Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Radio/podcast addicts

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

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

999 replies

PseudoBadger · 07/09/2016 13:27

What day is it again?

OP posts:
CeciledeVolanges · 09/09/2016 20:35

Cromwell just 24 hours?!

HalsallRedux · 09/09/2016 20:39

Oops, sorry, x-posted with Judy - this thread's galloping away!

LowDudgeon · 09/09/2016 20:40

Re Jess & social work (again Grin)

Her testimony was about not getting to the same university he went to because she didn't get the grades. tbf she didn't then specify if she went to university at all or some other institution, but if it was university, it wouldn't have been an undergraduate social work degree because they didn't exist before 2003.

Did she say he's 2 years older than her - he was going to uni when she was starting A Levels? There was no detail of the timeline of them getting together again & leaving the country but did she have time after uni to qualify as a social worker before moving to Minnesota?

TrickyD · 09/09/2016 20:40

Doesn't the judge normally sum up, marshalling salient points by both sides in order to clarify the issues for the jury? This judge didn't.

redshoeblueshoe · 09/09/2016 20:44

Yes Halsall I took precautions . . . . . and no-one said a thing

Binkybix · 09/09/2016 20:46

Did she say he's 2 years older than her - he was going to uni when she was starting A Levels

I think she may have said GCSEs!

Binkybix · 09/09/2016 20:47

Or maybe she said she was finishing her GCSEs.

Minimammoth · 09/09/2016 20:57

I guess we can't possibly have heard every minute of the trial, given the 15 mins per day.

Gruach · 09/09/2016 21:10

Is there a faint hope that every single loose end and unanswered question from the trial - all the things counsel failed to cover in our hearing - might be discussed (as if heard by them) during the jury's deliberations?

Stickerrocks · 09/09/2016 21:27

TBH I'm quite glad we have only had 13 minutes a night for the week. We all know that there's a lot more going on in the background and I couldn't cope if they dragged it out any longer. I just want a verdict now & then get back to everyone else analysing the case for themselves. Jennifer Darling must surely speak to Justin now.

PeppaTheFirst · 09/09/2016 21:51

Was also really disappointed that Anna was not heard questioning the 'I took precautions' line. I know Anna referred to a variety of different ways Robb controlled Helen, but I was hoping to hear more examples of gaslighting to illustrate to the jury just how manipulative Robb is. Hope to hear the jurors discussing this next week as part of the evidence that was given away from the audience. Also, really sorry to ask a stupid question but what's SOC?

Gruach · 09/09/2016 21:55

SOC = Sean O'Connor. Outgoing Editor.

But you won't need his name much longer. Grin

Minimammoth · 09/09/2016 21:55

Sean O Connor, soon to be ex editor ......we hope.

Gruach · 09/09/2016 21:57

I'm listening to the Home Front omnibus.

I have to use my brain a little bit.Shock I really do want it to be TA.

PeppaTheFirst · 09/09/2016 21:58

Thank you!!

Vango · 09/09/2016 22:04

Gruach x post 19.49 😁

Vango · 09/09/2016 22:06

Oops 19.41. Great minds etc 😁

Gruach · 09/09/2016 23:04

Oh, yes, you're right Vango! SorryGrin I'm sure I must have read your post - but it's been a busy evening.

Vango · 09/09/2016 23:11

Oh no! No apologies! Just laughing to myself that we're all more or less of the same mind 😁.

DesolateWaist · 09/09/2016 23:12

I didn't know that there was going to be an hour long episode on Sunday!

Does the jury have notes or a tape of the evidence to refer back to, maybe theres some key stuff we've not heard?

When I did jury service we had notes, I think, and we were also allowed to make notes through out so there was lot to talk about.

DesolateWaist · 09/09/2016 23:13

Just looked at the cast list.

I know Tam Williams about 20 years ago. He was filthy gorgeous then.

DesolateWaist · 09/09/2016 23:26

Knew, not know.

JudyCoolibar · 09/09/2016 23:33

Doesn't the judge normally sum up, marshalling salient points by both sides in order to clarify the issues for the jury? This judge didn't.

I think we only heard the tail end of his summing up. His summing up and the closing speeches by counsel would have taken at least a couple of hours in RL, whereas they had around a minute or two each today - so there's no hope of broadcasting anything properly representative of what normally happens.

LucretiaBourgeois · 09/09/2016 23:39

Just seen the cast list for the jury episode on Sunday Shock. Now we know why SOC has laid off half the village for the past year - saving up so he could get an hour of Eileen Atkins, Nigel Havers et al to make his "last ever episode of The Archers as Director and Editor" really special. So unnecessary - he should know it was going to be really special for us in any case Grin.

Gruach · 09/09/2016 23:54

Lucretia I'm insulted on behalf of the regular cast.

He clearly doesn't consider them good enough for his grand finale.

In fact it rather shows up the fact that he has, throughout his editorship, spectacularly missed the point of the show.

Swipe left for the next trending thread