Archers thread #167: Welcome to Ambridge, the world capital of loose ends! 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 The Archers to be wall to wall election conversations for the next month, 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.)

Over to you!

I really hope Alan butts out of Harrison's problems at this point, he's not doing any good. It was really noticeable that those prayers didn't include any thanksgiving for Fallon being saved from the jaws of death.

Harrison seems to have completely forgotten about the accident!

interesting Fallon talked about control. I would say she has a lot of control in her life but losing the cafe, Harrison going part time, not being able to start her own business, the miscarriage, the accident were all out of her control and her feelings on all of those seem to be dismissed by her husband

She had started her own business. It was stolen from her by Natasha and Tom, who had absolutely no ownership in it until they unilaterally decided that it belonged to them: Fallon may have rented premises from them, but the business itself was hers.

I imagine so, that would have been her decision, and a lot easier decision (at least in the short term) if they had not engineered for Harrison to be also told about the accidental pregnancy.

But obviously not a foregone conclusion. A decision never to have children, might logically presuppose a decision to terminate any accidental pregnancy. But they are different decisions.

Did they not buy the business / goodwill from her, I assumed / thought they had but perhaps not.

presumably as it was their property, under the terms of contract they had the right to take it back, but it must have been very hard for Fallon becoming an employee in what was her own business that she had built up, but I suppose at times needs must.

Must have been massively frustrating and disempowering for her.

They took back the premises and opened their own tea room, she chose to sell them the kit. They didn't steal anything.

The fact that Fallon could and should have removed her business to new premises, and left Tom and Natasha with an empty, unstaffed building, but failed to do so - still puts up my blood pressure and leaves me incandescent with fury and disbelief …

Why have we heard nothing about the cafe at the charging station? Surely it is up and running by now.

Denise - excuse after excuse why she hasn't told her husband. Been going on for months. She won't leave him. She's stringing Alistair along; she doesn't love him, just wants the excitement of a non consummated love affair.

Harrison is wallowing in his misery. He needs to get a grip. Selfish man, Fallon nearly died and he's only thinking about himself

George - nasty little scrote but to be fair he did go into the river and rescue people. Which was heroic. Even if he did cause the accident. Which I can't forgive him for not owning up to.

Emma - spiteful woman, takes after her mum. The way she talks about people she doesn't like or she believes has done her or her family a wrong. Thoroughly unpleasant.

I meant the catering business she wanted to start after the cafe was taken from her and that part time Harrison wouldn’t support

They did not buy anything from her that we were ever told on air. They did not renew the lease on the premises, but the premises and the business are not the same thing! They then apparently assumed that the business (including the ovens and coffee machines and so forth, which were Fallon's property bought and paid for by her) became theirs when they (illegally, because the lease had not yet ended) evicted her from the premises, then hired her to work for them doing the same thing in the same premises using the equipment which belonged to her and which they did not pay her for.

It was one of the most stinking examples of a complete lack of basic understanding of what actually happens if you lease a shop premises in the real world that the Archers editorial team has perpetrated yet; the most stinking of course being the shop in Borchester which Pat and Tony leased for Ambridge organics and paid rent on for several years, then sold without anyone noticing that it did not belong to them and they could not sell it any more than I can sell a house I have rented.

She would not have had to start a catering business; she already had one. She would have needed new premises. Only Harrison was completely unsupportive, having just gone part-time so he could brood over the birds and the bees (and yes, brood as in be broody, and yes, birds and bees, and if anyone wants to think I am being snarky about him they surely ought to do so) and controlled her ability to take herself elsewhere and not allow the dishonest takeover. He is about as supportive as a jellied marshmallow doorframe.

Finally caught up with this week’s episodes.

I reckon Pip and Stella are also going to run into irreconcilable differences over a child. I’m eagerly waiting for Stella to drop the bombshell that she doesn’t want to go on a holiday with Rosie (and more importantly, doesn’t want to be a step-mum at all). I have two children and can attest to the fact that there is no such thing as a ‘holiday’ with young kids. I can’t think of anything worse than trying to enjoy a relaxing break with someone else’s kid in tow. Mine are older now so breaks with them are thankfully quite enjoyable.

yes they are pretty dreadful at business sl

she is doing catering which will hopefully take off but a supportive husband would have been far more useful. It would have given her the space to work something out - be it new premises or in house catering or even working somewhere else

I loved holidays with my kids when they were young. But they are my kids - I certainly wouldn’t have foisted them on someone else

but you are right that it is another miscommunication over kids - pop thinks Stella is happy to be one step mum and Stella wants nothing of the sort.

I understand that “the premises and the business are not the same thing” which is why I discussed them taking ownership of the former in line with their contract and as their property, and assumed they might have bought the business / goodwill off Fallon as her business. I know they did not want her recycled furniture which she had to remove and store in Woodbine cottage.

“They then apparently assumed that the business (including the ovens and coffee machines and so forth, which were Fallon's property bought and paid for by her) became theirs when they (illegally, because the lease had not yet ended) evicted her from the premises”

I am not sure it is reasonable to assume the above unless we think Fallon (who had the nouse to set up and run a successful business) would let them walk over her legal rights without comment, same for all her family and friends who would have advised her.

I presume the contract had expired when she allowed them to photograph her willingly! handing over the keys at the end of November. She had been trying for some time to get them to commit to extending the lease before they told her their plans in mid September. Then another 2.5 months until the took over so fits in most logically with that being the expiration of the lease.

