One Flue Over The Shepherd's Hut - Discuss The Archers Here

[PseudoBadger]

I do hope Lynda has a carbon monoxide monitor in there...

Reactions on here are just like what happens in real life. And why women are scared to leave abusive relationships, or even speak up about them

True. I have never (AFAIK) had an abused patient who has stabbed someone. But I have had lots of patients who are experiencing domestic abuse. Even once it they have found the courage to disclose it, it can take a long time before they are prepared to consider leaving - and not just because they may be afraid of violence on leaving. A lot of them are in the same state of brainwashed passivity as Helen, despite being in very dangerous situations, with their children also at risk (obviously I involve safeguarding services if this is the case). If I am honest, it can be very frustrating as the GP - it's so awful thinking of them going home to hell and I do secretly want to shake them and shout, "Leave him". But of course I realise that their mental state is a symptom of the abuse and that it is critical to be patient and build trust to help them to leave.

So I think Helinn's behaviour and passivity is realistic, though I share everyone's irritation.

Even given Helen's mental state, Anna could have done a much better job of getting Helen to concentrate. It's also incredible that Pat, Tony, Tom, Kirstie etc aren't putting a bit more intellectual effort into working things out. It's the complete lack of effort and failure to get a grip which is irritating.

all Helen is ever asked is "was he violent?"

That is because of the self defence angle. CC would not meet the criteria for thay defence.

It would be mitigation for a guilty plea?

But people do tend to ask that anout DV.

Was he violent?
Why didn't you leave?

But doesn't the defence want to build a picture of what caused Helen to snap? It's not like she was blissfully happy and then suddenly stabbed Rob. It's the ongoing, draining, every day fear and confusion - she would have been exhausted, on a perpetual Tom Tiddlers ground of anxiety. The threat to Henry was the immediate motive for the stabbing but the escalating emotional abuse and cruelty to Henry is the cause. I just want Helen to find the anger she had when she found out about boarding school.

Helen saying she "can't remember" is so unconvincing. Anyone in that situation would be going over and over the whole stabbing incident in their head again and again.
Surely her lawyer would be more persuasive in getting answers out of her, if Helen wants to protect Henry she needs to start talking about what happened. I get that they are writing her as being worn down and exhausted but if she had enough anger to stab rob she needs to channel that into fighting back now.

But SmallLegs that is exactly the difficulty I am struggling with. What is the point of legislation that has no teeth? We've all seen the conditions indicating coercive control - but if the entire village brought proof it would make virtually no difference. Mitigation is useless - by that stage she's already a criminal. For ever. And it appears to be incredibly easy for the perpetrator to disprove - simply by saying they thought they were acting reasonably in the best interests of their victim.

I'm finding it harder and harder to discern the logical, storyline connection between before and after the Event.

We're starting to blame Helen for not defending herself and we know what she's gone through over the last 2 years. Is it any wonder that people in her life who don't know aren't being very supportive? V

What I find so unbelievable isn't the fact that she isn't defending herself it's that she won't/can't explain why Henwee is at risk. Just keeps repeating "Henry isn't safe" like a parrot with Alzheimer's! Just makes me want to drop kick the radio.

Well I'm not blaming Helen, Bert - I'm saying the scriptwriters have callously exploited a coercive control story simply to arrive at the same old stupid soap destination - and now they're running an entirely different story.

Is coercive control a defence? If not, why not? If not (and tbh even if it were no jury is going to find her not guilty because Rob stopped her from driving and seeing her friends) then the three year emphasis on that was pointless for the court story they now want to tell.

It's possible they'll use all that evidence to make something happen away from Helen - but I still feel misled.

I'm not blaming her for not defending herself. I can't understand why she isn't defending Henry. How is she going to feel when Rob, looking noble and wan, arrives in court clutching Henry with one hand and his stoma with the other? If she really believes Henry is in danger, wouldn't she tell Anna why?

Ursula's comment that Henry thinks Helen is on holiday is another case of utterly stupid writing. Henry is 5! Five year olds know that people don't suddenly go on holiday in the middle of the night without saying goodbye. It's also just weird that he apparently shows no fear or anxiety around Rob given recent events.

So fed up with this storyline.

Helen saying she "can't remember" is so unconvincing. Anyone in that situation would be going over and over the whole stabbing incident in their head again and again

That's what those of us who haven't been in this situation (and juries) instinctively believe. But actually it is not true. It is normal for people who have been in traumatic events to have a very patchy recall of them - there is a good explanation of why this happens here

I really hope the SW will show in the storyline that Helinn's behaviour is normal - perhaps through an expert witness in court. It is so important that people understand this. Everyday, rapists and abusers are acquitted because juries cannot understand why their victims do not have full recall of their trauma.

if she had enough anger to stab rob she needs to channel that into fighting back now.

