🍾 Archers thread 123: Goodbye & good riddance to 2020 – to Philip too? The Archers is 70 on New Year’s Day – celebrate or vent about it here!

[Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]

Thank you, @PseudoBadger, for kicking off this long, long series of Archers threads.

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 wish we heard more from Shula, 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/3853783--The-Archers-spoilers-thread-5-Cant-wait-for-7-02pm-Join-us-here, 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.)

So! 2021 beckons. Big anniversary next Friday, 1.1.21 (and to mark that we have episodes Tuesday-Friday next week). What would we like to see happen? I may be in a minority of one, but I'd like a nice gentle character-driven episode. I don't think we'll get that, but I really, really hope they don't kill someone else off, just for the headlines.

[Title edited by MNHQ at OP'S request]

Quite a few years ago my dad had his drive block paved by a very pleasant chap and his non-English speaking workforce. He brought them pizza every lunch time. They did a great job but I was slightly suspicious then and evrn moreso now.

Xander is busy typing up his thesis.

Is there evidence for [David going fo rcheap]

Pretty much every time work has been done and he has regularly used Eddie whilst commenting about the dubious sourcing of materials and the "jobs for cash".

The barn/related work would not have been a small contract. Assuming he got several quotes, as a semi competent business owner he should have dug into the quote which was a lot cheaper (which I'm pretty sure Philip's quote was).

In that context I found the angsting a bit hypocritical.

They let Philip out on bail so, unless they think Kirsty is the mastermind, she should be out too. If Philip has been let out on bail, that would mean he's been charged? Kirsty may or may not be given bail once she's been charged but at the moment they're presumably trying to decide whetehr to charge her.

In that case according to the thread's expert with actual knowledge of what goes on in such cases, presumably the 4 days they are allowed to hold her without charge (no way this is a terrorism incident) if a magistrate agrees was up today, so we'll probably hear from or of her tonight. If they have decided to charge her we ought to hear that too.

David might have a point about tearing the barn down and starting again. Depends how it's reported locally. If the local Borchester press go to town they might report which works Moss was involved with. Who would want to get married in a barn built by slave labour?

Good grief, that was far too good for the 6.30pm slot!

Top episode.

Get a solicitor, Neil. And don't say another word to the police unless the solicitor is present. There are only two words you now ought to say without proper legal advice, and they are "no comment".

@MissBarbary

David might have a point about tearing the barn down and starting again. Depends how it's reported locally. If the local Borchester press go to town they might report which works Moss was involved with. Who would want to get married in a barn built by slave labour?

That would be a piece of pointless and blustering virtue-signalling and therefore perfectly in character for the idiot David. (Leaving the barn's questionable status as a listed structure that may or may not have burned down on one or more occasions). No doubt members of these (few and far between, hurrah!) wedding parties will have nipped to nail bars and had their cars cleaned in preparation for the Big Day: are the newly woke Dopeys going to demand certificates of ethical manicure and valeting? Thought not.

Another excellent episode. Really well-paced, and showing the spread of responsibility throughout Ambridge.

There is no responsibility whatever "spread through Ambridge". Not one of them was under any obligation whatsoever to set up inquisitions about their builders' affairs, and there is no obligation either to quiz your builders' labourers about their home-life.

Victim-blaming is an odious proceeding. A few of the inhabitants of Ambridge were conned: that is not something for which they deserve blame or censure. And only someone who has never bought anything at a bargain price is in a position to cast aspersions on them -- which means nobody who has ever bought anything from Amazon rather than a local shop where it was more expensive, for instance.

which means nobody who has ever bought anything from Amazon rather than a local shop where it was more expensive, for instance

That isn't like for like though. People buy online not just for cost but for range of options and convenience and the fact that in many stores the actual experience is a turn off rather than an inducement. Amazon is no cheaper than many other online stores and its easy to compare online store prices.

I've turned down quotes which were too good to be true unless the contractor could show me how the price was put together in a credible way. Similarly what business or public funded/charitable organisation doesn't get several quotes for a piece of work if only to satisfy due diligence for relevant interested parties?

The DC made a good point - Neil saw a number of different contracts with Philip, all of which were very cheap. As a business man himself he might reasonably be expected to wonder why the lifestyle and the staffing didn't align with pricing (but no more than David or Justin, both of whom were more directly grabbing at the cheap prices and had equal sight of Philips life/staffing).

Presumably next its Shula and Oliver for the work he did for the hunt kennels. Didn't he also do work at the stables? Is Jim the only member of the village who turned down Philp's promise to undercut everyone else?

