🐷 Archers thread #127: Discuss the boars and sows of Ambridge here - or should that be bores and soused? You decide.

[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’d love to live opposite Joy, 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/4197199--The-Archers-spoilers-thread-6-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.)

These threads normally last around a month. When I started the last one, we were bracing ourselves for the Mystery Play, but that storyline, which had never exactly set the airwaves on fire, fizzled out and has (I hope) gone away, never to return.

@LillianGish proposed a new thread title which I'll use instead as a scene-setter for this thread. What a carry on - Nurse (Ben), Sergeant (Harrison), Camping (Kate), Jack (either one of them), Regardless (all of us for continuing to tune tune in)

What a carry on, indeed! Other storylines sputtering away:

• Alice, Chris, Martha - Have they split up, and if so where is Alice living? Will there be a christening and who will be godparents? When will the Aldridges and Carters find out about Alice's drinking? Too much to hope that Alice will get blind drunk at the christening party in full view of the entire village, I suppose. I'm still clinging to my hope that she lamps Alan after a suggestion that they pray together.

• Will Rex find a new home for his pigs? If Elizabeth weakens, will the pigs escape and disrupt the Lower Loxley life drawing event on Monday? Might they stampede, knock Ross out and devour him?

• Will Jazzer go to work for Neil? (This isn't exactly a cliffhanger. Of course he will.)

• Will Justin bury Lilian under the patio? Not a jury in the land would convict him, I feel, if they were played a recording of that appalling cackle and her gloating about the daffodil photograph.

• Will the life drawing event on Monday be a brilliantly amusing interlude, exemplifying how to write character-driven drama, with both comic and more serious moments? Answer: No, obviously. I may have to listen from behind a cushion.

There are more. I find myself struggling to care.

Oh, and one final mention - I've proposed a webchat with the Archers editor. @MayIDestroyYou's idea. You'll find it here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/4231475-Webchat-idea-The-Editor-of-The-Archers-Or-another-Archers-production-team-representative

Over to you!

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

That's a big "if".

It's really not a big if It's totally normal practice for police to notify children's services when a person gets arrested and they have children. It's also perfectly normal practice for the screening social worker to phone the parents to discuss the referral. I'm just surprised it hasn't happened earlier. It's totally NOT normal practice for adult social care to contact people who are drunk and commit criminal damage. That's not their remit.

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

That's a big "if".

Oops I responded to a totally different if which was in my mind and not in what you wrote Mea culpa!

Phew! For a minute there you had me worried that I had completely missed some other point in your post; I was merely being rude realistic about the likelihood of them getting it right.

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

Phew! For a minute there you had me worried that I had completely missed some other point in your post; I was merely being rude realistic about the likelihood of them getting it right.

I've got the insomnia and the night before last didn't sleep at all so I really had no business doing anything yesterday evening the state my head was in! Reading comprehension not at peak

Wasn't the whole point that Alish didn't have to drive to get to the village shop, and she was using needing to drive to take her thirst custom elsewhere as leverage in her negotiation with Jim?

They could still have made the point (about reporting her for driving) whether she had to drive from the village shop or go back home to fetch the car. And just possibly it might have made her think twice about carrying out her threat.

@Beeeeeeeeeeeeeep

The police would have reported it to social services. It's standard.

Is it, when the person in question doesn't have responsibility for anyone who is vulnerable? Even if Alice told them she had a baby, they would have established very quickly that she isn't being allowed to look after her.

But it would have only have been her telling them she wasn’t being allowed to look after it. In their line of work, they can’t take the word of an alcoholic/accused person.

From Our Own Correspondent is on R4 now, and apparently will be having a report from Ambridge in this edition.

@JanFebAnyMonth

But it would have only have been her telling them she wasn’t being allowed to look after it. In their line of work, they can’t take the word of an alcoholic/accused person.

If the police report to the social services everyone who (on a single occasion that they know of) gets violent when drunk, it really isn't surprising if the social services are unable to cope with their caseload.

