🐴 Archers thread 124: And they're off! Pip on a high horse, Kirsty champing at the bit to find the lost ‘horses’, Alice on the wagon (or is she riding for a fall?). Discuss The Archers 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 think Shula would make a brilliant vicar, 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.)

Thanks to @PoulePouletteEternellement for the equine theme to the new thread title. I wanted to work in Rex being a dark horse and lots of others too, but (you may feel fortunately) there's a character limit for the title.

I wonder if this thread will see us through to the end of February. The last one filled up in under a month, which was like old times. All depends on what delights are in store for us in the coming weeks, I suppose. I'm hoping that Gavin has spilled the beans on Victoria, she's also arrested, and the lads are found. Having said that, I'm not confident that in the real world they would get the support and care they need to turn their lives around and get proper jobs. It was good to hear on the last thread from @Trickyboy, who has professional experience of investigating this vile crime. Any comments on how things turn out in the long run for those rescued?

@Taswama, I liked that too, and yet she wasn’t saying birth was fab for everyone (and we know that it isn’t) but that’s how it was for her. And Alice seemed to get that.

As I was reading I was trying to make a mental note of who said things I wanted to comment on. Of course none of the points has stayed, alas. Something I was thinking though is that Kirsty’s unraveling isn’t just because of Philip and the slaves. Rather it’s the cumulative effect of all the major life events of recent years. Being jilted by Tom, Helen’s problems with Rob, losing her own baby. She thought too she was settled with Phil (even though he didn’t want another child) and he’s let her down too.And she isn’t grieving for any of that while she’s trying to save the lads. I wonder how it’ll end for Kirsty- I fear more is to come for her.

And something I must tell you - there’s an Inspector Burns in Police Scotland’s Tayside division! I read about him on the BBC news. I can’t help wondering if he’s a long lost cousin of Harrison’s.

I think Kirsty is having some kind of breakdown.
I didn’t used to mind Shula too much, but am beginning to actively dislike her, so sanctimonious.

The most useful thing Kirsty could do would be to think long and hard and write everything down, then pass it to the police.

However, if she did so, she would remember things that were a bit "off" at the time, such as discovering that Phil was describing himself as Blake's uncle when Blake was in hospital, then claiming that he was friendly with Blake's parents, although he hadn't mentioned this to Kirsty previously.

Throwing herself into the ludicrous and potentially dangerous quest to find the lads may be helping her to ignore the obvious.

Also - we know that Kirsty knows that Philip wasn't paying his workers but was giving them board and lodgings. But does she know that Philip sold them. Philip didn't tell her that, so how does she know? Did the police tell her her? In which case they must have been told by Gavin and must have leads to follow.

Did Kirsty hear him calling himself Blake's uncle? Wasn’t it Roy who questioned it? Was K there too, or maybe Roy told her? We need Roy to get his thinking cap on (I know he doesn’t come over as especially bright but he can surely analyse stuff, especially as Kirsty’s lodging with him still?). Or maybe she’s back at the big house? I can’t remember.

My recollection was that Kirsty was surprised to hear, via Roy, that Philip was describing himself as Blake's uncle, whereupon Philip told Kirsty that he had known Blake's parents when Blake was a small child.

Given that Harrison and Roy and so on seem to be all on matey, let's go out for socially distanced birthday drinks, terms, you would think the Philip being Blake's "uncle" would come out in chat at some point.

What I don’t get is why no-one’s thought of asking (actually sorry) Gavin what happened to Kenzie etc. He might not know where they are but he knows they were sold and who bought them.

Has Kirsty ever explained at any point why she thinks she can find the slaves but the police can't?

WitchWife presumably the police have asked Gavin?

We don't know what's going on behind the scenes...

Oh I’m sure they have, but I mean if Shula can visit Philip surely she or even Kirsty could visit Gavin?

@Nith

Has Kirsty ever explained at any point why she thinks she can find the slaves but the police can't?

And no! He’s not exactly a mastermind I imagine you could just go down Philip’s texts and see which one says “drop the slaves at the hollow tree at midnight” and then trace it...

It would be quite funny if Kirsty finally tracked the slaves down and self-righteously turned up to rescue them, only to find the police found them weeks ago, that they've been put into a comfortable home and found decent jobs, and can't think what on earth she's talking about.

