🐴 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

Does Philip actually believe in his own innocence? Or is he an incredibly good actor aka a psychopath?

I think he's from the Donald Trump school of truth and self delusion, so maybe he really does believe he's an innocent man.

If Shula is a lay Reader then she is able to give pastoral advice already. I say 'if' as I've never been aware of her doing anything a Reader would usually be involved in,but maybe I've missed that.

I thought the prison scene was well written and at least demonstrated clearly that Shula has a conscience and Philip hasn't.

@Langsdestiny

I thought Shulas reasons for leaving Alistair were perfectly reasonable, I imagine that lots of marriages end for the reason that someone just doesnt want to do it anymore. It's probably a more common reason than a marriage ending because someone has shagged everything that moves and then persuaded their wife to bring up their child by their dead mistress.

But it's all a bit odd when you claim to be godly and fully on board with the teachings of the C of E, and have made solemn promises in church to stick together for better, for worse etc till death do you part.

Does Philip actually believe in his own innocence? Or is he an incredibly good actor aka a psychopath? I think one of the purposes of the prison scene was to firmly establish (for anyone who was still in any doubt) that it's the latter. Philip vainly and naively assumed that Shula's religious convictions would result in her being prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. She did not. Philip may have done very well hiding in plain sight for so long, but what is great about this story is that once you can see it you can't not see it anymore and while Philip may be a convincing liar while no-one is challenging his lies, his reaction is very different once the doubt sets in and he has to defend himself.

If Shula is a lay Reader then she is able to give pastoral advice already

Even in the more diffiicult cases?

I say 'if' as I've never been aware of her doing anything a Reader would usually be involved in,but maybe I've missed that

I recall her training to do something related to her taking non communion services in some the the churches without their own full time priest. Would that be called a lay reader? (not familiar with the lay hierarchy in the CoE)

This. But it's all a bit odd when you claim to be godly and fully on board with the teachings of the C of E, and have made solemn promises in church to stick together for better, for worse etc till death do you part.

You don't get divorced just because you are bored.

C8H10N4O2
Yes that would fall within a Lay Reader's remit. I mustn't have been paying attention when she did her training, or maybe she discussed it with Alan and I zoned out.

There ought to be the odd reference to her conducting a funeral,non communion service elsewhere,preaching etc. It does involve rigorous training so Shula ought to be well on the way to being considered a suitable ordination candidate. Not sure why she's having so much angst about it.

I don't see why she shouldn't be trying to give Philip pastoral / spiritual help. I doubt the Archbishop of Canterbury would have had much more success!

Shula and Marjorie Antrobus trained as lay readers at the same time, so they would be able to take services at a time when there was no vicar in the parish, before Alan existed I mean sorry arrived.

I think in fact it may have been back before Janet took over as vicar in Ambridge as well as Darrington, which would make it 1995. It might even have been before that, when the parish had the non-stipendiary Robin Stokes as part-time vicar between 1991 and 1995, after Jerry Buckle went to Mozambique. It isn't mentioned in Lowfield, which starts in 1996; I rather assume it had been forgotten about again by the editorial team before that.

Arobase
But it's all a bit odd when you claim to be godly and fully on board with the teachings of the C of E, and have made solemn promises in church to stick together for better, for worse etc till death do you part.

Shula and Alistair got married in a civil ceremony in Borchester Register Office and God won't have been mentioned at it (we were not allowed anything to do with God at ours, not even words from the old prayer-book), so she's probably decided that doesn't count as far as God is concerned.

Does Philip actually believe in his own innocence? I don't believe anyone sets out to do something that is against their own moral code. We all look after "our own". Where people differ is in who they include as "our own" - their own family, their home town, their social class, their religious group, their nation, even the whole world. Philip draws this line very tightly - it consists of just him. Even Kirsty and Gavin can be harmed if it's in Philip's interests, and the "horses" are just losers who are better off being fed and housed by him than on the streets (in his mind). But I have no doubt he thinks what he is doing is moral, even though he knows that no-one else sees it that way, and therefore he has to dress it up for outside consumption.

I have a friend who is a CofE lay-reader. It took her about 3 years of study that occupied most of her time outside work. Even with a full time vicar, she is heavily involved in Church activities, planning and leading services and other activities. We haven't been seeing Shula so involved during her years as lay-reader.

Re Philip, I think people do tend to find some way of justifying to themselves what they do, even quite evil things. So I suspect he genuinely does believe that he was doing his workers a favour, conveniently blocking out the fact that he punished them by taking away leisure facilities, called them horses, made Blake work when he was unfit to do so, and sold them on to someone who notoriously ill-treated people. But he must know the truth in his heart of hearts, otherwise why work so hard to keep it all from Kirsty?

Also re Phil: I'm reminded of a striking line in one of the Antonia Forest Kingscote books where one of them speculates about Lois whatsit and wonders out loud how she justifies her more shitty conduct to herself, pointing out something to the effect that few if any people really want to go to bed at night thinking about how they are shafting others.

I mustn't have been paying attention when she did her training, or maybe she discussed it with Alan and I zoned out

A problem with which I entirely empathise.

It does involve rigorous training so Shula ought to be well on the way to being considered a suitable ordination candidate. Not sure why she's having so much angst about it

I remember her training, don't remember it being so long lasting or rigourous - in my head three months rather than three years but I could be imagining that. Almost as if she did Lay Reader Lite. This could my my memory or the LSWs wanting a faster solution.

I also don't remember her taking funerals, just non communion services. Presumably they wouldn't do marriages as that's a sacrament?

