Archers thread #177: Will Bridge Farm get a PassiveAggressivHaus? 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 love to have a moribund camper van parked indefinitely outside your home, 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.)

Over to you!

I think that this is the only sensible suggestion. The script writers have deliberately made it baaaaaad.

Couple of points ref Wednesdays submission

1. Jim would have a landline in the kitchen and/or hall and or bedroom. He wouldn't be reliant on his mobile or indeed a landline just in living room. He'd have a base station with two or three handsets.
2. Joel should stay. I think he would be an interesting flitting in/out character and be a useful foil for Kirsty, Rauri and perhaps Kate (after Jakob has dumped her). He'd also raise the intellectual standards and be able to have witty repartee with Jim

He might also buy Kirsty's house.

@Bankholidayhelp

"Wednesday's submission"
I like this way of describing episodes presented for our scrutiny.

He'd also raise the intellectual standards and be able to have witty repartee with Jim

Evidence for this being what? That he recognised a bust of Plato? Commented on the complete works of Tolstoy? (Don’t get me started on the portrayal of Jim as an ‘intellectual’.)

Vocally, Joel was pretty much indistinguishable from Rex, and in personality just as bland.

Yes - there can only be intelligent conversation if the sw are capable of it. Currently it would seem not.

cliche and stereotypes seem to be flavour of the month

Well, well, well, well, well …

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/bbc-caught-in-embarrassing-gaffe-archers-scam-awareness/

I'm not convinced by Joel's intelligence. He seemed amazingly cheerful about being locked into a room by an old man on arrival at what he believed to be a holiday rental.

I'd have been calling the police and shouting for help.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Sorry, I do find that Telegraph article a bit ridiculous. The SW obviously made up a fictitious web address - why would they need to register it, and who listening to TA hears it and thinks they'll visit the site? to do what? I can buy the argument that it's a missed opportunity for the BBC to educate about scams in case anyone did visit the address out of curiosity, but it's hardly a question of anyone actually being scammed.

Out of interest: before today, did it occur to anyone here to type that web address into their browser to see whether it existed?

I did visit the Borsetshire Breaks site - but only after reading the Torygraph article (on archive.ph) - and restrained myself from clicking on the link at the bottom of the page advertising WhyChristmas site. Nice advertising gimmick for him, esp getting the newspaper on board!

TBH it would never have occurred to me that Borsetshire Breaks was anything but fictitious, but I have heard of people dialling telephone numbers given in dramas, and so on.

That's why I said before today, @WagnersFourthSymphony - having seen that article, I can understand that you might be curious to see this webpage for yourself. The article says 2000 people had tried the website since Monday (and before the Telegraph article, of course), so it would be interesting to hear from someone who did that.

I can't read that without signing up.

Edit: I've got the gist of it now from subsequent posts.

Maybe we are in for a Virgin birth in the barn,

Shows how easily influenced people are I suppose

The suggestion that Joel has no mobile phone is silly too; naturally he would have one, and would ring for help if locked in by a mad old man.

And anyway, why should he not simply have climbed out of the window? It's a bungalow.

Yes I wondered about the window. So ridiculous

I'd like to say oh yes Joel should stay he'll add some intelligence, charm and general interest to the place because that's what archaeologists do, we can't help ourselves, but I have Doubts about him (and all the rest of the visitors, even the one who married Eddie at the age of 6).

For fuck’s sake. Why is this drivel given airtime?

That is an excellent question.

Answers on a postcard please, to The BBC. I don't think they have any idea and they certainly need a bit of inspiration for excuses.

Absolute drivel.

There are so many neglected characters and discarded storylines. Why have this extended “topical insert”? I couldn’t give a monkeys about Chuck and Faith’s marriage, and it’s completely implausible that Kate would suddenly have a deep and meaningful with a stranger.

I suppose at this point, it’s so bad it’s good.

I completely forgot to listen tonight.

did anyone else turn up expecting a bed?

Are we supposed to care about the marital troubles of Faith and Chuck? Two people we only met this week and who I sincerely hope will be gone next week. Surely there enough actual TA characters we haven't heard from in a long while for us not to need random strangers shoehorned in like this.

I can't believe I'm saying this but I'd sooner hear about the marital problems of Fallon and Harrison or, even, the extra-marital problems of Alistair and Denise.

I am genuinely stunned by the sheer awfulness of this week's SL. How can anyone have sat down and dreamt it up?

You wouldn't be able to climb out of the windows in the room I'm currently sitting in (built around 1999) because they don't open wide enough, unless there's some way of unlocking/latching them I've never been initiated into (not that unlikely, actually). The exceptions are the patio windows in the dining room and the Velux windows in the bathroom and shower room.

Another delight to come, I see.

Great minds, @Godesstobe