Rob - dead? No, no, he's, er, resting. He's just pining for the Canadian plains. As Helen is taken into custardy, discuss the Archers here.

[PseudoBadger]

24 hours for 1 thread!!

play the music where he raped her...

that is really going to help her state of mind.

Does Rob have an employment contract with Bridge Farm?

What's he going to do for sickness benefit?

Neither of them will be earning any money in the foreseeable future. Who's going to pay the rent?

Sometimes people can be effusive when they dislike someone but are trying to cover it up, so Shula's gratefulness could be put down to that.

Gruach, excellent point about money.

Gruach I suspect his biggest fan will step in to cover his expenses.

Re Rob's previous bad behaviour - the Jess stuff will probably be admissible as bad character but all the rest of it - not sure. I really don't think self defence is a runner. She stabbed him several times.

Just had an awful thought which I'm putting in bold so I can find it again later:

Maybe they'll avoid the whole legal thing completely, and have her die giving birth to SOK, what with all the stress etc.. with Rob making a slow recovery....

Peggy is a PITA but I feel she is often unfairly written - last night it was totally reasonable that she wanted to find out what had happened. Why would she not?

I suppose you're right; but she has to have been rubber-necking to have looked out of the window when she heard the sirens, so for her to be snooty about gawkers was a bit rich. And, given that the place was crawling with ambulance people and police, maybe she should have realised that her accompanying Pat and Tony into the house could contribute nothing other than getting in the way. But I suppose the annoyance factor was the general ensethat she felt she should be there out of some sort of entitlement rather than because she was concerned for her grandchild and great-grandchild. And that too may be totally unfair. I fear I just do find her irritating, and in particular the fact that she had a similar attitude to Henry's rabbit as Knob did doesn't dispose me in her favour.

No. Helen will not die.

Because the BBC probably wants TA to continue.

So they can't inflict another (adult) child death on Bridge Farm. It simply cannot happen.

D'you know, I've been thinking about the storyline so much over the last 48 hours that my brain is hurting. And trying to articulate why Sunday's developments are so downright frustrating. And I think I've come to this conclusion.

The Archers is a fictional radio drama. A gentle story that from time to time touches on subjects that resonate but generally finds a solution that allows the life of it's residents to continue along the same gentle pace. It's not issues based. It rarely includes real-life events (general elections, terrorism, Brexit etc). And that is why it's so loved by it's core audience. It's a tiny bit of escapism in a world dominated by 24 hour news. I doubt that anyone, even nice middle-England as it's listeners are often so disparagingly referred to, believes that it's real-life.

The Helen/Rob storyline, up until Sunday, was excellently done. And brought with it one of those issues that is occasionally tackled by the programme (suicide/warring siblings/homelessness/extra-marital affairs etc). I can cope with that. But in it's quest for ratings the editor has changed its whole nature and is in danger of doing a huge disservice to the very people he's claiming it's going to help.

When I turn on the television for my youngest, and pop him down in front of Postman Pat, I know more or less what he's going to be watching. If Pat's van was to suddenly be blown up by a car bomb, or Po from the Teletubbies decided to go to Syria to fight for ISIS I'd be rightly annoyed. SOC might argue that, "hey, that's what happens in real life you know", but I feel I know what to expect from those programme and I felt I knew what to expect from The Archers. That's how strongly I feel about the tampering with the nature of the programme.

Idle speculation based on Words last post but if Helen did die, and Rob survived but was on life-support in hospital, who would have Henry? With Rob's PR would Ursula (and her chocolate bribery) be able to claim him? And I wouldn't put anything past our departing editor at this stage.

Vango I'd forgotten about the bridle. Hmm..

words Can you explain the rationale for the one strike = self defence argument 2+ strikes = wounding or whatever. It seems bizarre in the context of what we heard. Was Helen expected to stop and see if knob was felled, and risk him coming back at her (or Henry), which is not likely to happen in the highly charged emotional atmosphere.

I think you are right, Vango. Obviously what happened in Sunday's episode is not an impossible outcome for that kind of situation, but it doesn't seem to fit with the kind of drama TA is meant to be. Much better to have a more "typical" scenario where Helen leaves and Rob tries all his tactics to get her back, and gradually through the outworkings of the various characters involved (ie everyone in Ambridge), we would reach a resolution that would leave us satisfied that Rob has finally been revealed to all for who he is, and we see social justice done if not actual legal justice.

Vango - 'Postman Pat - The Car Bomb Episode'. I think we've found SOC's next career move ....

Except ... No, have to disagree Vango. It's always been issues based and it's never been truly escapist. Idealised perhaps but that's not quite the same thing.

The quality of the telling of the issues-based stories has been variable - but several are unforgettable: single motherhood (at a time when that was unacceptable), drunkenness, gambling, rape, Alzheimer's, to say nothing of 60 years of agricultural debate.

