🤐 The Archers spoilers thread #7: Can't wait for 7.02pm? Join us here!

[Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]

Spoilers thread for The Archers. Please keep all spoiler-related discussion in this thread and do not spill the beans on the main Archers Thread (hence the zipped mouth on the emoji!). Last spoilers thread here: www.mumsnet.com/talk/radio_addicts/4197199--The-Archers-spoilers-thread-6-Cant-wait-for-7-02pm-Join-us-here

Current main Archers thread here: www.mumsnet.com/talk/radio_addicts/4632741-archers-thread-139-whos-the-daddy-no-ceremonial-required-to-join-us-discuss-the-archers-here The main thread tends to last a few weeks. The spoiler thread runs for well over a year, but I strongly suspect it gets read about as much as the main thread.

I am suspicious of Erin. It all seems a bit quick.
Martyn Gibson must have the same comedy moustache as Geowurge.

Martyn Gibson must really hate Neeyull. Poor man, though (MG, not N), everybody but George hates him when really, by Ambridge standards, he is only quite moderately ghastly.

Oo-er, Anna Tregorran is back in the cast list next week.

Wow when was she last around? Helen’s trial?

Emerging from lurkerdom to comment on the baby modelling SL, which has some plausible elements but doesn't entirely ring true.

There are 2 components to child modelling payments. The studio fee is paid for the time actually spent doing the shoot, and is usually only in the region of a few hundred pounds at most. The real money comes from the buyout, which is a lump sum one-off payment intended to replace payment of ongoing royalties every time the images are used commercially (because the size of the buyout is a reflection of how much and how widely the images are going to be used). FIve-figure buyouts do happen BUT I've only come across them for big-brand companies where the images will be distributed internationally. It seems a bit far-fetched to think that an ad campaign for an agricultural chemical company would warrant a life-changing buyout sum (a couple of thousand each would be more realistic).

Legally, Tom and Natasha can't use the twins' modelling earnings themselves. Fees earned by child models and actors must go into bank accounts in the child's name and the majority kept as savings until age 18.

Twins are sought-after by baby modelling agencies, but it's usually identical twins that they're particularly keen on because then both babies can be cast as the same child. There are strict limits for working hours for babies and children, so being able to sub in an identical baby to portray the same child makes good financial sense because it doubles the length of time available for a shoot. Having a "spare" also means that the shoot can continue if one twin is crying or uncooperative, or needs changing/feeding/a nap.

Are Pinky and Perky identical? I'd sort of assumed that they weren't on the grounds of them having been predicted to be a girl and a boy, and I don't think I've heard anyone mentioned them being identical.
I know quite a lot of twins but can only think of two sets where I can't tell them apart, even as babies, most looked very similar but not identical.

I'm still suspicious about Erin.

WhoppingBigBackside
Are Pinky and Perky identical? I'd sort of assumed that they weren't on the grounds of them having been predicted to be a girl and a boy, and I don't think I've heard anyone mentioned them being identical.

We have heard it mentioned on air more than once that they look different from each other.

@TheatreTaxi welcome! I don't think the company (have seen it online as Schaeffer Baas, I'd pictured as Shaef Abbas for some reason) is just an agrochemical company, I think it's more like a sort of ginormous Unilever type company that makes lots of different kinds of things. I was presuming (can't remember if we heard) that the babies would be marketing skincare/babymilk/nappies sort of thing.

Thanks Asking. I seem to recall that Nova was bigger than Sarin, but wasn't sure. I thought that the normal response to twins was 'Are they identical?' regardless of whether they were a boy and a girl, or quite obviously not identical.

Added bonus for other standard comments like ''Are you disappointed they are both girls? or 'What a shame she has ginger hair'. Can you tell I'm a flame-haired younger daughter?

@GoldenCupidon , I heard it as Sheaffer Bass and thought pens and beer.

Thanks for the info on photoshoot fees, @TheatreTaxi! Sounds as if the production team have, as so often before, gone out and asked for info on a storyline, or (these days) simply had a quick Google, and put various things they've learned together which are individually possible but in real life would never all happen together in the way they've decided. A Frankenstein storyline, if you like.

I think the writers may have done some cursory googling and discovered that buyouts are a thing and child modelling agencies like to have twins on their books, but not delved any deeper. I had the impression from the comments that various characters made when looking at the images from the twins' first photoshoot that both babies were in the pictures, which suggests that the scriptwriters haven't quite grasped the the reason that twins are popular for modelling!