I usually like Kirsty, honest, but this SL is annoying me.

I usually like Kirsty, honest, but this SL is annoying me.

It's really difficult to get the balance right in a public awareness storyline isn't it? I thought there were so many good points about using modern slavery, for instance, that victims could be from the UK or that very cheap tenders might mean that people weren't being paid properly. However, the good work risks being undone if the storyline is being overdone, as it is here. There were some good posts on Twitter about how Kirsty's difficulties have been so publicly displayed in Ambridge - the wedding that never was, the miscarriage, and now this - so her Kirsty's reaction is driven by a sense of cumulative shame. There were suggestions she may have PTSD. However, if all we hear is Kirsty being unreasonable then we lose sympathy. Although to be fair, I hadn't actually realised that Kirsty did not know the slaves were sold on so wandering round spots where there are homeless people makes more sense.

I also think the scriptwriters did the same with Helen and coercive control. The one they did get right was Jack Woolley's dementia and, to link up with earlier posts about the actors, it was June Spencer (who cared for her husband) and Arnold Peters (recently diagnosed with dementia) who gave them the idea.

I have always imagined Kirsty to be one of the more streetwise residents of Ambridge.

She's turning forty this year, not 21, and has surely had enough experience of the law to know what she is doing is ill advised.

I'm not convinced that she would even recognise the three boys, or they her.

It all feels a bit too contrived at the moment.

I think that Kirsty is likely to be having some sort of a breakdown, and isn't thinking clearly. When you get a huge shock, your mind is all over the place and you can end up focusing on something that you shouldn't.

Angela Piper is exactly as I'd imagine JD to be. Not dissimilar to Judy Bennett, but more JD and less Shula.

I don't agree that Shula was sanctimonious, someone had to tell Kirsty the legal issues about going after the boys. And has for trying to get her to lie to Philip. It didn't seem like Kirsty at all. I did find Shula's forthrightness uncharacteristic, thought she would have declined it in a kinder way.

I see it all as a heavy-handed plot device to isolate Kirsty in the SL; no friends, going it alone.

Oh, you mean the way they cut Helen off from everyone so she could be the lone lorn woman against the evil oppressor Rob? Makes sense.

I listen to quite a lot of true crime podcasts, it's my guilty secret. If I was listening to an account of the Philip/kirsty story I would assume Kirsty was as guilty as sin and had probably been the driving force in the slavery issue. I am astounded that she isnt bring hauled in for questioning on a regular basis.

Sometime soon someone (Susan) is going to start asking if Kirsty is really as innocent as she says. To be honest I’m a bit surprised that everyone is taking her word for it so readily.

Caught a bit of the film this morning and was struck by a) Neil not being able to get hold of Alan. b) Alan being very busy with an upcoming conference (worshipping in the modern day??? - is this a real thing anyone) and then c) Shula to take a message before hesitating to articulate that message. Felt all a bit too contrived to me.

I did listen to the original episode during the week.

@Chemenger

Sometime soon someone (Susan) is going to start asking if Kirsty is really as innocent as she says. To be honest I’m a bit surprised that everyone is taking her word for it so readily.

I suppose it's because they've known Kirsty fairly well for twenty years and more, and she has always been a slightly ineffectual and well-meaning do-gooder; the rest of the village would laugh in Susan's face if she suggested it. It's not like (for instance) slanderously asserting that someone who has been around for a year or so is a compulsive gambler, is it.

(How many of the people in the True Crime podcasts has one known for twenty years, after all?)

It’s always the quiet ones. Couldn’t resist the nice house, the fancy Christmas lights...

@Chemenger

It’s always the quiet ones. Couldn’t resist the nice house, the fancy Christmas lights...

Exactly this. People keep worse things quiet for longer (sadly).

Sorry that was unclear - as in, I’m not sure everyone would just take her at her word, because people keep dreadful things hidden for years and years, hence the ‘he always seemed like such a nice man’ from neighbours after serial killers or whatnot are found.

It just occurred to me that Kirsty's slightly deranged plotting reminds me of Emma trying to touch people for money for the house. Both driven by a sort of desperation.