Thread #106: Jim’s in a jam, Peggy’s made a pickle and Lexi is blooming - sounds like the entries are lining up for this year’s flower and produce show, but who will be on the organising committee?

[Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]

Thank you, @PseudoBadger, for kicking off this long, long series of Archers threads and @DadDadDad for being our resident statistician and keeping the ball rolling when Pseudo stepped back a bit.

All views on The Archers welcome here! New blood welcomed. We don't all agree on all points and most of us are posting tongue in cheek a lot of the time, so don't worry about revealing that you'd like to be Susan's best friend or other unusual views.

Spoilers: not on this thread, please. We don't wait for the omnibus to discuss the weeknight episodes, but we do try our best to avoid cross-contamination from www.mumsnet.com/Talk/radio_addicts/3439443-keep-it-to-yourself-the-archers-spoilers-thread-4, where spoilers are positively welcomed!

For newer listeners, lurkers or those who just have no idea what we're talking about, DadDadDad has created this useful thread: 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 BOOP point for him! (See thread for explanation.)

Thanks to LillianGish for the title of this thread.

Holding episode tonight, I thought - not much progress on any current storyline. I was a touch surprised Natasha wasn't offended by the postnup idea but I suspect she's biding her time.

My apologies if I missed someone linking to this earlier on.

I hadn't seen that Tuktuktaker - thanks. I've just started reading it and the opening paragraph is slightly spoilerish in that it mentions something that hasn't yet happened in the episodes, although it is not that surprising.

Jim could easily have taken early retirement well before 65. Amongst the academics and other university employees I've known, some have been absolutely desperate to hang on as long as possible (into the 70s in a couple of cases, now that it's not possible to force an employee to retire at state retirement age) and others have been equally delighted to get early retirement, sometimes on medical grounds, but also just because they'd had enough. 10+ years ago Jim would have had no trouble at all persuading Stirling to let him go at well under 65. I think you could get retirement at 55 at one point, moving straight onto a pension, lump sum as well. With mortgage paid off, having a slightly reduced pension would be manageable. USS pensions have historically been excellent.

Oh, I'm sorry about that, DDD, I didn't realize there was a spoiler there (she says, trying to work out what the spoiler might be, not being at all bothered by spoilers herself!).

Oh, I'm not bothered by spoilers either, but I wanted to warn anyone who is (as I say, this one is fairly minor). Look at the second paragraph (sentence starting "With his long-kept...") and one of the names it mentions.

Ah, OK, DDD - didn't even click it was a spoiler! I think my definition of a spoiler would have been, oooh, I don't know, Vaness Whitburn going on the Today programme the morning after the screeeaaammmm and saying Nigel was dead

I wouldn't be surprised if that proved to be a mistake rather than a spoiler.

Only if Jim's date of birth is after 1 October 1939 (unlikely, surely, because then he could be 79 at most now and would have been 22 or younger when Alistair was born) could he have avoided National Service altogether - unless he was a conscientious objector

Or if he wasn't fit enough. My father missed National Service because he had appendicitis. By the time he was fit enough, they had scrapped it. (He was born May 1939.)

Interesting, EBearhug! My dad is 85 and had to do the full two years.

I think it was a much more invasive operation back then - he had a 6" scar, and I used to have a wicker basket he had made while convalescing, till it fell apart.

I couldn't listen. Waited for the catch up.
Well acted, but not what I want to hear in TA.
Not that it doesn't happen.

I’m going with it being a milestone birthday for Jim (hence the effort being made to mark it) so assuming he was born in June 1939, he was 8 in 1947. Harold could have been anything between 14 and late teens in 1947. That would make him late 80s now. Perfectly possible to be somewhere he really wanted to be with some planning- in spite of the wheelchair use. We also don’t know how disabled he is. He could still be able to stand and walk a bit. Options for travel include driving himself in an adapted vehicle, someone’ else doing so, train to (?Borcester, Felpersham, Hollerton), wheelchair to Ambridge. Accessible accommodation booked in advance.

I want to think his appearance uninvited was innocent but I don’t think it was. He apparently said nice things about Jim - maybe he wanted to see Jim again with no ulterior motive but I don’t believe it. I’d like to think Shula and Fiona will be told now. It would be awful for Fiona not to be told such a massive thing whe her brother knows. If nothing else it explains some of Jim’s behaviour and also shows that he sent them to boarding school after their mother died in order to protect them from Harold.

