Archers thread #150: For whom the sausage rolls: George over a Berrow, Fallon & Harrison seek new lease on life, is it all a Fête Accompli? Discuss The Snivelling Simpletons, sorry, 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, and of course we are always delighted to welcome back former or occasional listeners/posters. We don't all agree on all points, although we do mostly try to be civil about it. Most of us are posting tongue in cheek a lot of the time, so don't worry about revealing that you think people frequently miss their own weddings because of a morning quickie while in a plaster cast, 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/4636789-the-archers-spoilers-thread-7-cant-wait-for-702pm-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 for title suggestions. I basically took @OverArmour's excellent suggestion and managed to shoehorn in snivelling simpleton, gloriously coined by @Eastie77Returns to refer to Lee in the first instance.

@WitcheryDivine suggested Recharging, Red Kites and The Man They Call Ron, is Ambridge becoming an earthly paradise or a hell on earth? which seems as good a place as any to kick off our discussions! Ron = Rob, a fortuitous typo on a previous thread. It does feel a bit as if we're marking time before he turns up again. Odd to do what could be a high profile storyline over the summer holidays when a lot of people will be away, but depending on your point of view, maybe that's a blessing!

Whither George? Is he shaping up to be Andrew Tate mark 2?

Everybody looking forward to Ferret Fun at the Fête? Me neither.

Over to you!

He won't have any legal rights though.

Fair point.

Am I right in thinking Miles is unmarried with no children? So Jack is potentially the main heir to the Titchener estate?

Also struggling a bit with why Helen doesn't just block numbers, refuse to answer calls etc. But I suppose she keeps telling herself just this one last meeting and that's it but it seems Miles is just as manipulative as his brother. I wonder if their father was also abusive?

Despite Helen's best attempts to stay out of it all, there must be a big part of her that needs to know what is happening with Rob. I really hope she doesn't crumble and let Jack meet him 😢

Miles is married; I think his wife runs a stables. Not sure about children; I think Rob may have mentioned having nephews at some point but I am not certain.

No need to wonder whether their father was abusive; Bruce was a speaking part and was clearly abusive to his wife.

Yes come to think of it, I think you're right re nephews. I can vaguely remember Rob's mother being awful to Helen but I can't recall his father.

Has Lee gone to the US already?

Rob's father was awful and clearly his vile apples have not fallen far from the tree.

Helen will almost certainly allow Jack to see Rob. She's a mess and unable to think clearly or take commonsense advice. From one episode to the next she veered from firmly telling the Consultant she wanted no involvement with Rob and his diagnois to driving hastily to his appointment.

I expect Jack to be ensconed within the Titchner family before the summer ends.

He could get on a bike?

Mind you, he's probably one of those annoying people who passes their driving test with great ease first time round, even if they then spend the rest of their driving lives being a bloody menace on the roads.

It IS a difficult question though, I bet there are loads of parents who have had to ask themselves this question if they hear the other (shit) parent is terminally ill. In the long run will it cause more angst to prevent your child ever meeting their parent (however horrible), than to give them the chance to have the meeting?

I think if I were in Helen's position - not if I were Helen as she's making stupid decisions constantly - I would eventually agree to Jack meeting Rob, when he's in a weakened state (i.e. no driving licence and iller). Quite different circumstances but I was told a relative was dead when he was actually alive and not given the chance to meet him, and although I understand it, it IS weird and if it were my dad I think I'd result that decision.

*resent

i think Helen should leave it for the courts to decide. Then she only has to handle how it goes down. And any possible aftermath. But she is not to blame if the child can/can't see his abusive (but not to him?) father.

Yes it’s a bit weird we’re not hearing from him with the prior drama.

I am only up to last Friday's episode, so please fell free to ignore me if I just need to catch up/ I'm being dense or I am just plain wrong.

My thoughts are that Rob already knew about his diagnosis. He was diagnosed in America. The performance at the hospital was all about drawing Helen in. Secondly, Helen will fell that she can not stop Jack seeing his father given the circumstances. However, she can not leave him alone with a man who may collapse of have a seizure. This means Helen will be forced to accompany Jack and Ron on cozy little family outings.

I wonder whether George might get his revenge with something like a fire. It was his MO with the post box that seems to have been forgotten (I thought he practically blackmailed Susan over that and now she’s saying he’s misunderstood in general.)

The bit of the storyline I don’t like is that it’s the women that are the issue. Emma and Neil are mollycoddling him while Neil put him in his place. Why aren’t we hearing more from Ed and Will and their culpability. George hates women and it seems that women are also responsible. I suppose it’s his attitude to them in general though so perhaps I see where the SWs are going with it.

Witchery, if access is allowed I think it would be better for Jack to see Ron while he is still functioning rather than when he is very ill. It will be confusing enough for him as it is and at least they can have a coherent (use the term loosely since it is Ron) conversation and get to know each other to some extent. Much better than only being allowed to see him when he's at death's door. Of course there's a risk he'll be exposed to Rob's venom and verbal attacks on Helen allthough if the visits are supervised someone can intervene.

It is difficult. My friend went to see her estranged father on his death bed after refusing contact for years. He was a dreadful parent and she wanted to get 'closure' and find out why he did the things he did. But he couldn't talk and was barely conscious so a lot was left unresolved.

I meant Emma and Susan* of course 🤦‍♀️

No it was beneath Ed's dignity too, even when they were desperately saving to buy a house.

If she was a bit less starry-eyed about her sainted son and not so taken in by Grundy ways she'd pack him off to the chicken factory with a firm message that he needs to do well at college or that will be his life, and that he had the opportunity of a better job but messed it up.

The Grundy family have very firm views on appropriate work. Better to scam and grift than take a job that is beneath them or where they have to take orders from a boss. The women are different though, no such concerns about what work Clarrie and Emma have to take to prop up their feckless husbands.

Intriguing theory! I wouldn't put anything past the production team Ron. Hmmm.

very fair point @Eastie77Returns - ideally I think if Rob must be allowed to see Jack he should be clapped in irons for the duration.

I'm trying to remember who it was (and why) Emma had a stand up row with in the Bull that time, wasn't she sacked for it?

Oh yes, that was some argument.... I can't remember, either!
What the heck was it about, anyway?

I feel like it was either Alice or Fallon?? Possibly Alice, in which case Emma was in the right that time.

Nic was sacked because Emma picked a quarrel with her in The Bull and for once Nic didn't just stand there and take Emma being insulting about Will, she shouted back.

I was wrong-footed by the scene change to the tearoom this evening. As soon as I heard Hannah on the phone to Neil I screeched "Martin Gibson's going to come in and order a sausage roll!" DC were mystified.

Tom really does have the killer combination of absolute cluelessness and total confidence in his judgement, doesn't he. "Just leave him alone!" "No, don't worry, I know just what to say..."

Emma sounded totally deranged when she was screeching at Hannah tonight.

And it’s no wonder Fallon’s business is going down the tubes- as well as being rude to the customers, Emma keeps giving freebies out. She gave George a brownie yesterday which I am sure she didn’t pay for, and then she gave Tony a coffee and croissant today.