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

[PseudoBadger]

Will it still be Sunday tonight?

I dtand corrected careerist but it doesn't change the fact that he won't be the one on trial.

What I was getting at was his evidence won't be of much help to the defence. He has already shown himself to be very good at making Helen look like the one in the wrong.

There is very little evidence to support her degence
There is evidence to suggest she was erratic and of course the hard to ignore stab eounds.

And even if 'coercive control' was accepted as a cause of l.o.c. that doesn't acquit her, does it?

It would imo been much more interestimg to see him in the dock with her the entirely innocent victim facing an uphill battle to get people to believe her.

Do they have to a accept the state prevision or can they pay for better?

Vango has it spot on.

Going back to a point raised a couple of pages ago, I firmly believe that someone will write a research paper on the impact of a radio drama on social media using this ongoing chain of threads (what's the collective noun for that?), so I will keep pontificating here on familiar ground rather than heading off into the unknown territory of a new thread. Anyway, there's really nothing else to discuss in TA at the moment, so I'm enjoying all the analysis.

someone remind me, didn't H go to visit the psychiatrist?

Would anything said in that setting (ie if Helen had told them everything) be allowed court time?

so would the Police leave him (Henry) with the suspect's parents, where he could be coached and gaslighted

Out of hours children's services would have been called and made a decision based on the best option for Henry. That would have been to stay with his grandparents. A child's emotional wellbeing would take priority over preserving his evidence. A skilled ABE trained social worker will gather any quality evidence regardless, if there is any to be gathered.

careerist augusta and in equal measure.

Out of curiosity what is the sentence for coercive control?

I just cannot imagine anything which will get round the fact that she stabbed him 3 times when he was unarmed.

Yes, Beaufort, the victim has no say in who prosecutes. That was what caused a lot of fuss in the second Broadchurch series when they ludicrously showed the victim's parents rushing around trying to find a barrister.

It did sound like he struck her but that doesn't seem to have shown up in the bodymapping so an inarmed man and a largely uninjured assailant. The injuries on her arm could have been his attempts to fend her off.

The maximum sentence for coercive control seems to be 5 years' imprisonment.

I have this horrible sinking feeling that it's just a matter of time before Cameron pops up pledging to do his best to Free the Ambridge One.

I'm off in my own little world now.

Pat (on the witness stand)

Crown: Would you say that your daughter was strong-willed and decisive?
Pat: Er, how do you mean?
C: Well, that when she makes up her mind to do something, that she goes ahead and does it?
P: Er, yes, probably
(Other bits of examples of H's decision making - Henry/moving in with Rob etc)
C: So when you heard her say....."It's Rob, it's always Rob, I'll kill him", were you not in anyway concerned about that?
P: Well yes....I mean, no....I mean, well Helen. Em, well, it's complicated. She's complicated.

Etc etc

I haven't managed to read the whole thread(s) but I have to say that I am very disappointed about the direction this storyline has taken. I really hope that the SW are planning a turnaround as I can't bear to hear Rob's smug voice telling us all how he's the abused one in the relationship.

I'm waiting for the forensics to come back. Because I appear to have started listening to a police procedural

If Rob gets done for domestic violence though (under whatever guise) presumably Helen will still be up for the assault charge?

Or not?

Is it just me who thinks that if this sl had been written/edited by women it wouldn't have gone on this direction?

I wonder what actually happened on the Isle of Wight.....

English in a soap? Maybe not.

I'm looking forward to hearing Helen's account of what happened so we actually know as I am still very unclear.

I assume two wrongs don't make a right!

Sticker ... You're saving this up for next year's Con. aren't you?

This is the new legislation on coercive control.

It can't be applied retrospectively but certainly there has been enough in the past few months.

Oh and I'll be very disappointed if we don't hear the truth about Stefan and the Culvert too.

The script writers do seem to have gone down the list.
They also have to prove it has had an adverse effect including 'deterioration of mental health'

Isolating a person from their friends and family
Depriving them of their basic needs
Monitoring their time
Monitoring a person via online communication tools or using spyware
Taking control over aspects of their everyday life, such as where they can go, who they can see, what to wear and when they can sleep
Depriving them access to support services, such as specialist support or medical services
Repeatedly putting them down such as telling them they are worthless
Enforcing rules and activity which humiliate, degrade or dehumanise the victim
Forcing the victim to take part in criminal activity such as shoplifting, neglect or abuse of children to encourage self-blame and prevent disclosure to authorities
Financial abuse including control of finances, such as only allowing a person a punitive allowance
Control ability to go to school or place of study
Taking wages, benefits or allowances
Threats to hurt or kill
Threats to harm a child
Threats to reveal or publish private information (e.g. threatening to 'out' someone)
Threats to hurt or physically harming a family pet
Assault
Criminal damage (such as destruction of household goods)
Preventing a person from having access to transport or from working
Preventing a person from being able to attend school, college or University
Family 'dishonour'
Reputational damage
Disclosure of sexual orientation
Disclosure of HIV status or other medical condition without consent
Limiting access to family, friends and finances