Of course the exact terms and conditions would have been set out in the lease itself, agreed by both parties, but I think we can assume she did not have an automatic right to renew the lease as she would not have been asking if they would allow her to do that otherwise. So I think we can assume the takeover was not legally dishonest.

I did not suggest she did not already have a catering business, which of course she did. In relationship to Harrison it did seem unreasonable not to support her more given she had supported him going part time. Perhaps him having already done that was problematic in terms of timing because his concerns were about the financial viability in the short term rather than Fallons capability to make a go of it. Not sure they would have allowed him to switch straight back, but probably other things he could have done. Relationships are all about compromise (like Harrison agreeing not to have children because Fallon meant more to him). Anyway Fallon then straight away made the decision she would take the managers job. Here is the write up from the episode where Fallon and Harrison discussed taking her business elsewhere…

“Fallon’s full of ideas about growing her upcycling and catering businesses. Harrison is confident in her but admits he’s worried about money. Later, Harrison returns to apologise for his attitude earlier. Fallon points out that she supported him when he went part time and she’d like that to be reciprocal. He wants them to think it through before committing. He doesn’t think the catering and upcycling incomes will be enough, at least in the short term.”

We can see after this Fallon is definitely not contractually naive as I recall she insists on agreeing bonus terms before signing the manager contract .

Was thinking the same about holidays with the kids when they were young. Such infectious joy and delight in the simplest of things

VoxPop
I presume the contract had expired when she allowed them to photograph her willingly! handing over the keys at the end of November. She had been trying for some time to get them to commit to extending the lease before they told her their plans in mid September. Then another 2.5 months until the took over so fits in most logically with that being the expiration of the lease.

That would work if we had not been told, on air, that Fallon wanted to alter the terms of the lease (pay a different rent, rather than continue it, which she assumed would happen as it does in the real world and in law) when it expired in 2024. It might possibly have expired by now; it certainly had not done so last November.

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime It was one of the most stinking examples of a complete lack of basic understanding of what actually happens if you lease a shop premises in the real world that the Archers editorial team has perpetrated yet; the most stinking of course being the shop in Borchester which Pat and Tony leased for Ambridge organics and paid rent on for several years, then sold without anyone noticing that it did not belong to them and they could not sell it any more than I can sell a house I have rented.

I only vaguely remember that, but could they have bought a long lease on it, which would be a saleable asset? No, probably not ... by which I don't mean no, they couldn't have done that, because long leaseholds are common, but rather no, it's far more likely that nobody thought it through!

The Bridge Farm Archers were renting it when Helen started to run the shop and they sold it when she stopped doing so because Rob didn't like it. I don't think it was a long lease like the 99-year one on a house in Regent's Park that we lived in briefly – that had about five years to run before the building reverted to the Crown Estate, and nobody was all that interested in buying it, so the company my father worked for got it very cheap.

Arf @AskingQuestionsAllTheTime - probably cheaper to buy a 5 year lease than to rent there!

Durn tootin. And we didn't need to be there for all that long. For me it was a massive win: let loose in that part of that town at sixteen? Carnaby Street walking distance away? Swinging sixties happening all round me? Whooo---eee! That was when I was warned by a friend I used to go to parties with (she was the oh-so-sophisticated big town girl; I was not, I was the little country cousin) that if Jimmy Savile turned up, we left; various names I won't repeat were people never to be alone with; and that in case of doubt or worry, Cliff Richard was absolutely safe and a perfect gentleman. Which is why I do not believe people who tell me nobody had any idea about Savile, because sixteen-year-olds in the nineteen sixties knew fine and well what he was like.

I feel a bit bad about this but, in the context of Harrison existing, when Kirsty started moaning about “PIGS” my mind went in the wrong direction.

I know she wanted to set the rent on the lease for several years, to enable her to invest in her plans for the tearoom with confidence of security. That could have been mid contract or on contract renewal. I don’t recall mention of the contract ending in 2024. What does not make any sense from your statement

“they (illegally, because the lease had not yet ended) evicted her from the premises”

Is how someone with Fallon’s business nouse and determination would willingly allow herself to be illegally evicted (photographed formally handing over the keys) without us hearing a word of discussion or complaint that it was an illegal eviction, from anyone. It would surely be a major story line (let alone once mentioned).

Also why would Natasha casually plan to take over without Fallons permission, if Fallon had a valid ongoing lease for any period.

The only logical explanation would be that Fallon agreed to terminate her contract early (end of November) because she did not want to continue, even in the short term, without the reassurance of a set rent.

OR the contract actually ended at the end of November.

But in either case she would not have been illegally evicted.

I love holidays with young kids, mine or others', they're my favourite people to be with! But I understand that not everyone feels the same, which Pip seems not to consider.

What’s going to happened to the Bartleby money if/when he’s sold? Is the £1500 to be split equally amongst those who voted or is everyone somehow going to assume they will get the whole lot? I can envisage the money being spent several times over…

And who does he belong to, if Joe was only loaning him? The Grundys are quick to claim they’re hard done by, and even quicker to take liberties with everyone else.

I suppose it depends who they (in their addled Grundy brains) think owns Bartleby. Yes, we know it's none of them, and I strongly suspect that so do they, but did Joe leave a Will (by which I mean the document, not the droning grandson)?

Perhaps the poor critter belonged to Meg's dad/granddad and her offer to buy him is just an act of generosity.