Archers thread #172: Come on, Clive! Spill the beans and put us all out of our misery. 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 Clive sounds deeply misunderstood, 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/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.)

Fete over, cricket season over - can the Flower and Produce show be far behind? I don't think I've heard a mention of it this year. Have I not been paying attention?

In any real village, preparations for the Christmas show would already be under way, but not in Ambridge, of course. I am probably in a minority of one in regretting this.

With any luck, though, by Christmas this incredibly protracted tale of Alice, George and the crash will be behind us at last. Do we think Clive's really gone? I don't believe it. We won't be rid of him that easily. Will he go to the police himself? Will he attempt to blackmail his family or extort money from the Aldridges in return for information that would secure Alice's acquittal? Do we care? I find I don't really, unfortunately. I did enjoy hearing Clive for those few brief exchanges but I've had enough now. Unrelieved nastiness is not really what I want from TA.

Over to you!

Definitely not a rule.
It’s very nice to have some new “voices” around here. Welcome 🤗

although I know all 4 of my first-cousins-once-removed, I doubt whether my children will keep up the relationship.

In our case, a shrinking family in the younger generation means we make more effort to stay in touch. I had enough first cousins and siblings to be getting on with, growing up, but my dd was an only child and had no first cousins until she was 11, whereas she had plenty of first cousins once removed and second cousins roughly her age so we naturally hung out with them.

salted lassi

@Godesstobe , My great-aunt had 9 children, but still did worked.
My grandmother had 7 children and still worked.

The work wasn't full time work but they worked at home growing, rearing or making produce and taking it to the market, and the like.

@Everlore , just don't do it again! (don't worry, I often forget to Clear Quote)
The worst place to do it is with the OP. It's on the top of every page anyway.

Check the date on the OP, especially on a long thread. it might be from 2008 or something aka zombie thread. The Archers threads usually only last a few days.

If there are many pages to the thread, select 'See all' on the OP, and read through, or the last few of the OP's most recent posts. No point in saying LTB if OP's busy laying a new patio.

There are some rules in @Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g 's OP.

Welcome aboard!

P.S. don't @ the wrong poster!

Litter picking. I bet it’s litter picking..

No, it's Friday so it will involve some kind of cliffhanger. As well as litter picking. Someone will be on the point of breaking news, or doing something daft, or just about to face the consequences. Probably down the nick: Emma Grundy, you are under arrest for attempting to pervert the course of justice.... dum de dum de dum dum

About what? If they'd asked a lawyer for advice about the crime that has been committed, they would have had to tell him what the crime was, and until yesterday evening no Grundy was admitting to any crime at all, let alone being charged with one.

They might need a lawyer now, but what would they have done with one before?

To help with the surrendering to the police and making an appropriate statement that (while I don’t have a lot of sympathy for him) limits the damage. Basically I wouldn’t recommend talking to the police without a solicitor.

Agree sorting a lawyer should be top priority but the grundys are on the bones of their arse - Susan and Neil may be able to help I suppose

i think if the tree surgery business fails because of this it will be too much for me

Don't worry about it at all, @Everlore. I feel bad that it has never occurred to me that someone might be following the thread using screen reading software. I hope the emojis don't make things complicated to follow. I found out myself recently that it's quite easy to quote an OP without meaning to, and in the current state of the world, frankly, there are far worse things to worry about than that.

The one and only rule as far as I'm concerned is keeping spoilers to the other thread because some people absolutely hate them. As the threadstarter for both, I am paranoid about this, especially at the moment!

I'm quite looking forward to tonight's episode, which more or less guarantees it will be a damp squib!

I also don't see why Emma and Will would have sought legal advice for George prior to last night's episode. Nobody but themselves had been aware of the truth about the accident, until George involved Uncle Clive that is. Consulting a solicitor would have meant revealing at least part of George's complicity in the crash, for which he had previously not been suspected by anyone.

