As doors slam shut in Rob's face and behind SOC, a new door opens for the next Archers editor. Are we expecting some New Tricks, or just Archenders?

[PseudoBadger]

Welcome one and all. No spoilers please!

Van go, I never said Ursula shouldn't be held responsible. I said I have compassion for her.
And yes Rob is, at least in part, a product of his upbringing. I think his chances of being able to form normal healthy relationships were severely compromised. He had a lot more agency than Ursula to make different choices though, so I do think he is less deserving of sympathy.
The whole point of the storyline has been to show the mental prison the victims of CC end up in. I don't see how we can just ignore that for Ursula.
And yes we do have evidence of the awfulness of Ursula's life, don't you remember the whole 'get thee home to make my dinner woman scene'.
Or by mentioning upbringing, do you think victims of CC only count if they have bad childhoods?

I think it's possible to dislike Ursula and yet still feel compassion. I loathe Helen, utterly self obsessed and well just a pain really, but that doesn't mean I havent been rooting for her throughout. I am glad they chose an unsympathetic character for this storyline, it has made it very powerful. That and the fact that she can actually act. Am afraid I found the happy endings all round just too hard to swallow.

I can't feel anything for Ursula and Bruce. Too broad brush. They are just caricatures. Cardboard cutouts. The shouting out in court just wouldn't have happened. Ridiculous.

Or by mentioning upbringing, do you think victims of CC only count if they have bad childhoods?

I don't think I said or implied that.

Sorry Vango, I genuinely didn't know what you meant by the upbringing comment.

I disagree Bertrand That type of person doesn't give a shxx about the court , there are people like that in RL.

Monstrous people are usually created by monstrous situations. Ursula has spent her life in what clearly seems to be an abusive, controlling relationship.

I was just responding to this. Clearly she's spent her adult life in an abusive relationship. On the other hand, it's all Rob's ever really known. I just wondered whether we should feel compassion for him too?

peat it would be great if they'd got inside and Kirsty said "thanks, I only wanted a cup of tea" or something

No, why? There comes a point at which adults are responsible for their own actions.

If this was a legal precedent, where would it end? Is shoplifting ok if you're recently bereaved? What about bereaved a few years ago? What if it was someone you weren't particularly close to?

It would open the floodgates and as such, can't happen.

If rob, or ursula for that matter did something heinous when not in their right mind, because of abuse or whatever, then certain defences are open to them.

Being a bitch to everyone because your husband abuses you might be understandable but it's not an excuse.

Bert I took from the last episode that because Helen was found to have acted in self defence, that self evidently shows that rob was a risk to Henry at the time. Then because if the rest of the evidence, the judge at the family court took it that it wasn't the first (or last) time Henry was at risk because there was a pattern of abuse against his mother.

Ergo, Henry is at risk from rob.

Cecile it certainly didn't sound as if K. was talking about a cup of tea Does it take all night to make cup of tea ? .

Hardto, I repeat, I am not talking about evading responsibility, and certainly not legal responsibility. It is possible to have compassion for someone for the life circumstances that meant they committed a criminal act whilst still making them accountable and sending them to jail.
I do feel compassion for the child Rob brought up in that awful situation. I do think it is sad when people destroy their own lives, and rob has. He has never come across as a happy individual. He is seriously fucked up. I don't really have much sympathy because of the extremity of his behaviour and his greater agency. I don't see him as trapped in the way Ursula is.
Anyway, all this comes back to the worldview that seems to be bent espoused that victims of DV are only deserving of compassion if they are nice. And I just fundamentally disagree with this. As someone else said you can dislike someone and have compassion for them.

hardto, the criminal trial didn't find that Helen acted in self-defence. The jury obviously hasn't explained its findings, and the most you can say of the verdict is that they were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she didn't.

I was on the fence about the social worker's position until we had the findings in the Family Court case. As I said upthread, as a result of that I was mystified, because the evidence on which the judge based his finding that Henry was in danger simply has to have been in existence and, presumably, set out in the social worker's report which would have been available before the criminal trial started, so it's just extraordinary that it wasn't used in the trial. The one thing the SocW wouldn't have known about is the rapes. Likewise, if the SocW thought Henry was in danger she should have taken steps to remove him as soon as she came to that conclusion.

TBH, I think the only explanation is very shoddy scriptwriting/editing.

"I disagree Bertrand That type of person doesn't give a shxx about the court , there are people like that in RL."

Is he supposed to be "posh"? If so there is no way he would shout out in court like that. He would think that unspeakably common.

I found all the shouting out in court really odd tbh. Seemed out of sorts for most of the shouts

The two verdicts seem like a rush job on tying up loose ends. Why did soc waste the whole of the last 5 months with tedium and lack of progress?

But he felt very strongly about his son, his "flesh and blood" being lied about ,in his opinion. Posh or not he wouldn't care. Ursula would.

I thought the SWs report focussed on psychological abuse rather than anything physical, and possibly after the stabbing, in which case would it be relevant?

If Helens defence was that she had an abusive husband - any suggestion he was abusive to Henry would have helped her defence wouldn't it?

The problem with the trial is that they were so desperate to hide the result that they didn't give much evidence away. Ime it was pretty obvious she would get off as soc needed to end with a bang. Her going down would have just led to eye rolls and 'he's soooo eastenders'

That's the problem though, isn't it, TAB? It's become all about SO'C, nothing to do with the everyday story of country folk that TA originally set out to be.

ibrowse I too have been wondering about Henry suddenly having no contact with Rob, and how this will be explained to him. Obviously we know there are good reasons but it would be difficult to give specifics to a child of his age I would think. I can only hope that Henry has been feeling sad and confused for the last year or so and once settled at BF these feelings will subside and he will be happy with his new lot.

However, I can see future storylines maybe when Henry is jealous of Jack spending regular time with Rob and how is that explained to him? Helen will have to be careful not to 'bad mouth' Rob (I.e. tell the truth) to Jack won't she? So how to explain to Henry that his Daddy won't/can't see him but will/can see his little brother?

The problem with the trial is that they were so desperate to hide the result that they didn't give much evidence away.

No, we've had loads of comments about, "where are the social workers in all this?" with no sign of them at all, and then they turn out to have all this crucial evidence which leads directly to the trial result. I think we could at least have had hints they were about, even if we didn't hear more. Did it all come from Henry's CAFCASS meeting that Rob wasn't allowed in?

become all about SO'C, nothing to do with the everyday story of country folk that TA originally set out to be

I disagree. There's been sensational storylines in the Archers from the get go, all the way back to Grace Archer burning to death.

But the "sensational" story lines were naturally occurring as part of the whole, and were not all about the ego of the Editor, with one story dominating in the way this one has done.

The extra long episodes and the episodes stretching over more than one night and the slip out of real time didn't work for me!

I remember people on the BBC boards complaining that it ain't what it used to be. I left the boards long before they got closed down because I was tired of the moaning.