Point taken about Schaeffer Bass being more than an agrochemical company (though not convinced that baby product ads from a company like this would = swoon-inducing buyout). I may have misremembered, but when Tom and Natasha were debating whether to accept the modelling job, didn't Natasha say something about the images only being used for in-house promo material? That wouldn't fit with a life-changing buyout sum either. The only 10K+ buyouts I've come across have been for massive ad campaigns for companies like Coca-Cola or huge clothing brands (I have a DC involved in professional acting and know kids who do modelling alongside acting).

I imagined that the photos would be used world-wide in ad campaigns, and that it was a one-off payment. The amount IMO was a 5 figure sum each.

I can't understand why Pinky and Perky would be that special. Wouldn't they just look like two babies? Unless the associations with the ads will be so bad that no other parents would want to be associated with the brand.

Presumably the scriptwriters needed to engineer a reason for Tony and Tom to have a serious falling-out, but like lots of other SL lately it all feels a bit contrived and implausible.

No wonder Anna's back in next week!

Just listened. BOOP for Hannah!
We got the doof doofs.

But isn't Anna a barrister? What would be her function at this point, given that there is no immediate reason for a court case?

Same as it was last time: all the running around that is generally done by a solicitor?

Spoilers time is here again:

BBC One-Liners
21 May Ian has concerns for a friend and Chris finds himself very much in demand.
22 May Helen fears the worst, and Susan is on a mission.
23 May Alice is determined to mark an occasion, and Tracy has reservations.
24 May Old feelings stir for Adam, and Tom strikes a controversial deal.
25 May Oliver makes a surprising offer, and emotions run high for Pat.
26 May Helen seeks advice from an old friend and there’s tension at Tracy’s hen night.

Credits
Sun 21/5/2023, Mon 22/5/2023, Tue 23/5/2023, Wed 24/5/2023, Thu 25/5/2023, Fri 26/5/2023
Writer, Daniel Thurman
Director, Jess Bunch
Editor, Jeremy Howe
Helen Archer: Louiza Patikas
Pat Archer: Patricia Gallimore
Tom Archer: William Troughton
Tony Archer: David Troughton
Lee Bryce: Ryan Early
Alice Carter: Hollie Chapman
Chris Carter: Wilf Scolding
Susan Carter: Charlotte Martin
Ian Craig: Stephen Kennedy
Emma Grundy: Emerald O'Hanrahan
Tracy Horrobin: Susie Riddell
Adam Macy: Andrew Wincott
Jazzer McCreary: Ryan Kelly
Kirsty Miller: Annabelle Dowler
Oliver Sterling: Michael Cochrane
Anna Tregorran: Isobel Middleton

Radio Times Ambridge Diary The Archers 21st – 26th May 2023
The screws are turning on poor Helen as the malign presence of Rob starts to take its toll. While Pat and Ian worry for her welfare, Helen turns to an old friend for advice - but will she like what she hears? On the cricket pitch, Tom channels David Warner as he fights dirty in a battle with Tracy over the same player. Meanwhile, everything goes awry with Susan's plans for Tracy's hen do and the night ends in drama. Old feelings stir for Adam, which could lead to trouble.

Daily Mail Weekend Magazine Archers Update 21st – 26th May 2023
Despite Susan's best attempts to ensure Tracy gets the best hen night she deserves, it looks like things might, just might, go awry.
Meanwhile Helen is still troubled by the past, and there's more than just friendly rivalry on the cricket pitch.

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
The Mail ones just get shorter and shorter.

Which will the "old friend" be: Ian or Anna? If Ian, I am surprised he would say anything Helen might not like, considering the last couple of times he has not agreed with her unquestioningly and been unpersonned for his pains, but is Anna really a friend?

Many thanks, Asking!* *I think Anna will be the old friend. There is a (loose) family connection, given that her mother Carol is presumably still living silently in Ambridge in Glebe Cottage and is a close friend of Jill's (in spite of the fact that nobody, but nobody, ever mentions her now).

Thanks Asking

They're using "friend" to disguise Helen's need for legal advice. She won't like hearing that a court will likely give Rob access to Jack and possibly even Henry.

I think she has been allowed to believe that the court case is related to Rob's attempt to abduct a child he was not allowed access to.

Last time she was around, it was clear that the SWs had no idea of the different functions of barristers and solicitors when both are instructed, and I suspect that nothing has changed. So presumably Helen will be asking her direct for advice rather than going to the solicitors who successfully got the non-mol order for her.

Not that I am missing him, but what's happened to Johnnie?

He never even gets a mention these days (or maybe he is in all the episodes I miss).

He was mentioned a couple of days ago in a rustle-a-crisp-packet-and-you'll-miss-it way. I do miss him.