I also recognise that some posters would still like to see Alice face some legal repercussions for her actions, but I'm not sure what law she actually broke on the night of the crash. Is it an offence to get drunk in a stationary car as long as you do not subsequently drive it? It could be argued that she may have intended to drive it but this could not be definitely proven. By the time George found her and made the unilateral decision to drive her home she was possibly unconscious but definitely unresponsive and did not consent to George moving her and driving the car for which he was uninsured. I am unsure how much of the blame for the accident can be laid at her door. Of course getting black-out drunk in a car is highly irresponsible but I am unsure which specific law she broke and how this could have contributed to the crash. I can't quite remember but I assume George moved her twice, once from the driver's seat to passenger side when he first found her and then back to driver's seat following the accident, both times when she was seemingly unaware of what was happening. The decision to take the car without consent, instead of calling someone to help Alice, was entirely George's, whether it was initially well-intentioned or not. The subsequent decision to pervert the course of justice by deliberately making it look as though Alice was driving also clearly indicates that George was highly aware of the illegality of his actions up until that point.

So tree surgery goes pear-shaped (so to speak), Will loses his investment (smug git), Ed, who knew none of this, is left to sort it out and consult a divorce lawyer. He's been silent for so long I wondered if he'd emigrated

No inconvenience caused at all!

Well I’ve just listened to the most ridiculous radio play so starting to feel more kindly towards the sw of the archers

I wouldn't be buying any Bridge Farm yoghurt for a while as it will be full of bitter tears)

Salted caramel?

That was a cracking episode. I forgot to catch up last night as was in t’pub but listened this morning absolutely gripped! Good for Susan and Neil (Neil has been on to the true nature of George for a while after that business with Hannah, not to mention The Sausage Roll Wrapper Incident).

Assuming that was the Rozzers at the door, it’s lucky they didn’t arrive a bit earlier - coming home to find a police car parked outside would have sent George running.

I'm not sure what law she actually broke on the night of the crash. Is it an offence to get drunk in a stationary car as long as you do not subsequently drive it?

Yes, it’s being drunk in charge of a vehicle. Even if you have no intention of driving it, it’s an offence. Theoretically at least, if I nip out to the car to retrieve my phone from the glove box when I’ve had a couple of large glasses of wine, I’m breaking the law. One of the most commonly prosecuted aspects of the law here, according to Google, is people sleeping in their car when drunk.

You can also be prosecuted for being drunk in charge of a bicycle, a child, a horse, a carriage/cart or a cow.

I have definitely never stopped at the pub on a lovely summer’s evening while out on a bike ride with friends and then cycled home tipsy. Nope. Not me. 😬

I just had to look up Mia’s profile to remind myself of her brother - had completely forgotten he even existed!

My brother has a conviction for being drunk in charge of a bicycle. He was a student at the time and was pushing it home as he thought he was too drunk to ride it. He kept quiet about his shame for 35 years.
As far as I recall there has never been a prosecution for being drunk in charge of a cow in TA. The SWs have missed a trick here I think - it would be a more gripping SL than many of the cow-related activities we have had to endure (the hides on the tea room wall or the mythical injured cow in a ditch on the night of Bridge-gate, for example).

On reflection, maybe the mythical cow was a mythical sheep.

The actual cow in a ditch was a couple of days after the accident, and led to Alistair taking his car to a ford along a road which doesn't exist, I think. He then had trouble wading through the ford, which since the river fifty yards away was deep enough for a car to be completely submerged in it doesn't entirely surprise me.

Brookfield cows home in on ditches to fall into, altogether too often.

often having their last child or children after the birth of their first grandchildren Which is why my grandfather has a nephew older than he himself is.

@Everlore Don’t give it a second thought. We all piss someone off somehow. I did not know that this was a rule That’s because it isn’t.

On the night of Bridge Gate Alistair invented a veterinary emergency involving a sheep (ISTR) as the reason for being out in a car with Denise so late. When Paul questioned him endlessly about it I thought Paul was trying to catch him out, rather than being officious about keeping track clinical supplies and accounts for Lovell James.

It was all rather excruciating.

I try to remember not to quote the whole of posts with umpteen points in them, and all too often carefully find the bit I want, put that and the poster's name in bold at the top of my post, and then fail to press "Clear quote" (or sometimes, I think, it fails to work) and end up not only quoting the whole thing but additionally quoting the bit I was actually commenting on. Not ideal. And the thing you can't edit after the event is having quoted the whole post: I asked MNHQ and was told the only way they can do that is by deleting the whole lot including anything I have added.