Archers thread #164: AmbridgEnders! An Everyday Story of Soapy Folk. 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, 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'd like to have your fortune told by Bartleby, 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.)

Thread thrown together in great haste in advance of tonight's episode. Who's in the Am? Is it George's fault? Is this the end for Alice? Over to you!

Yes, I got 4am on Tuesday starting at 10pm Sun (accident was Sun, and it would have still been light at 8pm)

Just for interest for those that didn’t know, it’s easy to work out units. Alcohol level on a bottle is per litre. So 14% proof is saying 0.14 of the bottle is alcohol. If the bottle is .75l, or 750ml, then it contains .14 x 750 ml alcohol, or 105mls alcohol. A unit is 10mls alcohol, so a 14% proof bottle of wine is 10.5 units.

I thought you were only breaking the law (i.e. guilty) if you could not prove you did not intend to drive (hence her putting the keys in the cubby).

Putting the keys in the glovebox only proves you put the keys in the glovebox.

A person could have an intention to take them out again and drive around.

Just to draw out a key sentence from @IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle 's link:

However, if you can prove that you had no intention of driving, and the keys were not accessible to you, then you may have a defence against the charge

If the keys are nearby that is not sufficient defence - the court will view that as still being in charge of the vehicle ( in charge does not necessarily mean driving). So Alice wouldn't be able to defend herself on this offence by saying she put the keys in the glove box, even if she could persuade the court she had no intention of driving. Even climbing into the back seat is not enough, so if she were in the driver's seat it would be a pretty cut-and-dried offence if she had been found by the police long before George first found her.

But while that might be the legal position, at a moral level George has made Alice seem like a much worse person because everyone will think she did drive while drunk in such a reckless way that it nearly killed three other people.

From the link that @TottersBlanklyOnTheEdge gave, that looks a distinct possibility and would well outweigh any driving related offence they might charge him with. It qualifies on two grounds at least - making it likely an innocent person would be charged, and frustrating a drink/driving charge.

Again, from @TottersBlanklyOnTheEdge’s post, I wonder if abduction or whatever they call it could be a theoretical option, since Alice was in no state to give consent, and George actually refused to let her out if the car when she asked him to stop.

It appears you can get done for imbibing in your camper van overnight. But not if it’s parked up on a campsite

Now I've read that legal site, it's not even that - even if you could prove that you no intention of driving, the point is that if the keys remained accessible to you then you were still in charge of the vehicle and that is enough for the offence. You have to show no intention AND that the keys were not anywhere you could get them. But this is probably splitting hairs, because how could you prove to the court that you had no intention of driving unless you physically put the key somewhere it was impossible for you to retrieve it?

I wonder whether Alice’s blood test will prove her blood alcohol to be so catastrophically high as to cast doubt on her being physically able to drive?

I'm aghast to learn that the police can't do random checks on drivers. I strongly suspect many round here are under the influence of all sorts of substances, and a fair number are probably uninsured and/or disqualified from driving (or never had a licence). A few might be deterred by the thought of random police checks.

(I'm not a driver. This is for the best.)

Has anybody been able to confirm one way or the other whether George has actually passed his driving test? I can't remember. If he has, I suppose he might be covered by some sort of Grundy family policy. He doesn't have his own vehicle as far as I can recall.

A long time ago a doctor told the cops that a driver they'd caught had an alcohol level that could cause death.

And he was driving.

I think Alice was parked off the public highway. So that could make a difference. Of course after George helped her she was on the highway.

You have to specifically test for pregnancy, but IME it's one of the routine tests they perform all on women of childbearing age pretty much every time you end up in a hospital (clearly not with a broken finger or similar) since it affects what drugs you can take, what treatment can be given etc. It's just fine as a matter of course.

the point is that if the keys remained accessible to you then you were still in charge of the vehicle and that is enough for the offence

Would that not apply to anyone who is in possession of their car keys? Say I have a bottle of wine and the car keys are on the table next to me while I drink. The keys are accessible to me and the car is parked outside my house.

He's 19 and has been driving for a while. I can't remember any mention of him passing his test.