I think the message that it’s everyone’s responsibility to be vigilant and to query anything that looks “too good to be true”, even if you think you know someone is very good.

Looking back, Jim didn’t want Moss anywhere near his extension. I wonder what set off his ‘spidey senses’. (I would have jumped at the chance to use a builder who was known to me and did good, cheap work).

Also looking back, Eddie was grumbling about being undercut by Moss a long time ago. I reckon Eddie is also quite cheap and doesn’t make much money from his odd jobs and patios.

As a business man himself

Neil, a 'business man'?

Good point about Neil. Neil saw what he wanted to see in Moss - a decent bloke like himself, doing the village a good turn.

Also looking back, Eddie was grumbling about being undercut by Moss a long time ago. I reckon Eddie is also quite cheap and doesn’t make much money from his odd jobs and patios

Yes and most of the village know that Eddie's sources are debatable to say the least.

I can see why how a Joy/similar having a patio laid or a few tiles fixed might be charmed into one quote by a "friend". I can see why a local business doing the playground for cost might be accepted as a donation to the community. Its the fact that so many of Philip's customers were both business owners themselves and knew he was undercutting the likes of Eddie on commercial work that seems odd.

Justin is morally more culpable, driving the prices down to take advantage of Moss’s predicament after the work dried up following Grey Gables.

Neil, a 'business man'?

Neil has built his own sucessful business, has worked on the commercial side of others and ran Berrow farm just fine until Hannah started playing games to undermine him (and whose own cost cutting cock ups actually lost money for Berrow). He also built his own house and was involved in costings/modeling for Berrow when he started there.

He was in a position to see a range of different contracts from Philip, not just the playground which he could reasonably say he thought was a donation from a local business.

Justin is morally more culpable, driving the prices down to take advantage of Moss’s predicament after the work dried up following Grey Gables

I agree, but its only a more extreme version of what others were doing. David also supplies supermarkets - I wonder if he would be at reputational risk in the same way that Berrow could be (albeit its presumably just reputation in David's case due to business size).

No doubt members of these (few and far between, hurrah!) wedding parties will have nipped to nail bars and had their cars cleaned in preparation for the Big Day: are the newly woke Dopeys going to demand certificates of ethical manicure and valeting? Thought not

What a strange comment. Firstly people are hypocrites. Secondly the nails/ valeting aren't necessarily slave labour. Thirdly even putting any hypocrisy in the wedding guests aside are they going to want to celebrate in a venue with that history?

The playground is neither here nor there. There isn't anything particularly suspicious in any reputable business offering to do that at cost/ cheap rates.

David and Ruth's barn, Grey Gables and Berrow Farm are a different kettle of fish. Of the 3 , the only one likely to be required to make a Modern Day Slavery Statement is Damara who obviously don't have processes in place.

Frankly, anyone daft enough to want to have their nuptials celebrated in a miasma of cowshit at the arse-end of beyond isn't going to be that bothered that the loos in the barn were put in by the lowest bidder for the job. Unless they back up and coat the bride in slurry.

Hysterical overreaction on the part of the ghastly Brookfield pair.

David and Ruth's barn

Didn't Philip do the Brookfield dairy as well or am I misremembering? Presumably whilst Damara is most at fault in terms of compliance, Grey Gables and Brookfield risk more reputationally in the local area.

I wonder if we will hear from other local businesses who turned down Philip for work. Who did the work at the Bull after flooding or Elizabeth's work when they added some more rooms for people attending functions?

I actually worry about Alan. Not only does he seem to hand out work at St Stephens without going through the proper C of E procedures. But not only did he employ Philip, he also employed Tim Oatey (he menaced Ed whilst fixing some fencing or something at St Stephen's).

I'm still hoping that Joy will turn out to be undercover. It would account for the inconsistencies in her back story and maybe even why Rochelle doesn't visit.

Victim-blaming is an odious proceeding. A few of the inhabitants of Ambridge were conned: that is not something for which they deserve blame or censure.

Rubbish, in what way are they victims? They got the work done, to a good standard, cheaply, without asking any questions. Now we’re starting to hear just how cheaply - undercutting Eddie, and Justin clearly knew the work was done at less than cost price. We can argue about the level of responsibility of the various villagers, but I’m not accepting them being painted as victims. Victim blaming is the inevitable talk of “well why didn’t the workers leave? There weren’t any chains, they were left alone a lot, they could have talked to anyone.” I guarantee you, if we don’t hear that said, it’ll be being said in living rooms and kitchens around the country.