The anger and stabbing came from the fight or flight instinct. If Helen was free, she might find the same anger to protect Henry from Rob and Ursula, ignoring any bail conditions in process.

She isn't free and she's powerless. It's exhausting not enervating.

Was rob's assertion that Helen was having an affair with Kirsty part of his statement? That he signed formally?

I am trying not to waste head-space speculating, trying to make sense of a nonsensical situation. It's not as if I can do anything (if it was RL then that would be different). I'm letting it wash over me and waiting for the outcome in real time.
The consequence is that I have divorced myself from the situation, I am watching from the sidelines and have no emotional involvement in the dilemma. I have no concept of suspense or 'what-if'; it's more like 'whatever'.
For lack of realism and thereby lack of drama, it's the-move-up-north all over again. At the moment it is a very poor outcome to what has been a good story.

Well I'm not blaming Helen, Bert - I'm saying the scriptwriters have callously exploited a coercive control story simply to arrive at the same old stupid soap destination - and now they're running an entirely different story.

This exactly, Grauch.

how come rob is allowed to have close unsupervised contact with henry?
I thought they were both witnesses?

birdsdestiny I couldn't agree more. Although she's always had issues, Helen has never been a meek little mouse. The storyline illustrates that you don't have to be a pushover to find yourself in an abusive relationship - which is utterly spot on.

i just wrote - and lost - a long post saying I too agree absolutely with birdsdestiny.

The SWs have committed the classic error of building up a long storyline, stoking the tension so everyone is gripped, and then making a complete horlicks of the resolution. Do you suppose they have any idea of how weak and repetitive the last couple of weeks have sounded, as though they're treading water with no idea how to proceed? Or are they too busy congratulating themselves?

They need to drive this SL on now, or risk everyone losing interest. It's not a documentary, it's a drama. Don't keep showing us Pat wringing her hands ineffectually, Tom stomping around and Anna T failing to get through to H. Something has to happen. I feel as though I've blundered into Groundhog Day some evenings, and that can't be good.

I too think H is still in terrible shock, she will not be thinking straight yet. Although it's fustrating for us not to have a speedy resolution, it's very true to life fir someone in the middle of traumatic event. She'll almost certainly have PTSD.
H is probably alternating between "Henry isn't safe with Rob, he's abusive" to "I tried to kill someone, Rob is right, I'm not a fit mother, I'm mad, Henry is better off with Rob"

She'll be going round in circles but will get there eventually.

I suppose you could say that H's mental state is the most compelling evidence of the effect of coercive control. Not broken bones but broken mind.

But it's far too subtle for a 15 min radio soap.

Greenmarker - yes, I thought there could be a fall out between R and U. They don't have an easy relationship and haven't been close over the past few years. Obviously a huge backstory. But I can't see how that would advance the plot.

I'm wondering if Ian might have a part to play. The only reaction we've had from him, second hand, was that he was worried about H's state of mind. If he got in touch with her, might that break the deadlock?

But if H's lawyer was any good wouldn't she understand how to gain Helen's confidence?,surely a better approach to Helen would have been to appeal to her maternal instinct to explain that Henry needs Helen to defend herself properly. I'm not meaning to blame Helen at all, just saying that the barristers line of questioning was absolutely hopeless. the way she "explained" the charges and plea options left Helen thinking that she was designed to be stuck in prison. So frustrating.

I think that Helen's maternal drive will come when she has the baby and rob takes steps to have it removed from her.

Henry is essentially already away from her so there isn't that physical removal iyswim. However when she has the baby there's a real possibility that Rob will take immediate steps to demand that the baby is removed from her immediately, and this may be what Spurs her into action.

The reality as well though is that it doesn't really matter if she tells all about Rob's abuse. She's still guilty of having stabbed him in the heat of an argument. His violence towards her has been minimal in comparison to that.

Anyone in that situation would be going over and over the whole stabbing incident in their head again and again.

No one can claim they know exactly what they or anyone else would do in such a situation.

Woman's Hour now!

On the male DV perpetrator.

What the hell else has she - or any of the family - been doing for the last two and a half weeks? Halsall is right - this is groundhog day, it's not good drama.
It's also not TA - it's not their style to have 'unheard' stuff going on eg Rob's interview: we had loads of him trying to gaslight the policewoman but we never got to hear his statement.