The Archers - We Listen So You Don't Have To

[PseudoBadger]

Happy(?!) Sunday everyone

What will this week have in store for us I wonder?

Anyone else worried about Henry going back to school and one of his little friends telling him his Mum tried to murder his Dad?

He thinks she's looking after him in hospital.

Because it's all over the papers .... even the national press.

Oh no, I hadn't thought of that...

Scottish Women's Aid are talking about Henry.

Well I rather hope Pat or Kirsty might post on Mnet for advice about Henry's trauma and search services like CAMHS and get an inkling of how unsupportive and unhelpful they are for so many families. And also register how social services just Nodth of the Midlands have recently left a spectacularly vulnerable and abused child to stay with her very abusive mother on a maybe they could do better basis and should be believed basis.

Hopefully sense will prevail and the Archers will do what they need to do, sell the farm if they have to, to get Henry the best independent psychiatrist/psychotherapist in the land for Henry's benefit and to support Helen with the provision of an independent paediatrict psychiatrist's report. And also to fund Helen the best criminal defence barrister in the UK with a specialism in domestic abuse.

FFS we all know how important this is. --and Usha, as landlord, might have a clause to rely on to evict Ursula if the standing orders aren't honoured.because Rob has spent all the money.

On another note if Helen and Rob are both paid by Bridge Farm, T&P will have to treat them the same and won't be able to stop R's pay if they don't stop Helen's.

They don't have to treat them the same. Employment contracts are individual. Although what to make of this situation where Rob's effectively taken Helen's job I don't know.

It's the sodding Mail on Sunday, isn't it?

Bloody Jan Moir will be sniffing round Ambridge next and the article will have pics of Soosan doing DM sadface.

Company policy shouldn't be individual. Contracts shouldn't be that different for similar jobs. There's a bigger argument for them to stop paying Helen due to being confined at HMP than there is a sick employee. OTH it may be legit to stop paying H if R isn't being paid because that may give Usha grounds to evict H and R with whom she has a rental agreement with the intention of getting shot of Ursula.

I so agree with Vango about this being a lazy way to ratings. I am sick to back teeth (what I have left) of SOC banging on about the public service he is performing with this storyline. By far the better way would have been a refuge angle with Henry too. Statistically the wife turning and committing/attempting murder is much less likely.
HOWEVER I'm sooo glad to have respite from the Knob/Hell dialogue it's almost a relief to have her banged up...

Oh and BTW there's no way a solicitor starts on about using a barrister at this stage a) it is not necessary and b) the solicitor will prepare the brief anyway. Just annoyingly inaccurate.
I'm on a roll now

Helpful of Susan to point out it was the Sunday tabloids so we know what day of the week it is.
Also I realise seeing your mum attack your "Daddy" is pretty traumatic but I think his current behaviour is more than just that. Enjoyed hearing Neil's diplomatic comments about the shepherd's hut too.

Kesstrel, that was a police officer interviewing Henry, not a social worker.

Employment contracts are always individual and in a small business like Bridge Farm it is perfectly possible they do not have harmonised terms and/or more favourable terms for family. They might not even have "policies" about this sort of thing being a micro business.

Which is absolutely fine.

I suspect (as an HR professional) there may be no contractual sick pay but Helen has always been paid discretionary sick pay. Rob afaik has never been off sick so no worries about implied terms.

If I was advising them then I would say they should pay Rob SSP and Helen should not be receiving a salary as she is not at work. They should write to confirm that she is on indefinite authorised leave without pay. Depending on the company structure Helen might be a director and/or a shareholder and as such they should have a work with the accountant about managing her dividends etc.

Nice bit of relief to hear about a few things not to do with the stabbing!

Lovely Clarrie.

Am relieved about hints being dropped that Henry's testimony might help his mum after all. He's the one being threatened in his dreams. Maybe once Helen tells her parents what happened, they will put two and two together with the dreams. I think it's a bit unfair to blame them for not understanding straight away what's happening. Apart from anything else, they must be struggling to keep their head straight.

Tony doesn't understand his daughter - that's why he can't be 100% on her side. And if Helen was in denial about Rob, why can't others be the same? As a parent it must be awful to contemplate the idea that your child has been abused in that way.

I've been confused about Rob's employment status for a while.

At first Rob was employed at Berrow Farm and Helen worked in the Bridge Farm family business mainly running the shop and making cheese. Rob did put his oar in with shop business decisions though I don't think he had any real status to do so.

Then Rob loses his job. Helen continues to work at the shop (when Rob lets her) and presumably continues cheese making (Rob seemed to have less of an issue with this or perhaps was less confident that he could take it on). Rob shows no real enthusiasm for seeking another job.

Bridge Farm then decide to open a Farm shop to replace the shop in town, which isn't doing so well since Rob's started interfering in it.