@MereDintofPandiculation

I have a friend who is a CofE lay-reader. It took her about 3 years of study that occupied most of her time outside work. Even with a full time vicar, she is heavily involved in Church activities, planning and leading services and other activities. We haven't been seeing Shula so involved during her years as lay-reader.

That's why I'm a bit baffled that Shula is searching her soul or whatever. She should be well informed about the job seeing as she's been a reader for so long. What has she been doing,apart from getting dodgy quotes?!

What has she been doing,apart from getting dodgy quotes?!

Its exhausting making everything about herself, she simply doesn't have the time!

I don't believe anyone sets out to do something that is against their own moral code.
There is also the 'boiling frog' syndrome. You do something slightly off colour, then something more dodgy and then - before you know it - something downright immoral and illegal. It's a slippery slope. And, once you are down that route, it is difficult to climb back out of it.
Phil may have been a nice guy once but I think that was probably a long time ago.

@C8H10N4O2

What has she been doing,apart from getting dodgy quotes?!

Its exhausting making everything about herself, she simply doesn't have the time!

I think Philip knows what he’s done is seen as against the law, but he considers the law to be wrong, because he does see himself as a philanthropist, saving them from a worse life of homelessness and drugs and so on. And in one sense, he’s right in that they probably were safer in his house and learning a trade, they probably wouldn't have got decent support from the under-funded proper authorities. But he could have done that and paid them and taken less profit, or supported them to fill in forms to claim benefits and so on, if he really couldn't afford to pay wages, and in any case, given them freedom to leave at any time. Selling them on should have removed any self-delusion that he was just acting out of the goodness of his heart and not profit, though I agree that when he started, he probably didn't imagine that would be where he ended up.

I think he doesn't understand at all how Kirsty doesn't see it his way, he doesn't understand that she feels betrayed - because he compartmentalises, he can't see that him having slaves is anything to do with her, and in any case, she should understand he was doing a good thing. He's not as surprised about Gavin, because Gav has always been a bit of a disappointment, so turning himself in and betraying Philip is no surprise, because he was always a bit weak and easily open to manipulation by enemies such as the police, who don't recognise what a good man Philip is.

But if people just listened to Philip they'd realise the law is wrong, and he is almost saintly in what he's done.

I got married in Church, consider myself a Christian, and am going through divorce - somewhat stronger reasons than Shula but not very strong ones (eg. adultery etc.). And actually it might have been better if we'd done it when the grounds were a bit more nebulous.

I think the SWs forgot all about her being a lay reader - except for a radom mention of her leading a service. At my old church the lay readers tended to go to the "staff meeting" along with the curates etc.But then Shula did stop going to St Stephen's for a bit.

(It's also interesting that they never mention how St Stephen is one of the worst saints to be dedicated to, as you always have to have a service on Boxing Day).

But then Shula did stop going to St Stephen's for a bit

Ah yes when the upright two timer with the hots for Alan had entirely genuine and solely spiritual issues with the vicarage having a visible sign of a faith of the woman whose fiance she shagged and who married her pet vicar.

She'd already been made to feel thoroughly unwelcome at St Stephens by Usha, when she'd finally had enough and told Alan that, no, she wouldn't help him out by doing services for him all over the county. The statue of Ganesh was just a last straw moment, not the cause in itself. (Have we any reason to think Usha's faith particularly important to Usha, apart from wanting to get married in it? That was the only time she ever mentioned it, I suspect, apart from telling Alan early on that she didn't eat beef but was fine with other meat.)

I think the lay reader training was when it looked as if Ambridge might not having a vicar for the foreseeable future. Shula is probably thinking of becoming a vicar because she thinks it will be just the same as what she and Marjorie were planning then, only with communion.

(Have we any reason to think Usha's faith particularly important to Usha, apart from wanting to get married in it? That was the only time she ever mentioned it, I suspect, apart from telling Alan early on that she didn't eat beef but was fine with other meat.)

I can recall a few conversations where she discussed it - not many but more than I've heard from say, comparable CoE members of St Stephens. It isn't something people generally go around discussing unless asked IME.

I think you are over generous to Shula. She was ridiculously possessive over Alan as well as being the OW in Usha's break up with the doc. The vicarage was her home not just Alan's office - why should Usha be "welcoming" to Shula in her home? Maintaining a business/St Stephens relationship was Alan's job.

The acts of unwelcoming were not about the home, they were about the church. Usha made a point of interfering in anything Shula did -- like for instance taking up bell-ringing until she had driven Shula away from it.

And as I said, the Ganesh wasn't causal: it was a final small thing added to all the others.

Also, Shula didn't take Richard away from Usha: she didn't take him at all. She said no. He went away, which is definitely not the same as going away with Shula.

Cooo ... Has Pip actually met her match?

If it wasn't Dry January, I'd have cracked open a bottle to celebrate Pip abandoning rewilding (more scope for her to storm off to Canada/New Zealand once Covid travel restrictions are lifted).

Was it just Peggy that stopped going to St Stephens when Janet was vicar?

Re Phillip, my brother is a narcissist along with other lovely traits. He's never apologised for anything and is a bully. He is utterly charming and utterly awful within two seconds. He lies to himself and I think genuinely believes his narrative even when you were there and know what he saying is rubbish. He just changes it to suit his perspective. I believe Phillip has those tendencies.

Loved the sound of disappointment from Pip at the ending today. I do hope she regrets her decision and leaves Ambridge for good as a result.