Discuss The Archers - yes, this really is Thread 103. Are you going to vote for feet, stations of the cross, or a hologram? Will Natasha ever return? Will Russ ever leave?

[DadDadDad]

Exciting times - this thread will witness our 100,000th post in this long-running unbroken chain of threads.

New and old posters welcome. Don't spoil with any future plotlines.

And if you need a beginners' guide see here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/radio_addicts/3557323-For-Archers-fans-a-guide-to-acronyms-on-the-long-running-discussion-threads-and-any-other-meta-thread-questions-you-may-have

Carry on...

There is always the idea that if there's nothing in writing there's no contract ergo no rights for the tenant or the employee- which couldn't be farther from the case.

Yes, and this really annoys me. Soaps could be doing some good education on housing and employment rights to people who may need it but not know that they have rights nor how to to make use of them or access more advice and support. Instead, they all go on like people can be sacked or evicted without any disciplinary process or Section 21 notice or whatever it is, all because they slept with your brother's wife's step-brother's widow and then looked at you in a funny way.

It was explained that every time you buy something in a shop, you complete a contract: the shopkeeper makes an offer (£X for this item) and you are deemed to have agreed the contract by handing over that amount (a monetary consideration being a requirement for it to be a legal contract).

Exactly - Jazzer's been turning up to work nearly every day for about 15 years and feeding pigs and so on, and Bridge Farm have been paying him for that - and that's their contract. If he had a written contract, then it would probably be clearer about just what tasks his role encompssed and so on, but its absence doesn't mean there's no contract at all.

The little I remember on contract law from a presentation for actuaries is that indeed doesn't need to be written to be a contract in English law

Exactly and it's the same in most jurisdictions. U.K law ( which is a concept despite the assertion by a poster that there's no such thing) also gives additional statutory protection to parties who might be in a vulnerable position , such as employees, tenants, borrowers, minors, compared to the other party. As Echt says soaps should be highlighting that.

It was explained that every time you buy something in a shop, you complete a contract: the shopkeeper makes an offer (£X for this item) and you are deemed to have agreed the contract by handing over that amount (a monetary consideration being a requirement for it to be a legal contract).
That's not quite correct. The shop keeper prices the item and this is called an invitation to treat. The consumer then makes an offer to the shop keeper by proffering said item and money, and the shopkeeper accepts by taking the money. This is the reason why if an item is mispriced in a shop ((a £400 TV for £4 say) then the retailer is under no obligation to actually sell it at that price, because he hasn't made an offer, merely invited you to treat.

Has Will always been this awful? Poor Mia!

UK law which is a concept despite the assertion by a poster that there’s no such thing) Oh for goodness sake LassofFyvie why on earth do you feel the need to turn a nice discussion thread about the Archers into some sort of “who is the best lawyer” competition? This is not AIBU, stop trying to score points!

I said that I was a practising lawyer. You then passively aggressively said that I might not be aware that Scotland had a different legal system. Did you genuinely think that it was possible to have a law degree in England and not have noticed that it was not applicable North of the Border? I then told you that in my working life I spend a lot of time telling people not to use the expression “UK law”. (Many of my colleagues are based in jurisdictions outside the U.K., like Hong Kong and Singapore and genuinely do not know that the Scottish system is different so they talk about English cases being “U.K. cases”. That is wrong.). Since there are countless contexts in which U.K. law is indisputably NOT the appropriate term I did not feel the need to caveat that with evidence of my understanding that it is sometimes can be applicable. For example when one talks about legislation that applies to the whole U.K., or common law concepts shared by both jurisdictions.

I never said that there was no such thing as U.K. law.

You know, I hadn’t posted in a long time and thought I’d dip back in with what I thought was an interesting point about a potential faux pas by the scriptwriters. But this has left a sour taste. So I’m going back to lurking.

Do stay, Muffington. Lass is just as vehement with the rest of us, on every topic, in agreement or disagreement. It’s part of the fabric of the threads.

My feeling is that Jim is calling Tom's bluff and has no intention of starting proceedings in an employment tribunal. He is hoping that the Bridge Farm Archers will want to avoid that at all costs as they will be aware that they are not on entirely solid ground, and will offer Jazzer a lump sum to go away quietly. Then Jazzer can get a job on another farm or at the pig unit or, best of all, help Rex to build up his pig business, ideally as a partner, using his lump sum. Given the classist nature of TA, though, it's far more likely that Jazzer will spend it all on benders and a holiday.

Yeah, thanks thislido, appreciate that, but if I go back to lurking I can enjoy the thread without exposing myself to personal/professional attack.

