Silence in court! Discuss The Archers and shout from the gallery here. Send him down.

[PseudoBadger]

What day is it again?

21 pages, 524 posts.

New thread required by about 19.25 tomorrow I reckon. Have you got a title in mind pseud? It has to tweet doesn't it? The juror tweeted for Rob to do bird.

Oooh! Thanks Lillian. I don't think he has much to reproach himself for. But he's a kind soul and is now doing what he can to help. He deserves more credit.

Bruce is an utterly ridiculous caricature. Totally farcical outburst in court following equally unbelievable comments to Shula about Jess and women. No real person would ever speak like that. Just undermines the whole subject of coercive control and emotional abuse when this garbage is trotted out. But that's just my opinion.

Ooh, some competition at the thread prediction game - welcome, OhTheRoses . Actually, unless we get a really shocking development tomorrow (Tom attempts to kill Rob?), I think this thread should see us through most of Saturday, might even get to Sunday morning.

Just remembered I'm working in a park all day and evening on Sunday

The last few episodes have been really powerful and have gotten quite emotional listening. Have to disagree with ARGYMARGY. This is probably exactly the kind of thing someone like Bruce would say - there are some people who speak like this because they truly believe that these views are correct - they are misogynistic to their core. I know as I was married to one (and he is a lot younger than Bruce!). Not only is this Bruce's general view of women but he is saying these comments about women who are speaking out against his son. Totally agree with the other comments that say he will probably go home to Ursula and rant about the fact it can't be rape because they were married.

Bruce clearly hates Henry. Is that not something that Social Services might get wind of? Given Ursula's insistence that Rob moves back home with them, would SS speak to the 'grandparents' at any point before the family court hearing?

You might be right DadDadDad it's slowed but I might still risk a fiver on needing a new one before Saturday morning.

Are we in real time now as in, was tonight's (Thursday's) episode meant to be today Thursday? So if Friday is paused/adjourned then earliest things will restart is Monday so big episode on Sunday won't be court stuff? Unless we scuttle forward in timey wimey way again (I think I've answered my own confused question and should just re-lurk now).

Hello my people. I am a long term Mumsnet reader AND Archers listener and only last week found these glorious threads. Thank you! This last week or Archers listening has been fantastic and totally distracting - I am genuinely nervous about tomorrow and excited about Sunday. Some questions: 1. Now Rob has been accused of rape, is that legally an allegation which needs to be investigated, or do Helen and Jess need to bring a separate charge? 2. Will Justin please just NOT give Rob the job 3. Social services would totally have stepped in by now to protect Henry, surely?! And 4. Can't the psychologist whom Rob forced Helen to see come and give evidence?! Also, key question. Who will win the Scones category of the flower and produce show!? After all this stress, I'm looking forward to worrying about jam and stolen scone recipes again....

I think today's early Thursday (Tom mentioned 'third day' yesterday. So if tomorrow's episode is not in court, I reckon Sunday will be Friday, happening simultaneously. 😕

I think we are officially on Thursday, since yesterday Tom said something about it being day 3. But Sunday probably will be court stuff - after all, the trial started on a Sunday in non-Ambridge time zones.

Now Rob has been accused of rape, is that legally an allegation which needs to be investigated, or do Helen and Jess need to bring a separate charge?

The CPS can prosecute rape without the co-operation of the victim (nearly wrote "alleged victim" to avoid defamation then remembered Rob not actually real ). In practice, though, with no forensic evidence, there would be no realistic chance of conviction without the victim's testimony.

Helen or Jess could make a complaint of rape to the police but - as it's a criminal offence (as opposed to a civil one) - they cannot bring a charge: the CPS decides whether to do that.

Helen and Jess would be witnesses for the prosecution (by the CPS), if he gets arrested and sent to trial for rape. It would be R v Titchener, as presumably the current case is. Do they distinguish them by using initials or anything? Presumably repeat offenders could have lots of R v Offender cases.

But what about coercive control?

That's what SOC was trumpeting that this s/l was all about.

I don't think they do distinguish cases with the same surname other than by virtue of the fact that the full title will include the first name. There must be hundreds of R v Smiths and R v Browns in the court lists.

Bore When Helen gets off/is released, I'm hoping she makes that complaint against him. The stabbing has derailed the original storyline but I think it can still be clawed back. Especially now that SOC is off.

Found the tweeting juror! twitter.com/TweetingJuror. Quality stuff:

5 hours ago
I may not be able to tweet for a while - they want to take my phone off me - and lots of old men are shouting..#ArchersTrialWeek #archers

They've put me in a cell beneath the courts. I asked for Ms Tregorran as my brief, but she is too busy drinking champagne #ArchersTrialWeek

Just had a visit from a someone called Rob. Thanked me & said, "you given me a lot more time to stitch her up" #ArchersTrialWeek #Archers

4h4 hours ago
Asked for another brief - Sending me someone called Usha - told she might be a bit rusty as has not spoken for two years #ArchersTrialWeek

Given some food in the cell for supper. Tuna bake and custard. Got to say it is top quality nosh. #ArchersTrialWeek

Cell door now shut. PC Burns tells me I will be appearing before the judge tomorrow. Do I tell him of my relationship with Charlie? #Archers

Judy hahahaha

Does anyone else picture Broosh as florid with a heavy walrus tash, and in tweeds

Ruby at, I sure in RL social services would have been involved from the night Helen stabbed Rob. I 'm sure such an act of extreme DV would trigger child protection concerns,.

Here's Tim Stimpson (SW) on the value of radio drama.

Gruach, and another Tweeting Juror follower here! Great stuff, thanks for the link, Judy
I remember the Cameron Fraser thing very well, but not that he had attempted to rape Shula, in fact I don't remember them going out together, as Mark hadn't had his fatal meeting with a tree at that point and Shula wanted to adopt the baby Cameron had fathered on (with?) Elizabeth. I don't even remember Shula slapping Cameron, I thought that was Debbie, who was the one he attempted to rape?
Vango, completely agree about Ian. He felt Helen had betrayed him and his best friend status, having gradually receded from him the closer she got to Rob ( we saw the coercive control starting there, in fact, don't you think?).
Thank you for bringing me back to the fold, all of you, against my grain, I have been listening this week because of these threads. Though I still object to the denouement of the story in principle, I have to agree that this week's episodes have been good listening. But I still think the whole storyline shouldn't have taken over TA as it has, and should have been a separate Afternoon Drama series of "The Titcheners", instead

Judy it depends where you look. Sometimes they do R v Carter (Susan) or R v Titchener (Helen). The really annoying ones are the anonymised children judgments like R v A, R v B and on one memorable occasion, X, Y and Z v UK (really really horrible case).