Rob volunteers to be site manager for the building of the new shop. Before he volunteered for it it wasn't at all clear that a site manager was needed. Pat and Tony live on site and are in theory retired and available to advise Tom and Helen as needed. They surely have as much building expertise as Rob. It seems to me that Rob created the site manager job and was given it without any real thought. Did he have a formal contract and was he paid for it?

After the shop was built Rob started helping with and eventually took over Helen's role. Again I'm not quite sure how and when the decision was made to employ Rob or whether Tom and Helen just let it happen. I'm guessing that they didn't have a formal application process, take up references etc. I wonder if they had whether Charlie would have had a quiet word.

If Rob has a formal contract then it's the first we've heard about it. I suspect that Helen's employment status and role in the business is much clearer as it would have been dealt with properly (I hope) when Pat and Tony decided to hand the business on to Tom and Helen.

Rob's position is completely inconsistent with what Tony and Pat intended to do. He's effectively turned a two person (Tom and Helen) business into a three person (Tom, Helen and Rob) business. As he completely dominated Helen he then had two votes to Tom's one and therefore controlled the business.

In the meantime, Johnny, who arguably should have been given his father's share in the business and who is related by blood rather than a short and very recent marriage is left completely out in the cold.

In a way I think that the whole Bridge Farm family (not just Helen) has been groomed and manipulated by Rob.

In fairness to Tony, Helen was extremely unreasonable towards him when pregnant with Henwee. He probably needs to attribute her behaviour to hormones (which most men seem to believe only women have - see also Novak Djokovic) in order to move on.

Emily - I think Rob and Helen were officially doing a job share more recently and had agreed this with Tom. But you are right of course he was really telling Helen what to say so effectively had 2 votes against Tom's one.

Yes.

If I were writing this then the obvious confusion over Rob's status at Bridge Farm would provide plenty of friction over the coming months.

I'm perfectly sure in his mind he has married himself into a partnership in the business. With all that that entails.

Who knows if the actual SWs will pursue that with any vigour. (It'll probably be like Hayley forced out of her job all over again. No details whatsoever.)

Me too Emily. I have no idea what provision they have made for Rob. It could get messy because he does have a contract of employment... we just don't know what it is and they might not either.

Some boring points for those interested in this: A contract doesn't have to be written down. Basically a contract of employment exists as soon as work is done in return for money and there is a mutuality of obligation (that last bit is what makes it an employment contract rather than a contract for services which is what you have when you get the plumber to service the boiler).

It's not nearly as sexy being in HR as it is being in the Criminal Justice System :(

I think it is fair enough people saying at this point 'but she stabbed him'.
Most people have very little info to go on. She definitely stanbed him and he is very ill, that they know for certain.
Only a handful of people know she was leaving.

Rob was a certain type of abuser. A bit of a Water Torturer. Very rarely seen to raise his voice so its hard to.imagine him losing his temper. It's a myth that (all) abusers lose their temper and lash out. In fact WTs are controlling and extrememly controlled. They can switch it on and off. Sadistic bastards.

Otoh whilst Clarrie saying there must be a reason why she'd lash out like that is positive for Helen but my mum used to say the exact same about my ex having decided I was mostly likely the root cause of the problem.

cheminotte - I'm not sure I follow your logic. Yes, Rob, was effectively controlling Helen's vote, but that didn't give him two votes against one, just that he could block Tom by telling Helen what to do. Of course, he would have two voices against Tom's one, making it harder for Tom to argue back. In any case, if a business is run by two partners, votes aren't really going to work are they, it must work by both partners agreeing on a course of action (which is why we see tension sometimes with Rex and Toby).

I'm sure that there was a meeting about the shop where Rob turned up instead of Helen and then said that as both he and Helen thought one thing and Tom another that Tom was (mirthless laugh) outvoted. I remember thinking at the time that Tom should have called him on it as Rob shouldn't have a "vote" at all, if he does, then he and Helen have one between them and Tom shouldn't have accepted that Rob was entitled to represent Helen at meetings.

I know in terms of numbers he only had the one vote, but he could say I think x and Helen agrees with me, or WE think so it sounded like 2 against 1. Does that make more sense DDD ? Like my peer at work implying the boss agrees with him.

Are they setting this up to supposedly be about Helen only stabbing him three times because he went for Henry? I'm not sure that that is what happened, is it?

Cheminotte, Emily - I think actually we are probably all saying the same thing: that on paper it's one vote for Helen (but influenced by Rob), one vote for Tom, but as Emily demonstrates (and as I was trying to say by talking about voices), you are right that in practice, Rob has acted as if it's two against one.

And in the penny-dropping discussion with Pat and Tony in the past few days, Tom made a comment about Rob being someone who likes to get his own way, so he has sharp experience of being brow-beaten into agreeing, when maybe he should stand his ground.