Archers thread #170: The scriptwriters have cast a Paul on proceedings! 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 hear more of Drunk Alistair, 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 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/radioaddicts/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/radioaddicts/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 to @OverArmour for the title. I was tempted to try some sort of complex riff on chocolate names, given @PedantScorner's lightbulb moment - Paul's sister is Cara Mack! - and all the nonsense in last night's episode about coffee creams, but I couldn't be bothered, beyond thinking we must all be Cadbury's Fruit and Nutcases for listening at the moment. Let's hope the SWs take a walk along Quality Street or we'll have to put a Bounty on their heads!

And over to you ...

“But everything that happened that night was as a result of Alice being pissed out of her mind.”

Is that tantamount to saying a girl being sexually assaulted at a party was a result of her going there dressed up. Nothing she agreed to, or wanted to happen but her fault anyway for being there.

Even George’s ever loving mum pointed out to him when he blamed Alice that that was a very dangerous game, Alice did not asked to be dragged into the drivers seat and fastened in, to be set up for something she didn’t do.

Perhaps it was all Emma’s fault for giving birth to George, because everything that happened that night was a result of George’s decisions and actions. Dragging a semi conscious Alice back and forth across the car. Not stopping when Alice was repeatedly saying she needed to be sick. Too full of himself and going on about her car, and how he should be allowed to borrow it as reward for being so “helpful”. Not even stopping when Alice was ineffectively flicking at the door handle. You would think he should have already been going very slowly, approaching a hump back bridge, but Mick? described the car as coming straight at them and no time to react.

Unfortunately regardless of if he was over the limit or not, speeding or not, George can be treated more harshly because an obvious reason to do what he did was to avoid the breathalyser. He certainly bought multiple bottles of cider, he referred to bottles and from all the clinking I would say probably 4 at least.

Of course George was trying to help Alice in his own way, and of course stupidly if he really wasn’t over the limit, I doubt he would be in trouble at all, or very minor. The longer he left it and the fact he let Alice take all the abuse, mental anguish and family consequences, and her go to court ready to plead guilty and be punished, (whilst he was being feted as a hero) shows absolute ongoing intent to let her take the blame and all its very serious consequences for her.

if Alice does lose her job, will Emma remember the nasty (meant to be anonymous) on line posts she made after the accident, slagging the stables off for employing her, and even when found out and forced to delete them, saying she will go on slagging her off verbally.

I do think the love of booze comment definitely, shall we say, lacked nuance. The suggestion that those born into a wealthy family, should rightfully be convicted for the crimes of the poor, is an interesting notion, but seems to lack a certain balance, as well as the detail and impact needing thinking through a little further.

Excellent post @VoxPop. I am amazed at how many people - despite being first hand witnesses to the event - having actually been with Alice and George in the car at the time of the crash and afterwards - are now trying to frame what happened to suit a narrative in which Alice is to blame. Alice was passed out when George found her, he took the car keys and drove the car (and enjoyed driving it!), he refused to stop when Alice roused and wanted to get out and be sick, he caused the crash and then went back to move her into the drivers seat. We've also witnessed him deleting the message he left on Will's phone - deliberately covering his tracks. Whether Alice may or may not have driven if left alone is neither here nor there - even if she had done so I doubt she would have got very far and she certainly wouldn't have been coming over the bridge at that precise moment. We are the witnesses - unfortunately she can't call us to give evidence, but I'm wondering even if she could how many would give an honest account?

Tbf on George the reason he didn’t stop was because he was on the (enormously long) bridge and was going to stop once he was over it

i actually think i would have preferred a SL where George didn’t frame her. It would still have had drama growing from it

Oh, Justin gets right on my thruppennies. Always conniving and endlessly whining about "the business" as if nothing else ever matters (much as I'm sure that to him, it doesn't) and you just know he's THAT business owner who thinks the rules a) are only there to prevent him making more money and b) shouldn't apply to him anyway.

Hold him down in the XC water complex until the bubbles stop, Lil.

Bruisername
Tbf on George the reason he didn’t stop was because he was on the (enormously long) bridge and was going to stop once he was over it

What he said when she began to feel sick and tried to get out of the car while it was moving was that they were nearly at the bridge and then she could get out. So they can't have been on the bridge when she was trying to open the door and get out, I wouldn't have thought.

I have decided that the crash makes zero sense if too much thought is put into it!!

I also enjoyed Lillian mocking Justin’s lack of HR knowledge.

Except that she was wrong. I'm amazed he didn't tell her she was talking bollocks.

None whatever. They can't even say, or write consistently, which of the three available bridges over the River Am it was; the only one that makes any sense (in terms of nobody coming out of their houses to see what the interesting car-crash noises were, as they would have if it were one of the two near the middle of the village) is the one nearest Home Farm, but that one wouldn't mess up deliveries for Brookfield and necessitate cars using a ford which has no roads leading to it, would it now.

