Brian is over a barrel, Alice has drained the barrel and Shula has given it to Alistair with both barrels - The Archers is not exactly a barrel of laughs at the moment.

[PseudoBadger]

Thanks to @LillianGish for the thread title.

I didn’t think it was terribly well written (sledgehammer as opposed to subtlety) but the implications were stunning. Hadn’t quite grasped before just how dearly the Bridge Farm tribe will be paying for their newly acquired millions.

Very interesting illustration of how wealth acts. Pat with her acres and Olwen with nothing. In retrospect it was cruel of Pat to take her in. The mortification, for both of them, must be unbearable.

Yes grauch. With high-end-Helen pulling in another direction and busy-businessman Tom pulling in another - Pat has a lot to think about.

Very interesting illustration of how wealth acts. Pat with her acres and Olwen with nothing.

Should the contrast be Bridge Farm v Olwen or Bridge Farm v Grange Farm? The Grundys, too, could be reaping the rewards of capitalism if they hadn't been such rubbish stewards of the land. Or should the comparison be Bridge Farm v Home Farm (look what happens down the line when you lose your principles).

Actually Bridge Farm v Olwen is unfair. Bridge Farm were tenants, realised how precarious that was, made a brave decision and decided to buy the farm. Olwen was a troublemaker, shacked up with some bloke without the legal protection of marriage nor tenancy and had no protection when she was thrown out. Olwen is partly to blame for her own bad luck.

Olwen is partly to blame for her own bad luck.

Nah ... You can’t be responsible for luck.

None of this would matter if Pat and Olwen were enemies of course. It’s the fact that they’re trying to be friends that makes it all so excruciating. Clever plotting. (Despite clunky execution.)

She's not responsible for anything that was purely luck but she has made choices which have led her to where she is, just like we all do. Principled choices, I'm sure, but sadly those don't always lead to a comfortable secure life.

Her bad luck has perhaps come from immature reactions to situations, otherwise known as not knowing when to keep your views to yourself.

I'm looking forward to the Food Programme special with Olwen.

Does anyone know if The Archers have ever made any express reference to Radio 4 before the last couple of days’ episodes? And if so, what do they think is on it at 7.02?

It’s interesting because Pat feels sorry for Olwen and wants to do the right thing, but in trying to help she has highlighted the gulf that has opened between them since her campaigning days. Pat’s life has moved on (though she still likes to think of herself as a campaigner) because for all her idealism she is essentially a business woman trying to make money from her business and as a landowner. They are no longer equals - Olwen has no business, money, land or even home. I wonder if this will make Pat reassess her own life or make her realise she’s no longer the person she was and be content with the person she has become. Also interesting to see that Helen has completely reverted to type. Whatever happened to Caz?

I think Pat mentioned Caz when Helen objected to her palling up with randoms. However, there was no suggestion that Helen has any current involvement with her.

Just had a thought. What's the betting Caz's offspring will turn up in 10 or 15 years' time and have a wild fling with Henwee or Jack, much to Helen's consternation?

I thought Sheila Dillon sounded like her real self, not one of the stilted cameos we’ve had at other times.

Does anyone know if The Archers have ever made any express reference to Radio 4 before the last couple of days’ episodes?

Yes its been referred to periodically as the cast refer to programmes they follow. Certainly weather, Farming Today, Classic Serial and various others spring to mind.

I'm pretty sure the Food Programme has also been mentioned. Haven't Bridge Farm applied before when the sausages were organic?

Obviously at 7.02 they listen to The Fowlers, an every day story of urban folk.

The Grundys, too, could be reaping the rewards of capitalism if they hadn't been such rubbish stewards of the land

Yes indeed. More so as the Grundys were on a secured tenancy before Tony and Pat started out. Like them or not, Pat'n'Tony have worked hard and tried to do the right thing alone the way. Joe and Eddie were feckless corner cutters who would scam anyone unwise enough to trust them.

There is still a hefty mortgage on Bridge Farm - it took a lifetime of work even to get to a stage to even try and buy it. Describing Pat as having acres of wealth in that context is very unfair as well as inaccurate.

Of the farms featured, Brookfield was inherited farm, Brian's was built from existing wealth, the Grundys had a family tenancy, not sure about Mike's farm. Pat'n'Tony are the only scratch starters I think.

Describing Pat as having acres of wealth in that context is very unfair as well as inaccurate.

But, if you were Olwen ...

Going back few eps, I was amused by Kate's confident assertion that all would be OK if they ditched the animals. Those would be the money makers that enable her to have healing sessions in her yurt. The last time I looked, yurts were made from animal products. Silly arse.

I'm puzzled about the Harrison / Fallon will story. In Scotland, if two unmarried people buy a house together the lawyer will discuss how the title is to be taken. When DH and I bought, before we were married, it was in the names of X and Y and the survivor of them. The lawyer discusses titles,wills etc to make sure that the purchasers understand the implications. So had Harrison and Fallon explicitly agreed that they didn't want the other to inherit atthetime of the purchasers and have now rethought, or is English law different?

Does anyone know if The Archers have ever made any express reference to Radio 4 before the last couple of days’ episodes?

They had an episode of Gardeners Question Time didn't they?

While I'm here...I defend the right of Shula to divorce Alistair for any reason (or none in particular) that she chooses. But by christ she's being so cruel about it. There is no way on earth she could have thought that the separation was "by mutual consent". She's being vile

Gaslighting in fact

Puremince In English law you can buy as "joint tenants" (you both own all; so if one party deceases then the remaining party inherits it all, automatically) or "tenants in common" (you specify how much you own eg 25% and you can bequeath that part-ownership to whoever).
So, yeah, F&H should have discussed, when they bought, whether they wanted JT or TiC. And if they change their minds, it's a fairly simple matter of transfer of ownership (which would be cheaper than writing wills, probably).

puremince Property and inheritance law are probably the two areas of law that differ most between Scotland and England. (Scots born and raised English qualified solicitor here).
However the norm when buying a house in England with someone else is to agree whether it will be held as joint tenants (survivor automatically inherits deceased’s share) or tenants in common (each owns a specified percentage and that half forms part of their estate). As I recall, Harrison was contributing the lion’s share of the purchase price via a loan from his parents and his salary formed the bill of the mortgage application so it would probably have been prudent for them at the time to have said they should be tenants in common. The rewriting of the wills I guess now makes the situation one where they are in the same position in which they would have been had they asked to be joint tenants. However I wonder what Harrison’s folks think about that?

Sorry small error -“ each owns a specified percentage and that percentage not half forms part of their estate”.

If the parents' loan to Harrison was documented, presumably that would be a first charge on his estate, before Fallon inherited?

If the parents' loan to Harrison was documented, presumably that would be a first charge on his estate, before Fallon inherited

IRL, Mortgage companies like to insist (i.e. get it in writing) that the Bank of M&D give gifts, not loans.