Must admit to having felt rather slapped down myself, so it's useful to know that this ain't personal, ThisLido, thanks.

Will was really irritating when he was bumbling around preparing Poppy's lunch and clearly having no clue about what she needed and where everything was. He claimed that Mia wasn't really doing that much to keep things going, yet apparently over the past year it's never occurred to him to wonder how Poppy magically got ready for school and got fed when he wasn't buying stuff for her and putting it away.

It probably is good for Mia's sake that she's got away, but I think it would be a real shame if she disappeared altogether. She's a well-written, interesting character who's considerably less shallow that most of the child characters in TA, and is well-acted.

How many times will the SW use the ‘feckless man makes disastrous holiday choice” device? Perhaps “ let’s go camping!” means “ this relationship is over”.

In a way the camping trip wasn't a disastrous choice - I can see circumstances where, with children that age, it could be very successful. However, I suspect the reality is that in Will's mind it would be Mia doing all the cooking with a bit of incompetent help from him, it would be Mia's responsibility to keep taking Poppy to the loo etc, and he'd get into a dreadful temper with everyone when it came to putting the tent up.

There are strict protocols for dealing with redundancy , including proper consultation, none of which Tom followed.

But so far as Tom was concerned Jazzer wasn't being made redundant?

YY to the way TV and radio ignore the reality of employment and housing law because tedious things like working out notice and going through proper eviction or redundancy or recruitment procedures aren't sufficiently dramatic for them. Hence we get people turning up in MN and elsewhere firmly believing that they have to leave their house immediately because their landlord has served an eviction notice; and it's a running joke on the Casualty discussion thread that virtually no-one ever gives in their notice before leaving a job, they just decide during the course of an episode that they're off and at the end they're walking into the sunset. Likewise, they never go through a boring process of advertising vacancies, drawing up job descriptions, interviewing, taking references etc - someone who someone knows turns up one day, the next day they're on the permanent staff.

And don't get me started on the legal farrago that was the second series of Broadchurch ...

Another example of where the scriptwriters ignore reality on housing was when Emma and Ed moved out of Rickyard as they couldn't afford the rent- no mention of housing benefit or working tax credits.

I’ve listened to yesterday now. Not listened again but I’m sure I heard Will said he’d been “helping out” all week, as though Mia needed a short break before returning to normal duties.

I'd like to give the scriptwriters a BOOP point for the way that they've developed the Mia storyline over many months. There have been lots of episodes in which Mia has been in the shop buying stuff, or Will's said "Mia's just giving Poppy her bath" etc etc, and it's just ticked over in the background until now. Nobody has had a character transplant, it all makes sense as a storyline. BOOP!

LilianGish
It was a mystery to most of us why she and Jake didn't immediately move back in with their dad when their mum died.

She couldn't move back because she had never lived there. Andrew walked out on Nic when Jake was three and Mia one, and Nic gave up the house they'd had together when she moved in with Will.

Until he was suddenly turned into a good guy after Nic's death, Andrew was a man who didn't pay maintenance reliably and one or twice decided not to have his children when he had arranged to do so because it "wasn't convenient" after all. Not even slightly a good father.

Brian was fined £120,000 including costs, on 5th February this year.

If it helps, Jazzer went to work on Tom's pigs shortly after Christmas 2004, as far as I know, having helped round them up when they escaped earlier in the month and demanded two hours' pay for it. Tom was impressed by how easily he seemed to catch them, or something. So he's been working at Bridge Farm for a bit less than fifteen years, but still a fair old time.

I might be misremembering, but wasn't Andrew supposed to have improved asa father after he got together with his current girlfriend?

I yes, I think you'really right there, Arpa.

I think Will has been a crap father, and Clarrie shouldn't be all "poor you, I should be doing more". I feel for poor Poppy now Mia has gone. Definite boop for the slow burn there as well.

Onto other matters, where has Lillian gone? I'm sure I've not heard her in months! She's one of my favourite characters

I have always said that Will should have got in a live in nanny to help. I do not know why they have all let Mia become a housewife.

Clarrie must be so torn though- awful to have a grieving child.

I am so suprised Mia has moved out but so happy. I am hoping that Clarrie and Eddy move in with Will and give Poppy some stability. I was going to ask if there is a spare room but then remembered about the Ambridge room fairy.

Someone asked earlier how I was using my phone invigilating - I wasn't told of any rule saying I couldn't (prehaps diffrent places have diffrent rules). There was only 3 people taking the exam and I wasn't the lead person (there was two of us) - not sure if that makes a difference?

Yes. Will quite obviously does need support and Clarrie's default support mode is to do everything for him. To be fair she did challenge him on the constant working thing a while back and he didn't take it well.