I'm quite prepared to believe that Lilian is wrong, but is it possible that Alice, as a diagnosed alcoholic, could be considered to have the protected characteristic of disability? It must be a thorny issue for employers trying to do right by employees with a chronic illness or disability but also to meet their responsibilities to keep other employees, volunteers and members of the public safe.

I think alcoholism and drug addiction are excluded as protected characteristics, unless they have caused something else (like liver disease in the case of alcohol) or have been caused by some other impairment (like drug use as a result of mental illness, or addiction to a prescription medicine provided by your doctor).

That's not to say that it wouldn't work for an Archer!

Tempted?

Archers Wood, Northumberland

@MereDintofPandiculation I know! I don't know why. I remember saying the same and being outraged. My dad is a lovely mild mannered man and unfortunately he has been bullied a fair bit at work. Obviously this was voluntary role but I think this is what was happening there.

Indeed.

She told him to stop and that she was feeling sick before he drove off, but he ignored her, going on with his daft bantz, then just dragged her into the passenger seat (despite her continuous groaning), and drove off.

She almost immediately again told him to stop, he again ignored her, saying they were nearly home (actually only 10 seconds into journey)

Again said she felt sick, George just told her not to be sick in car.

Finally she starts retching, inbetween saying - uhh I feel sick, and flicking the door handle. Indeed still not at the bridge, as George fairly calmly says leave the door alone we are nearly at the bridge, then you can get out.

Can tell by the sound that Alice never opens the door or undoes her seatbelt but suddenly George panics shouts at Alice, then crashes.

George needs to learn, stop means stop

So Alice in confused misery, George in a big pickle and Emma possibly about to suffer a strictly style birthday breakdown.

Well stop only means stop if there’s somewhere safe to pull over and he judged it wasn’t safe. Perhaps on the road approaching the bridge there’s a really steep, rocky drop. Nothing would surprise me

*“But everything that happened that night was as a result of Alice being pissed out of her mind.”

Is that tantamount to saying a girl being sexually assaulted at a party was a result of her going there dressed up. Nothing she agreed to, or wanted to happen but her fault anyway for being there.

No, no comparison. The girl is completely innocent. Alice chose to go back to drinking herself unconscious.

I do think the love of booze comment definitely, shall we say, lacked nuance. The suggestion that those born into a wealthy family, should rightfully be convicted for the crimes of the poor, is an interesting notion, but seems to lack a certain balance, as well as the detail and impact needing thinking through a little further.

You're overthinking this. And coming across as, shall we say, condescending. Fortunately, my dodgy moral compass doesn't take offence.

Well thank you Harrison for pointing out the film is from the 70s. What is with Fallon and har chuckle talk? The acting was a bit painful over the litter. And why was Fallon surprised Harrison wouldn’t greet Alice - what was she expecting. As much as I can’t bear him I think she was being unreasonable about Alice.

I'm glad she gave him a few home truths on the money but as expected he’s being totally unsupportive. Sooner she extricates herself from this marriage the better.

Martha lost in a corn field has some good horror movie potential

the Alastair/john scene was pretty painful. And what’s with the stupid ‘take a swing at me’ bullshit. Have we not got beyond that. And then the stereotype of sharing a whiskey. And the whole conversation was such a cliche of how dramas make these conversations go. Are they painting by numbers now? Please please please can someone wake up in the shower and it was all just a bad dream.

I'm glad they set the gate back on its hinges. That would have worried me greatly.

I admit I'm not sure how one would slam a gate off them - when mine gets unhinged it's because some idiot who hasn't worked out it pulls open insists on pushing it. Then I know just how it feels.

It’s clearly not a very well looked after gate

the analogy was a bit wonky as well

Gosh, Alice …

Still not moved on from her teens, huh?*

How many strangers must loiter around the vet’s on any given day? And the only one she finds it necessary to report on is John? (She’d have been mightily confused if he’d turned up on a horse …)

*Perhaps the SW doesn’t recall Alice’s foot in mouth youth - so it may have been accidental continuity.

(But how was John planning to get home? He can’t have been driving, after the whisky? It didn’t sound as if he’d called a taxi. And he sounded more purposeful than as if setting off for the bus stop. Are we supposed to infer he lives close enough to walk home?? )

Bicycle, we were told he's a mamil. Very inadvisable after the whisky.

You can be done for being drunk in charge ilof a bicycle, as one of the guys at uni with me found out.

That's good. I'm not sure whether it's true here, but it should be. I discovered that one day cycling home from a reception at work (about 30 years ago). Neither I nor anyone else was harmed, but I realised that it had not been a wise or safe choice.

George needs to learn, stop means stop People who aren’t about to vomit never seem to understand the urgency. “Stop, I’m going to be sick” does not mean “pull in at the big layby a mile down the road”

Where would this thread be, if TA made sense?

Oh heavens - I knew there was something I’d forgotten!