I think there was a discussion when Fiona was in Ambridge of who was the elder sibling. I thought she said she was younger but I’m really not sure. I think I’ll try to find out by listening back as I’ve nothing else on just now - was Fiona in one epi or two? The thing about Jim being a very young father doesn’t need to be I plausible - it could easily have been a shot gun wedding which was not unknown in the 60s, or ‚having to get married in a hurry‘ as my mum would have called it. Apart from the abuse SL, Jim might well have been an absent father because he was building his academic career.

Fiona is the younger sister. I think Jim must be 80 so I would put his abuser at 88 or 90 at most. Jim was only 8 so Harold would have seemed much older - even if only 16 (and 16 was older in those days bearing in mind people could leave school at 14). We’ve heard him described as the elderly gentleman in the wheelchair so that would be about right. I’m not sure if it quite fits in with him playing the piano all night - any musicians have an opinion on that? From the comments about him speaking very highly of Jim and the fact that he bothered to go along at all it feels as if he has entirely diminished what happened in his own mind as somehow consensual - though that doesn’t fit in with him telling the 8-year-old Jim he’d be punished by God if he breathed a word. I think we may have to allow a little dramatic licence for the reason Harold came along and his evident sprightliness in spite of his questionable age. That aside the story has been so convincingly played out - I hope it results in Jim, Alistair and Jazzer staying together in the bungalow as I love the dynamic of the three of them together.

Yeessss, Fiona is the younger sib. Just before the party that wasn’t a party. 7th June epi.

My post above, end of first para, should say wheelchair TAXI. I wasn’t suggesting H should trundle all the way or it now feels like that would have been too good for him.

though, not or. Aargh at my typing.

I’m still not entirely clear why Harold needed to be in a wheelchair. A stick would have done (to indicate age and incapacity) and would have made it more credible that he might just have hitched a lift there and back at the last minute on the spur of the moment. The wheelchair just begs too many questions - as anyone who has ever tried to organise even the simplest outing with a wheelchair will tell you.

I think they had him in a wheelchair simply to make him identifiable from the description.

Superb acting from the Prof, but so hard to listen to. What a blighted life.

Yes, the age profile of former colleagues etc would probably include quite a lot of stick- users.

I hope it results in Jim, Alistair and Jazzer staying together in the bungalow as I love the dynamic of the three of them together.

I'd be pretty sure they're going nowhere now.
How the heck they deflect prying questions now I don't know. I'm somewhat hoping that when (surely when not if) Susan starts speculating, that one or other tears her off a strip without divulging anything.

I think they’re safe from Susan’s prying eyes as she’s already onto the next thing. Natasha‘s back up above the shop with Tom; Emma and Ed are about to move, or not - whatever happens there they’re be lots for Susan to talk and think about. And of course it’s highly likely there’ll be a death in Ambridge fairly soon. [

Im puzzled about the wheelchair too - why bother if it’s not for a reason? Mind you, it’s made it easier for listeners to identify him as wheelchair man whereas, as someone‘s said there were probably several guests with sticks and grey hairs! It crossed my mind maybe it’ll be part of Wheelchair Man‘s defence but I can’t see how that would work. It far too contrived. I just hope Jim will get really good co7nselling . I can’t see them doing a court case now. Jim wouldn’t want it and they didn’t do the Rob and Helen court stuff that well. That reminds me - surely Rob will be back some time? Maybe ...

I can’t see them doing a court case now Harold is so old he’ll probably conveniently die in the manner of Heatherpet before it gets to court.

I know someone up-thread said they had some expertise on historical abuse cases, so I'll note that I'm just an armchair lawyer and say I can't see how this would ever get to court. Of course, as listeners we believe Jim because we know his character, but it's hard to see after all this time what other evidence could be presented in court that would convict Harold beyond reasonable doubt (assuming Harold would plead not guilty and so not offer any confession).

Maybe the police would interview Harold if Jim came forward, but that might not give much "closure" to Jim, especially if Harold flatly denies it.

Im puzzled about the wheelchair too - why bother if it’s not for a reason?

Why not? Disability and infirmity is a reality, especially in old people, it doesn't have to be a plot device. Though in this case it was a convenient way of identifying the uninvited guest unambiguously.

@ErrolTheDragon, yes, I think identifying him might be all there is to it. And I agree totally people with disabilities do need to be portrayed.
@DadDadDad., I agree there are lots of reasons why this wouldn’t go to court. I hope he gets good MH support - I can’t imagine getting to 80 with such a deep secret and thinking this can’t get any better.