🐷 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!

Also yes I do agree the system is sexist and assumes primary care is via mother than father but in this scenario it is the other way round. There should equally be assessment of the father which in this instance would be helpful regarding Chris

I would give you real life examples but I can’t as it is too identifiable. But there are some that’s not far off this.

When did this "asking women if they have children" procedure come in?

Check out From Our Own Correspondent this morning - foreign journalist turns Archers SW/production team member.

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

When did this "asking women if they have children" procedure come in?

Some time in the 2000s I imagine. Following the death of Victoria climbié lord laming and Eileen Munro carried out enquiries

Into failings to protect children particularly around sharing information and concerns. The working together to safeguard children guidance was published in 2010 I think and has been updated several times since that.
www.virtual-college.co.uk/resources/2010/05/working-together-to-safeguard-children-2010

@Tulips2019

Also yes I do agree the system is sexist and assumes primary care is via mother than father but in this scenario it is the other way round. There should equally be assessment of the father which in this instance would be helpful regarding Chris

The assessment will be of Martha which will cover both parents and other adults involved in her care

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.
Should Harrison have already made this referral, based on what he knew in a personal (not professional) capacity?

@R4

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. Should Harrison have already made this referral, based on what he knew in a personal (not professional) capacity?

Probably. He knows alice is an active alcoholic.

As Alice was drunk, I suspect she might have done her "woe is me act" while with the police. "I don't deserve my baby" or whatever. Not in a manipulative way, but drunken ramblings she can't help.

How did Alice get to the police station?

@JanFebAnyMonth

Here’s an explanation of the interplay between witness decisions and the CPS www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-offense/pressing-charges-a-criminal-act.htm

SO IT’s more “whether they’re prepared to give evidence” than “whether to press charges”

This is such an issue in domestic abuse cases that ways have been found of prosecuting without the victim’s involvement, I think.

That link takes me to a US site.

@ILoveShula

How did Alice get to the police station?

Going by what we heard Brian say, it seems likely that he and Jennifer drove her there and were waiting for the interview to finish so they could take her back to Ambridge.

Oh so do apologise for not spotting that was an American site! I wonder if the principles are the same, will look if I have time.

Interesting that some obviously aren’t aware of the paramount duty of all statutory (and other) services to protect minors. The system is far from perfect but better than it used to be.

And yes, thinking about it, Harrison should have made a safeguarding referral a while ago really.....
Oh dear.

@JanFebAnyMonth I didn't twig till I'd read nearly all of it and it started talking about Fifth Amendment or somesuch, then, of course, I realised an English site would have talked about CPS rather than "the prosecutor". It's roughly what I thought the situation was here

Harrison should have made a safeguarding referral a while ago really
Really? At what point? On the strength of Chris's unsupported 'confidences'? Or after he had failed to have Alice done for drink-driving and attempted tampering with constabulary equipment (viz one truncheon)? Could have been a bit awkward for him, that one.

The latter surely.

In which case he would have to fess up to not having arrested her for drunk-in-charge, which I suppose might be a teeny blot on his record. After all, she was drunk, sitting in a car (which she had driven there, but that isn't actually necessary for it to be an offence) and therefore drunk in charge of a motor vehicle.

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

In which case he would have to fess up to not having arrested her for drunk-in-charge, which I suppose might be a teeny blot on his record. After all, she was drunk, sitting in a car (which she had driven there, but that isn't actually necessary for it to be an offence) and therefore drunk in charge of a motor vehicle.

I think you have to have the engine turned on though it seems not clear cut

www.pdalaw.co.uk/services-for-you/road-traffic-offences/drunk-in-charge/

sparemonitor
AskingQuestionsAllTheTime
"In which case he would have to fess up to not having arrested her for drunk-in-charge, which I suppose might be a teeny blot on his record. After all, she was drunk, sitting in a car (which she had driven there, but that isn't actually necessary for it to be an offence) and therefore drunk in charge of a motor vehicle."

I think you have to have the engine turned on though it seems not clear cut

Individuals have been found guilty of drunk-in-charge when they were sitting in the car in a car-park, with the keys not in the ignition; and when they were not even in the car but leaning against it; and when their car was parked outside their house but they went out to collect something from it. So the engine presumably doesn't have to be turned on. Having the means to drive it and no other person present to do so, ie if you have its keys on you and would not have been only a passenger, can be held as being "in charge" of it.

www.themotoringlaw.uk/drunk-whilst-in-charge-of-a-motor-vehicle/

"It may come as a surprise to a lot of people that even if you are asleep in your car you can still be found guilty of being drunk in charge."

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/5

Part b of this

5 Driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above prescribed limit.
(1)If a person—
(a)drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, or
(b)is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place,
after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit he is guilty of an offence.

So Alice could challenge it in court and might be successful, but Burns' duty was clear: she was drunk, and she was in charge of a motor vehicle in a public place (a lay-by off a road); if he did not have a breathalyser in his car he ought to have called for a colleague who did have one to come and use it.

I’m not a criminal lawyer but isn’t it a power of arrest rather than a duty? Police officers have discretion as to how to respond to offences. That’s why all the sexual offences resulting in cautions was a mere scandal rather than anything requiring sanctions for the police (first thing I could think of).

@theThreeofWeevils

Harrison should have made a safeguarding referral a while ago really Really? At what point? On the strength of Chris's unsupported 'confidences'? Or after he had failed to have Alice done for drink-driving and attempted tampering with constabulary equipment (viz one truncheon)? Could have been a bit awkward for him, that one.

That’s exactly how safeguarding should work, yes - you do it before you may have clear evidence, because by that time it might be too late for that child.

Ideally he should have persuaded Chris to discuss the situation (Alice being alone with Martha and possibly drinking) with the GP or other professional.

It would have been awkward because "Well, a few days ago I found her drunk in charge of a vehicle so I gave her a lift home" doesn't sound too good when you are saying it to your superior officer after the woman in question has been lobbing bricks through shop windows while drunk.

you do it before you may have clear evidence

I may shortly take up an absorbing and rewarding new hobby, then: my neighbours who were raging pissed the other night have two young children, after all

While all Burns knew was what Chris told him, he also knew that the baby had one sober and righteous (arguably 'very, self-') parent and had no cause to be unduly anxious about it; once he had first-hand experience, he was (entirely through his own foolishness) professionally compromised, as Asking points out. I do hope our bold gendarme ends up in the shit about that.