Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Radio/podcast addicts

Discuss your favourite podcast, radio show or The Archers episode.

The Archers - It's so much more than just a soap. It's a bloody drama!

971 replies

PseudoBadger · 06/04/2016 13:37

Will it still be Sunday tonight?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
kippersyllabub · 06/04/2016 21:29

I think rob will confess all and ask the police not to press charges. Linda Snell will become a nun in a silent order. Nigel will come back to life. We'll hear no more of the annoying brothers with the chickens. Henry will outgrow his speech impediment. Josh will do something normal with his life. #fantasyarchers

YesterdayOnceMore · 06/04/2016 21:29

You can't stab someone three times for once raping you, even if you really really don't like them.

I don't imagine you would like them much if they had raped you.

AugustaFinkNottle · 06/04/2016 21:30

difficult to argue when she doesn't have a mark on her.

Not quite true, she did have that red mark on her arm. And there was the time she had a bruise on her wrist.

EnglishFern · 06/04/2016 21:30

Interestingly, this is from the cps booklet about prosecuting domestic violence. It seems that very little of what Rob has done even counts as domestic violence....

The Archers - It's so much more than just a soap. It's a bloody drama!
EnglishFern · 06/04/2016 21:32

Sorry Yesterday I should have said "you may not stab someone....."

Obviously you can, you're just not allowed to.

AugustaFinkNottle · 06/04/2016 21:32

BeaufortBelle, Rob's family don't fund the prosecution, the state does.

AugustaFinkNottle · 06/04/2016 21:35

BYOS, you'd probably recognise the Bruce actor - it's Michael Byrne - see www.imdb.com/name/nm0126250/. I tend to connect him mostly with playing Nazis, which is strangely apt in the circumstances.

careeristbitchnigel · 06/04/2016 21:37

Again there is no need for Rob to be cross examined unless he is on trial

Not true. He would give evidence in chief led by the prosecutor. He would then be cross examined by defence counsel. Every witness in every trial is cross examined unless the opposing lawyer has no questions to ask

The prosecution has no need to call Rob. They can use police and medical evidence as they are ONLY interested in showing she stabbed him (on purpose)
He would be called, absolutely no shadow of a doubt. Trials aren't just about medical and police evidence, the court needs to know what has led up to it -especially if she pleads self defence. I have been involved with over probably 1500 trials, including rapes, murder, child abuse of the gravest kind, DV. I've never known a victim not be called to give evidence

Boomingmarvellous · 06/04/2016 21:37

My crystal ball got it wrong as it didn't foresee a stabbing amid the pie and custard but then again it's not an EE crystal ball but an Archers one!

The police are only interested in gathering hard evidence and presenting it to the CPS. The defence team then have to gather evidence of coercion and abusive behaviour leading to a sudden and total loss of control when Hellin thought her son was in danger.

I think she has a good case. She has been subjected to his violent behaviour. He was in a violent rage and he went for henwee in that violent rage. Any mother particularly one driven to the verge of insanity by the said abuse m'lud would probably have stabbed him more than once too. After all the first stab wound didn't fell the bastard so he was still a threat.

BYOSnowman · 06/04/2016 21:37

Ah yes of course. Nice bit of typecasting there!!

Stickerrocks · 06/04/2016 21:37

Augusta Grin

Boomingmarvellous · 06/04/2016 21:39

And knob will definitely testify and it'll be all 'but I forgive you darling' in that syrupy tone we all love.

SuffolkNWhat · 06/04/2016 21:40

I thought I recognised the name, it's Gellert Grindelwald, possibly only second to Voldemort as the most Dark Wizard of the C20th #PotterNerd

AugustaFinkNottle · 06/04/2016 21:41

EnglishFern, there is a recognised category of prosecutions for domestic abuse - see www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/domestic_abuse_guidelines_for_prosecutors/ - although it is recognised that tends to be a compendium of offences within a domestic context. There is a specific definition of domestic violence and abuse, described as:

"Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality." This can encompass, but is not limited to, the following types of abuse:
psychological
physical
sexual
financial
emotional

Controlling behaviour is: a range of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependant by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour.

Coercive behaviour is: an act or a pattern of acts of assaults, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten their victim."

Interestingly, the section on evidence recognises precisely the sort of problems we have here:

"It is important that efforts aimed at gathering evidence to build a robust prosecution case are not focussed solely on the evidence of the complainants. The stronger the overall case, the less likely it is that it will be contested or, if it is, that the prosecution will need to call upon the complainant to give evidence. The starting point should be to build cases in which the prosecution does not need to rely on the victim. However, prosecutors should ensure that the views of the complainant are balanced with this approach, and the complainant is not overlooked during proceedings."

The trouble is that it's is very characteristic of domestic abuse, particularly non-physical abuse, that it all happens behind closed doors and so much of the evidence will come solely from a complainant who has been thoroughly gaslit so that she's not too sure of the truth anyway.

BoreOfWhabylon · 06/04/2016 21:42

I like that Booming

MovingOnUpMovingOnOut · 06/04/2016 21:42

Didn't the Bruce actor play Gail's dad in Corrie for a bit too?

AugustaFinkNottle · 06/04/2016 21:43

I have been involved with over probably 1500 trials, including rapes, murder, child abuse of the gravest kind, DV. I've never known a victim not be called to give evidence

At the risk of sounding extremely flippant - even in murder cases??

Shallishanti · 06/04/2016 21:43

fab suggestion, Gussie
and thanks for the Finnimore link, shiny

MovingOnUpMovingOnOut · 06/04/2016 21:44

Gosh the pedantry factor on this thread is rather high tonight!

Stickerrocks · 06/04/2016 21:46

We're guaranteed a Crown v Helen Titchener case, the severity of which depends on Rob 's eventual degree of dead/undeadedness.

We will only get Rob prosecuted if Helen finally tells the whole sorry story to someone who recognises that the new offence of emotional abuse or whatever it's officially called exists and they run with it.

I see no reason why Ruth & co would fund Helen's defence, as David is just Tony 's cousin and he has 3 kids and a whole herd of new cows to support. Helen has more chance of getting money from Hazel! What relation would the team's step-daughter be to Helen? Actually, Hazel might actually prove to be Rob/Ursula/Bruce's match.

EnglishFern · 06/04/2016 21:46

Thanks for that Augusta, very informative.

careeristbitchnigel · 06/04/2016 21:47

At the risk of sounding extremely flippant - even in murder cases??

At the risk of sounding extremely jaded, I wouldn't put it past CPS . One case I had I had to remind them about 6 times that the reason one particular witness wasn't attending was because he was dead, as per the previous half dozen memos and emails

Shallishanti · 06/04/2016 21:52

(I meant Rob being x examined by a woman, Gussie)

Vango · 06/04/2016 21:52

I can just imagine Rob's testimony. "I did everything I could. I loved her so much. I tried so hard to protect her from herself. I would have given her anything she wanted. The first time she attacked me....well....I just didn't know what to do? Yes, I slapped her. But only to protect myself. But I made an appointment for her with a psychiatrist. He advised her to take anti-depressants. She wouldn't take them. She's stronger than she looks you know. And I was so worried for Henry. I hoped to be able to send him away to school - to protect him - but I was afraid she wouldn't listen. And then.....when she came after us with a knife....well, I had to protect him again. I think it must have been when she found out about the school that she decided to kill me.......

Boomingmarvellous · 06/04/2016 21:53

It almost makes me sorry she didn't kill him Vango as I am in total agreement!

Swipe left for the next trending thread