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 ...

"Under no circumstances should suspects or persons who may be implicated in the commission of an offence be hypnotised."

I knew a Karen pronounced her name Kar- ren.

Think that is advice to the police, from reading the full quote on the CPS website …

”Any confession obtained by hypnosis is likely to be ruled inadmissible under sections 76 or 78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Under no circumstances should suspects or persons who may be implicated in the commission of an offence be hypnotised.”

i.e. no hypnotising to set them up after suggesting they did it, no beating a confession out of them, that sort of thing

Think it would be against civil liberties to stop someone choosing to be hypnotised themselves.

Although as said my view is just reconstructing to help her remember, without any prompting or interruption.

The main point is once George is implicated, there is potentially lots of evidence to support the truth. But he will likely capitulate well before any trial.

Is Alice really so stupid ? Is Fagash really so stupid?

It pains me greatly to say Justin is right.

As far as I can make out the CPS do not advise it because the courts won't accept it. (I suspect this may be the result of the very dodgy claims of having been sexually abused by fathers which became commonplace for a while in the USA and mostly turned out to have been a load of hokum dreamed up during "hypnotic regression" which when properly examined were not possible.) I don't think it matters who is responsible for the hypnotising being done; this is because (according to a law expert I asked an hour or so ago) during hypnosis "she would 'remember' anything it was hinted she might remember, which is why the police don't use it". Do we trust some Woo friend of Kate's not to make any suggestion of any sort while she is regressing Alice? I don't think I do...

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime (I suspect this may be the result of the very dodgy claims of having been sexually abused by fathers which became commonplace for a while in the USA and mostly turned out to have been a load of hokum dreamed up during "hypnotic regression" which when properly examined were not possible.)

Gosh, I'd forgotten about that. Families were utterly destroyed by it, on the basis that "of course" there's no smoke without fire. There were "therapists" involved, as I recall, who should probably have been struck off/sent to prison, but weren't.

See also practically every accusation of Satanism by any child of anyone. Those were fashionable too, for a while.

But the hypnosis won’t be used in evidence, eg Alice won’t be adducing it as proof of what happened. If it works (obviously it will, because it’s in Ambridge) Alice will confront George and either he’ll crumble under the pressure or there’ll be enough evidence to prove he was driving the car.

I still like the theory that Will and Emma will be so spooked by the idea that Alice is going to remember that they’ll jump the gun and dob him in. But they are definitely up to their necks in conspiracy now - discussed it with him, even drove him to the police station to make a(nother) false statement.

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime - Yep. I think we were (mostly) spared the worst of the Satanism shite because (as David Bowie memorably sang in The Falcon and the Snowman) This Is Not America.

Yes, @MerelyPlaying - from a dramatic point of view I can see that being one way the SW will want to play out this story: George will find out she booked the regression therapy and panic. But possibly Alice will get the therapy, recover the memories and rather than going to the police have a furious showdown with George and Emma. Has Bore's crystal ball called this one?

Still got plenty of therapists affirming girls as trans unquestionably unfortunately. Also spread from America.

Hoping the mere possibility of Alice remembering the truth will send George to confess.

At what point will it occur to George that he needs to get rid of Alice?

Good shout. @RegimentalSturgeon

I suppose it would depend how professional the person was and if the whole interaction was recorded. I imagine Alice would want that anyway as what she wants is to know the truth. Of course in this case there is no presupposition of any involvement of George, quite the contrary, he is the hero. Kate clearly thinks Alice is Guilty from all her previous comments, so no idea what could be planted.

However I don’t think you need to be an expert or psychologist to understand the danger of planting false memories, from all that has gone on in the past. interestingly though this is not only related to hypnotism, but also in general psychotherapy and counselling to the susceptible by the rapists. In fact the nature of certain methods of police questioning have made people not only admit to, but fully believe they were guilty of crimes they did not commit.

In that vein I am pretty certain that quote from the CPS does specifically refer to how they obtain prosecution evidence, not only because it is repeatedly made clear, but also the section of the act that it references is specifically about obtaining prosecution evidence. It would be pretty unbelievable that they could dictate to anyone that they could not undergo hypnotism for their own purposes (as opposed to the police subjecting the accused to it, after suggesting they were guilty).

None of that precludes the fact that evidence under hypnosis won’t be treated with scepticism, however from that PCS site, even the police can use it for witnesses in certain circumstances, so is not inadmissible. They suggest (as did I) recording and also the potential need for the hypnotist to give evidence.

However that is all pretty irrelevant. As I said from my POV just taking her to the places and let her figure it out for herself without “correction” or guidance is the best way forward.

The main point being (as @MerelyPlaying suggests) is not necessarily Alice’s remembering as evidence per se, but that once the unthinkable, that hero George could actually be the villain, then no matter how dilatory the police, Alice and her people can turn their attention to George, and evidence that throws doubt on his lies, and there is a lot of potential for that. That is if he does not just crumble up front if Alice confronts him.

I thought it good that Kieran did not leave when Lilly asked.

Men like that would not leave just because a woman asked. Well played.

What's all this nonsense about hair colour? Kate and Alice are both blonde. Kate's taller.

Forgive me if I’ve missed this, but does Alice have any alternative theory about what DID happen, given that she is sure that she would not have driven the car herself?

She must realise that someone drove her car and then put her in the driver’s seat. The chances of it being a stranger would be minuscule so it could only be someone she knows, yet she doesn’t seem to be remotely interested in working out who it might have been, and what their motive would be.

This is something I thought I'd never say but thank god for Kate (!) - having the hypnotist contact for Alice's regression therapy - Jakob has been the making of Kate

yes it is kind of crazy, but that is about it.

It is like she knows she did not do it, but it is almost on a theoretical basis because she has not got to a stage of questioning the evidence or considering at all what had actually happened, let alone by who.

That is why I think it is so cruel because she must be questioning her own sanity. It’s like a lot of disassociated ideas that make no sense. But yes you would think logically she should be thinking, if I know or think I didn’t do it, practically what are the alternatives, but perhaps the truth or anything like it does not compute for her. Cognitive dissonance?

of course aside from Chris everyone else still thinks she did it and should plead guilty, so perhaps that is meant to be suppressing her logical thought.

Although George deleted that voicemail to his dad, his phone will still have record of it and show his location by her car.

That evidence will get him.

I do hope so. It's all getting a bit ridiculous now!

It will be ridiculous if George doesn’t ultimately confess and we end up with a courtroom showdown.

also not sure if they can track a phone that long after he event?

George's phone was damaged by the river water, allegedly.

Even if the phone was, I’m sure mobile phone records are kept and the towers they ping off…that’s why crims have burners, right??

Alice knows where she parked up.

George has told everyone which party he had been to, so that's a known location.

I doubt anyone at the party was bothered enough by George leaving to have remembered what time he left, so it probably won't be possible to pin down any discrepancy.

But his route home should be clear. He should have walked past Alice's car, continued walking, and then some time later as he approached the bridge, Alice should have passed him, driving her car, and then, moments later, the crash.

So an obvious question should be - had he noticed Alice's car previously, when he walked past it?