illustrating that a Rob character with all his pretense at charm can pull in anyone. So even those close to the victim can be unaware of what is going on. I think the story they are running is that Rob's type groom or manipulate everyone, not just their partner/victim.

However I still don't buy it. I think it is one of those times ( and there have been several in recent years) where the writers and producers treat the characters like puppets. They want the story to drive the characters not the other way around. They seem to think they can pull their strings to perform whatever the story line demands. The trouble is the long-term listener knows these characters so well, better than many of the writers.

I simply don't believe that Rob would have been able to manipulate Pat so easily and not in the way it has been portrayed. From her background having had a depressive episode, lost her son, seen Helen through the business with the gamekeeper and more, initially not liking Rob and being so very liberal and feminist I just don't think he would have got her eating out of his hand in such a way or so easily.

She might have come around to accepting him and I am not saying she would have realised that coersion was going on. She could have had the wool pulled over her eyes, but they went too far in making her border line complicit. I don't think she would have fallen into become Rob's admiring, lap dog nor do I think she would have become such a fan of Rob's so easily. I just see her as a much more cautious and suspicious (not quite the word I want but will have to do) character than she has been portrayed in this story line.

But its not the first time that a character has been scripted to act out of character and I doubt it will be the last. Other examples for me were the attempt at a feud between Elizabeth and David over Nigel's completely pointless and unforgivable (by the story writers) death and Ruth's affair. I do think this was one of the more extreme examples of writer malmanipulation though.

Indeed . I see that she is in Eastenders at present. Although I think the current Hazel Woolley is being voiced by someone other than Annette Badland.

I agree. It is was made even more implausible by the fact that Pat initially disliked Rob and had a bad feeling about him. An instinct like that would surely have re-emerged in light of the things Rob has done and said.

I think so.
If I had been writing the story line I would have had Pat with a nagging doubt she couldn't put her finger on. Not necessarily sticking her oar in, but only going so far as treating Rob with polite courtesy, while still being somewhat cautious as far as he was concerned. I would have passed off her inaction by keeping Tony a bit more frail throughout (not on life support but just in prolongued recovery and rehabiliation) so her failure to realise something was very wrong with Helen could be passed off as having been preoccupied with Tony.

For six decades now, fitting her career around bringing up her two adopted children, she has shared Peggy's life with Archers fans. Despite spending so much of her life portraying Peggy, Ms Spencer is adamant they are very different. "Peggy's a nice old thing but she doesn't always see the funny side of things," she says. "She hasn't much of a sense of humour. Thank goodness I have – and at the most inappropriate moments sometimes," she giggles.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...n-2169414.html

Peggy is an old bat but all of us ,surely, applaud the fabulous June Spencer. It is amazing that she will be 97 in June. Her delivery is never anything other than superb and she has played the same character longer than anyone in the whole world.
Long may June continue to annoy us.

Hear hear - Ditto Jill aka Patricia Greene.

Wow she was looking good in that picture. I would love to age so well and for so long.

Oh absolutely - the actress plays a blinder.
In a way it's a credit to them that the oldest character isn't some doddery sugary old dear but opinionated and interfering.
Bleedin' Peggy!

The older cast, in the main, are really very good actors. I am not so sure about the younger ones they have brought in. I suppose they need time to develop their craft though. My main issue is that all the young folk seem to sound alike. I am still mixing up the new Tom and the Fairbrothers; who I can't tell apart. I don't know what was wrong with the old Tom TBH.