It's only the continued existence of the village and the First Family that I "expect" from day to day - along with an editorial respect for the intelligence of the listeners and careful, innovative writing.

And that way DadDadDad it would have provided just as much of a public service as it's claiming to be providing now. The ratings were already sky high. People who personally identified with the story were already tuned in. A wasted opportunity for the sake of a ratings-busting sensationalised ending. I wonder if any real-life victims are going to continue to listen this week? I just can't imagine, if I was in Helen's situation now, how I could possibly bear to listen to what happens next.

Well let's just take Kathy's rape as one example then Gruach. She didn't end up stabbing Owen King to death did she?

Vango Good post. I'm traumatised by Sunday and my nervous system cannot handle last night's edition. I'm not sure I even want to listen ever again for a while

It's been a painful story to listen to but we have mostly persevered because we know it's an important story. That was the tone of last week's round of publicity - working with WA/Refuge etc to raise awareness and ensure the storylines are accurate. blah, blah!

And then, we get Sunday and I feel betrayed. Helen becomes the aggressor, the drama is ramped and WA etc are left to make the best of a difficult situation on WH.

The message to those who are suffering abuse in real life seems to be 'you're fucked'

And it's all because SOC wants to leave in a blaze of glory. Two fingers to those who have challenged his editorship?

wheresthat my first introduction to TA thread was getting a big slap on the wrist on a thrrad I started for having a spoiler (Paul. Dead) in title. Episode had been broadcast but it was before omnibus. MN edited the thread title.

But otoh this is so widely publicised.... I can see why its in title this time.

wannabe I agree that unless further clarification of all the grunting and crashing shows she stabbed him by accident as he lunged for her then its not self defence and she should get the jail.

Back to Henry. Social Services and the courts would look at the total lack of relationship between Henry & Ursula until a few weeks ago, compared to the fact that Henry used to live with Pat & Tony when they considered his best interests. Rob is incapacitated and he will be under suspicion for abusive behaviour given the scenario, so social services would surely be involved in giving henry some stability and not putting him at risk. Kirsty and Helen must be completely open about what has been happening for Henry's sake.

No ... But the outcome was certainly not within the expected parameters of a gentle, escapist, Middle Englander radio drama. (Not soap.)

I'm feeling my way to a proper response because I'm as frustrated as anyone with the melodrama they've decided to inflict on us right now - but at the same time I do not believe the purpose of TA has ever been to sit quietly in the background.

It's hard to tell exactly what happened in the scuffle, but if she incapacitated him then struck further blows, it goes beyond self defence. It's not about the exact number of blows traded, ( sorry if my post was misleading) it's the effect that they have.

A second dead child in the same family is sadly not beyond the bounds of possibility.

Hello just as well my comment was on the old thread as nobody agreed with me! thanks for this new one.

Gruach I'm not suggesting that the purpose has ever been to sit quietly in the background, or even that I have a problem with 'issues-based' storylines. I just don't think there's any need for such sensationalism. Wiki tells us that it was originally conceived as a 'Farming Dick-Barton' and subsequently as a means of disseminating information to farmers and smallholders to help increase productivity in the post-World War II years of rationing and food shortages. Either of those would have done me, though I realise it's no longer the 1950s (thanks for pointing that out SOC!).

I don't think that it's the frustration of the stabbing which is really the difficulty here, but the fact that actually, I am finding myself unable to sympathise with Helen at this point even to the point I think that she was in fact unstable and needs to go to prison. It wasn't self defence. She wanted him to die. His abuse of her was systematic and horrible on an emotional scale, there's no denying that. But I simply can't find it within myself to think that it's ok to stab someone repeatedly in the heat of an argument. In previous storylines lives were at risk, the humiliation was sustained, drawn out, I remember in casualty and eastenders watching little mo and the other one in casualty being treated like dogs by their partners, kicked and punched repeatedly etc. I can absolutely see how someone could stab someone to death or knock them down the stairs, or find an ornament to batter him with. but with Helen it was different. He was nasty, manipulative, abusive, no question. But her response was disproportionate. She didn't stab him out of fear, it was out of rage, and that's not ok.

And I think that's where the plot has failed. She could have left, he could even have attempted to kill her and she could have knocked him down the stairs. But by doing it this way it's no longer a Helen was the victim and rob the aggressor, she is now also culpable, and everything rob has said about her being unstable has become a reality.

Words That is of course horribly true in real life - but I was thinking exclusively in terms of constructing a drama that would be attractive to TA listeners.

^No. Helen will not die.

Because the BBC probably wants TA to continue.

So they can't inflict another (adult) child death on Bridge Farm. It simply cannot happen.^

Gruach How long have we got before SOC finally shuffles off? What about Helen dies, Pat dies of shock, Tony dies of a heart attack. Tom and Rob then fight it out over the farm with Henry and Johnny in the middle. Why not? At this stage just why the hell not? All those new listeners would be gripped. Job done.