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 despise the Grundy men and I assume both brothers went for Emma because she has an equally sized chip.

yes they are poor and struggle but it’s invariably their own fault because they’re so bloody entitled.

Perhaps Bartleby’s original owner Mr Hazeldean, or his relatives, might learn of the sale via George’s SM account and arrive demanding compensation?

I would have said 22 years was long enough to acquire or reasonably assume ownership of a pony, since Joe first borrowed him but a quick google search suggests long term loan complications are not unusual in the equine ownership world:

https://forums.horseandhound.co.uk/threads/long-term-loan.167373/

The real issue is that the scriptwriters lack any business knowledge and don't bother to do any legal research. It's so irritating when, time and again, people in soaps walk out of jobs without giving any notice, or evict tenants without notice, or are sacked or evicted unlawfully without ever getting any legal advice. Soap SWs would be doing a public service if they just got the law on these things right.

the walking out of a job with no notice really pees me off. They do it a lot in casualty. And none of these people have jobs to go to yet aren’t worried about money. Even the one who had had to use a food bank a few weeks earlier

Agreed. Another case of not knowing what they don't know. Donald Rumsfeld was mocked for this at the time, but he was right (in this one particular):

As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don’t know we don’t know.

Ah thanks interesting, so it seems they have no right to keep Bartleby or to sell him and must return him if the owner or the owner’s beneficiaries request him back, no matter how long on loan.

Presumably need to check with loaner what should happen when loanee dies.

I know Rumsfeld was mocked but I use that a lot as he was right. In my line of work it’s the unknown unknowns we have to be super vigilant for!

Why is Kirsty still looking after the pigs when Rex is back and available for taxi work?

Oh dear - I missed that. Is it bad that I’m now zoning out when Kirsty speaks?

I thought St Kirsty the Dull was recovering from her pig-wrangling stint now that Sir Rex the Nice but Even Duller was back, from what she was saying at the beginning of the big night out.

Are Kirsty and Rex close enough in age to make a realistic couple? I suppose they could start a bit of a dynasty and create cousins for FR

I don't understand the mockery Rumsfeld got about that. The unknown unknowns are the things to worry about.

On a minor, personal level I work in a legal sector where certain basic legal principles about contract are turned completely on their head. I've seen example after example where solicitors think they know contract law but are completely unaware of their unknown unknowns in my sector.

So
“they (illegally, because the lease had not yet ended) evicted her from the premises”
cannot be presented (as it is) as an absolute statement (or a known known if we prefer the good old business jargon as it became).

we may assume that the scriptwriters are so poorly aware or care so little about generally familiar legal issues like breach of contract and illegal eviction, that they allowed such an extreme thing to be done by the nobs to the plebs without protest or mention by a single character, including the contractually aware leasee (let alone supposedly stealing her fixtures and fittings and goodwill, in fact her business generally). Supported by the known that script writing inconsistencies are not an unknown.
or
we may assume that in line with the totally compliant behaviour and reactions of the characters who would have understood the contractual rights of an agreed lease (as I described in my earlier post) that it was not illegal and the contract was likely ended, whether by expiration or agreement

programmes definitely overplay the dramatic walk off the job (enacting many people’s secret desires). In some cases this would not be breach of contract anyway, in most cases (unless it involves significant loss) I suspect, the employer would not sue for breach of contract even if it was. There would also be the risk of claim of constructive dismissal as a causative factor.

The daft thing is the police seem to be continually involved for the smallest thing in soaps. At the end of the day just anything to keep the drama going.

To be slightly fair to Pip (words I never thought I'd say), she is what she is: a single mother. Stella has to decide whether or not this is an enduring barrier to a long-term relationship.

The same thought crossed my mind, but if you think back to the beginning of their relationship, Stella didn't really have the choice to say no. Pip hunted her down and harangued her until she gave in. Granted, Stella's reticence was around dating someone who hadn't had a female partner before rather than a parent, but either way she was very definitely worn down into accepting a girlfriend that she herself hadn't been keen on.

In this case Toby seems to rarely have Rosie as going on holiday while he did would be the obvious solution

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.

Yes- I have to agree with this. She enjoys the flirtation and the ego boost of being fancied but it’s definitely not love. Alistair could do much better eg the cricket captain. He is in love with the idea of Denise but the reality is actually not that appealing.

But also - Pip said she had spoken to the family about when would be okay for them to go away, just the two of them. It was not unreasonable for Stella to infer this meant Rosie would be staying with her grandparents.

It is a bit mad that anyone involved in arable farming would be expecting to go away on holiday in summer, or to expect the wider farming family to be able to take care of a young child for a week when one of the other farmers will be away - at one of their busiest times.

I feel they’ve done what they can to suggest that Toby is a relatively active and involved non-resident parent. I wouldn’t expect the SWs to mention it every single time he sees her or has her to stay for a few days - only when there’s a story attached to it.

And I totally agree about on the spot sackings and resignations etc. I know following a full disciplinary process might be a bit dull, but soaps have done plenty of storyline to help educate the public, pushing the idea that both employees and employers, or landlords and tenants, etc, would be useful in raising awareness.

Pip has mentioned Toby taking Rosie away during the holidays on several occasions. Realistically he can’t have her at any other time since she’s at school now. I think he’s as ‘hands-on’ as any non resident parent who lives some distance away can be.

As a PP said, it would have made sense for Pip to book a holiday for two and have it coincide with whenever Toby is available to take Rosie but she seems determined to insert Stella into Rosie’s life. That’s fair enough as obviously she comes as a package, but I think if she was a bit more perceptive (impossible as it’s Pip) she would pick up on Stella’s clear disinclination to be cast in the step-mum role. Or maybe she is like a friend of mine who was a single mum and dated a man who made it clear he had no interest whatsoever in her child. She convinced herself that he would “grow to love” her son. Oddly enough, that didn’t happen.

It suited her to have a regular income, paid leave etc, while getting her catering business going.

I agree that Pip pursued Stella, that she could rein back on exposing Stella to Rosie and that she could have suggested a holiday for two on this occasion.

None of which overrides the basic issue - whether or not Stella wants to be a stepmother and what effect this has on her relationship with Pip. It's a parallel of sorts to the Fallon and Harrison storyline.

I think the bottom line is that Pip wants her and Rosie and Stella to be a family. In fact as far as she’s concerned they already are - see all her comments about how much Rosie likes Stella - she can’t hear what is obvious to us, that Stella finds Rosie irritating. I don’t think it’s crossed her mind that Stella might like to go away without Rosie.

A thought just occurred to me:
Only Lesbian In the Village = OLIV
OlivPip!

I know, I know, I'm a source of constant amusement to myself