@BrightYellowDaffodil , no because your car would be parked somewhere and you would not be with it in a public place.

Doesn't make that much difference.

Being born a white male in the UK is a gift, even if a Grundy.

I think that's a rather flat footed sweeping generalisation, which completely ignores the effect of socioeconomics.

I'm mildly curious as to why Alice parked up, then got drunk in the driver's seat. The passenger seat would have been more comfortable, or the back seat.

I also find her claim to have done this before unlikely. If she parked up, got drunk, slept it off for long enough to be fit to drive, and then went home, she'd be parked up for at least twelve hours. Surely somebody would have noticed if she'd done that before.

Thanks!

He has passed his test, he has driven the bridge farm van making deliveries and drove Henry and Kira to the country fair where Henry met Rob.

He is likely to be able to drive the bridge farm van on their farm policy. I don't think he has his own car but has possibly driven Eddie's van so perhaps he is a named driver or perhaps they have a business/farm policy for Grange Farm.

Something tells me Fallon and Harrison probably DTD a hell of a lot more than is actually depicted on TA. So she could be many weeks pregnant.

Didn't we go through the "can you be charged for being drunk in a car" stuff last time Alice was....drunk in her car and snogged Harrison?

I still don't understand why she drove OUT of the village to sit in a layby to drink (where she would have to sober up for hours). It's just the "absent Gills" and perhaps some holidaymakers up around Home Farm.

I'm also doubting that she would be able to down a litre of vodka in a couple of hours without passing out/vomiting it out - her liver isn't used to it.

I hope that Mick gets to quiz Joy about the fictional Rochelle; it must be a very sad story (which perhaps she will explain to pregnant Fallon).

This is basically what I think and feel about George. Someone (sorry, can’t remember who) asked earlier what those of us who think George has potential see in him, and it’s pretty much this for me. Although he’s often behaved appallingly - and even relatively minor things have shown how shockingly manipulative he is, like his behaviour towards Hannah - I don’t think he’s necessarily totally beyond redemption. He often literally makes me want to shout at the radio, but I think there are glimmers of self-awareness and genuine feelings for others.

This doesn’t excuse his behaviour and if he was my son, worried doesn’t cover how I’d feel - I would have been pushing for urgent professional intervention and setting some serious boundaries. Because he was a silent character for so long, it’s difficult to know when and how these behaviours emerged (there are usually lots of signs) and to what extent they were ignored or not understood when he was younger (probably to a large extent). He suddenly emerged as this villain-in-training around the time of the postbox incident (was there anything earlier?). However, I do still think there’s hope for him.

I suppose it depends which way the scriptwriters want to go. They’ve set it up so they could go full uber-villain, or they could go down the long and hard road to redemption arc. We’ve had one uber-villain quite recently, so the latter would be more interesting, especially if they deal sensitively with some of the obvious issues George has around ideas of masculinity and how he relates to women.

Also, if we listed the ACEs (Adverse Childhood Experiences) that George has had, what would be on that list?

• Parents splitting up
• Mother gets together with paternal uncle (not sure this technically qualifies as an ACE!!)
• Step-mum dies suddenly and traumatically
• Father plans a suicide attempt and is only saved by family intervention
• Close family member served a prison sentence (Susan)
• Persistent poverty and recurrent threats of homelessness - others will know more than me and further back

Have I missed any?

Now I look at that list, my overwhelming thought is ‘the poor boy’ and has he had any professional help?!

Susan went to prison in 1993, so we can discount that as an ACE, for a start.

There you go - that’s why I need people who’ve been listening much longer than me!

Have I got the others right?

black Belt Barrister of You tube - from the horse's mouth
Being stopped by the police:
drink driving myths:
And drunk in charge of a vehicle:
so Alice would be guilty any which way.
re being in a campervan/motorhome, if you are on a campsite you are fine, it is private land and you have paid to sleep there for the night. We've had campers for years and we do drink on sites. Wild camping is a bit different. Even if you turn the seat round and make up the beds, hang up the keys, you may possibly be done, but it is at the discretion of the police officer. He has done a video on this, but I couldn't find it.