Archers thread #173: The Fall of the House of Grundy? 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 wish we were hearing more of Pip, 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.)

I chose the thread title to echo one I used three years ago, which is here if anyone fancies a trip down Memory Lane: www.mumsnet.com/talk/radio_addicts/4320618--Archers-thread-130-The-Fall-of-the-House-of-Aldridge-Discuss-The-Archers-here. That was the thread where I caused all sorts of confusion at the start by not starting it before the old thread filled up, but others stepped in, fortunately.

At that point I see Ruairi was heading off to London to start his degree, which he has now finished, with none of us any the wiser about what he studied or where. Perhaps this will finally be mentioned now he's graduating.

And now, over to you!

What is lightly tho when the legal bods were telling us all over Twitter that Huw Edwards sentence was "substantial"?

Despite all appearances to the contrary, Harrison wasn’t actually a victim of the offence so there’s no opportunity for him to write an impact statement at all. Although from the way he’s behaving you could be forgiven for assuming he was in the car at the time.

I hope Pat went back into the kitchen and spat in Tony’s dinner. Maybe his irrational outburst and the mention of his bad back is the prelude to Bridge Farm losing another pair of hands.

Well, quite!

There would be a toxic masculinity explosion if Pat, Alice and Fallon were to write supportive statements!!!

interesting on the huw Edward’s point about the press saying it was a tough sentence - collusion of his former colleagues?

It was mostly barrister and lawyers opining from high that us mere mortals outraged at the lack of prison time just don't understand the law.

I don't know how true to life this plot line is, but personally I feel a bit uncomfortable about impact statements and character references.

For example, if you murder someone, surely you deserve the same punishment regardless of whether they were a mother of a young family or a lonely person who nobody will miss?
It makes no difference exactly who was in the immersed car (apart from the fact that George had a crush on Fallon and dived in to rescue her.
If you have been previously of good character, then you have LESS reason to do a bad thing, compared to someone who has gradually been sucked into petty crime or drug taking.

Completely agree - you see it enough with rape and family annihilation that they get statements from people saying how nice they were. Irrelevant the person that is shown to others!! Just because a guy is good at his job and a well liked member of his football club doesn’t mean his rape is less bad than someone who is a jerk to all around him. In fact you could argue that those who charm may indeed be using that as cover to enable them to commit their crimes

iyswim. Not expressed very well!

I was glad I’d left the Law by the time victim impact statements became a thing, as I’m also deeply uncomfortable about both the concept and the implementation of them.

This looks like an interesting study, though I’ve only skimmed the first few pages (and know nothing about the Sentencing Academy):

https://www.sentencingacademy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Victim-Personal-Statements-A-Review-of-Recent-Research-and-Developments.pdf

Despite all appearances to the contrary, Harrison wasn’t actually a victim of the offence so there’s no opportunity for him to write an impact statement at all.

Try telling that to Harrison! He can write what he likes, of course ... that doesn't mean anyone has to read it. They - along with character references - don't get read out in court, do they? I assumed they were just for the judge/magistrate to take into account for sentencing, in the event of a guilty verdict.

Interesting research @TottersBlanklyOnTheEdge I have always assumed that impact statements were more about giving the victim a chance to be heard, especially in a case such as this where the offender has pleaded guilty, and they are not required to give evidence.

it doesn’t sound as if they have much ‘impact’ on sentencing.

With regard to character references, the one written by Oliver has so many holes in you could read the paper through it. I thought they had to come from somebody who knew you well, e.g. has worked with you or employed you, taught you or similar. Although Alice has known George all his life, I don’t think they’ve ever had much contact with each other - have they?

Alice is (or was) George's aunt, because she was married to George's uncle Chris. I would imagine they had a lot of low level contact over the years.

Fallon could write a reference for George, how he joined the choir and came for private lessons and helped her out in the shop...

A decent mitigation plea would be the trauma of the event/rescue led to irrational action and the subsequent cover up being a natural follow on for an immature frightened child. SW have already teed this up with the episode where george talked about how dark it was underwater etc. And he didn't cause the accident - Alice did in trying to exit the car - which she'll end up saying in her character reference...

@FrankieStein403 And he didn't cause the accident - Alice did in trying to exit the car - which she'll end up saying in her character reference...

You see, that is pretty much what I think: it was Alice trying to open the car door that distracted George and caused him to lose control. But according to many people, apparently not. The accident was All George's Fault. (I admit that he shouldn't have been driving in the first place.) So we shall have to agree to differ with them, though they may not agree to differ with us, because where's the fun in that?

The accident was all George’s fault: he was driving. He failed to stop when his non compos mentis hostage passenger started fannying about with the door.
Of course, if plod and the CPS had had the sense to stick Drunk in Charge on her charge list, Alice could also be punished - by loss of her licence, which would be proportionate, in the public interest, and also serve the dozy lush right.

I agree that had Alice just stayed unconscious the accident wouldn’t have happened!!

ultimately if he had taken the rap originally I would imagine he wouldn’t have had much punishment because if that

I don't think Tony hired any Grundy. Clarrie was hired by Pat back in the mists of time (and by Helen after the e Coli business), Will was hired by Tom, and George by Tom at Helen's insistence. Pat hired Susan to shut her up about Peggy not actually closing the shop but Susan assuming that she was going to, and so that Susan would still have a steady wage coming in when the shop became a community shop.

It seems Tony has never actually hired anyone! We should probably include him out of the blame for Bridge Farm's hiring policy.

Why are they all so sure he’s’going down for a long time’.

Because they have gone online and read the sentencing guidelines for the offences with which he has been charged? After reading them Eddie thought George would be sent down for life, or so he told Usha.

But usha told him that wasn’t going to happen

i think in the current climate it will be a suspended sentence. Not that ambridge is in the real world (would they really have kept Helen in prison before trial given her pregnancy? Was she a flight risk or risk of being a repeat offender?)

The point is that the Grundys, and in particular George, are afraid that it might, not what the actual likelihood is. The question I was answering was "Why are they all so sure he’s’going down for a long time’."

Yes, agreed.

I also feel worried about early guilty pleas lessening the sentence. Yes, if you’re guilty, and you spare your victim from having to testify by pleading guilty, that’s a good thing. But how many innocent people with circumstantial evidence against them have pleaded guilty rather than risk a longer sentence if the trial goes against them? I certainly know of a friend’s child who accepted a caution because it got him out of the police station and home, when in fact he had a good defence and it probably wouldn’t even have been taken to court.

Oh I see

yes - all the characters seem to think he’s getting an enormous stretch

I can't remember whether George said at one point that his solicitor had mentioned a probable length of sentence measured in years rather than months. I have that in the back of my mind but can't be sure if it was him or someone here. Either way, I think it was two? Which is a long time if you are nineteen, even if you get everything possible subtracted for good behaviour.

George isn't being prosecuted for the accident. He's being prosecuted for perverting the course justice. He might have got a rap on the knuckles for driving without insurance, but if it was just the accident, he'd probably be fine, as no one has suffered major trauma (except Harrison, of course, but he wasn't even there,) but trying to frame Alice is where he went wrong.