@Jaichangecentfoisdenom

From Our Own Correspondent is on R4 now, and apparently will be having a report from Ambridge in this edition.

Thanks! Started a few seconds before11.54. Emma Jane Kirby. I was unclear whether she's doing a piece on TA for News or another programme, or whether she's joined the production team in some capacity.

So was she, but I think what was going on may have been that she was allowed to sit in on an editorial meeting, really.

She's the mother. She has parental responsibility. Of course she's responsible for her, even if she's not currently looking after her. It's not the police's job to determine HOW children are being safeguarded - that's why they refer to social services.

@JanFebAnyMonth

But it would have only have been her telling them she wasn’t being allowed to look after it. In their line of work, they can’t take the word of an alcoholic/accused person.

As I say, police don't investigate who is looking after the children of people who come to their notice, that's why they refer to social services.

Why would they refer someone on a (potential) drunk and disorderly charge to social services, was my point.

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

Why would they refer someone on a (potential) drunk and disorderly charge to social services, was my point.

They refer all incidents where there are connected children to social services.

Sorry, by they in my post I meant social services not the police!

@Jaichangecentfoisdenom

From Our Own Correspondent is on R4 now, and apparently will be having a report from Ambridge in this edition.

So interesting to know that every storyline is meticulously researched and that if something is written or suggested it may be challenged by a team member saying "you can't do that - Shula already had one installed 15 years ago".

Beeeeeeeeeeeeeep
They refer all incidents where there are connected children to social services.

Really? I find this exceedingly hard to believe.

Which bit of social services? On what basis?

The Police routinely refer to Social Services regarding a drunk and violent parent; they can’t necessarily establish who is caring for the child and what boundaries are in place, hence asking Social Services to explore further. And I have arrived on people’s doorsteps and been called “Social” (& worse) but you have to do that so you know what is going on

Does that include fathers who get drunk of a Friday night, or only mothers? And do the fathers/mothers always tell the police "oh, while you're arresting me, I have three kids"? Do people with no previous police record have all their details stored in a huge dark database somewhere, complete with all their family circumstances?

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

Beeeeeeeeeeeeeep They refer all incidents where there are connected children to social services.

Really? I find this exceedingly hard to believe.

Which bit of social services? On what basis?

Children's services MASH usually On the basis that where people with responsibility for children get drunk and commit crimes someone with the power to do so needs to check out whether the kids are safe Not sure why you are finding that hard to believe? Most referrals don't result in assessments but they all get screened with a phone call at least.

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

Does that include fathers who get drunk of a Friday night, or only mothers? And do the fathers/mothers always tell the police "oh, while you're arresting me, I have three kids"? Do people with no previous police record have all their details stored in a huge dark database somewhere, complete with all their family circumstances?

A) yes B) obviously they don't always know there are children involved but where they do, they refer it C) no, but basic checks can be carried out and people do often disclose they have children when asked. Most people don't want to lie to police unnecessarily. Gets them in more trouble.

So on what basis would the police report Alice to anyone? They do not have the relevant information about her having a young baby unless she foolishly volunteered it, and from experience I will tell you that they do not ask all women of child-bearing age whom they arrest whether they have young children or not.

In fact, I'm not sure that we have even been told they arrested her; they invited her to the police station for an appointment.

Jim and Susan would have been spoken to by Police so they would have identified she had daughter. Alice may not have volunteered this information but they would have.

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

So on what basis would the police report Alice to anyone? They do not have the relevant information about her having a young baby unless she foolishly volunteered it, and from experience I will tell you that they do not ask all women of child-bearing age whom they arrest whether they have young children or not.

In fact, I'm not sure that we have even been told they arrested her; they invited her to the police station for an appointment.

Well this is the archers not real life and they don't always follow RL procedures but if alice disclosed she had a baby during interview (and they would have asked her if she had children) they would have referred on the basis that she was drunk and threw a brick through a shop window. Then it becomes the responsibility of the statutory body tasked with assessing risk to children to assess whether the child was safe or not.