Archers thread #180: Burgeoning backstories! Continuity, what’s that? 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 think it's a great idea for Helen and the boys to lodge with Tom, Natasha, Seren and Dippity*, 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 www.mumsnet.com/talk/radio_addicts/5244480-the-archers-spoilers-thread-10-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.)

*Can't remember who coined this, but it's genius.

I was strongly tempted to use one or both of the posts suggested for the title of this thread on the last thread, but went for something a bit briefer. However, they're brilliant and will kickstart this thread very nicely, so here they are:

@Sidebeforeself: Beavers, bridge, bunny boilers and busybodies - it's all a load of bollocks!

(I couldn't agree more!)

@DeanElderberry: I don't usually speculate much on the appearance of characters, but do wonder what it is about Miranda that is bringing out the chest-thumping silverback in Brian and Justin? One little bridge game and the course of Ambridge rewilding is set. The face that launched a thousand beavers.

Over to you!

I mean in comparison to 40 years ago

I don't think they're any less mature than I was 40 and a bit years ago.

but more that the attitude is less about being ‘an adult’ - settling down, having kids, big job etc etc aren’t on the radar yet. Probably partly due to the extension of education

They're in education with the intention of getting a big job and being able to afford all those things. Having kids wasn't on the radar when my friends and I were 19!

I don't like men to wear jewellery other than a watch and maybe a gold wedding band. I imagine Vince having quite podgy fingers and putting the signet ring on a pinky.

I don't even like wedding rings. My husband doesn't wear one. I was at a meeting with clients this week however where one impeccably dressed Dutch client whose family would easily outclass the Pargetters was wearing a pinky signet ring but no wedding ring.

Surprised that anyone familiar with MN threads (on the Relationships boards in particular) would cite ‘having kids’ as evidence of maturity!

I have no problem with him running an abattoir, but then I like eating meat occasionally.

Joy's reaction to the Felpersham problem seemed amazingly OTT but I suppose we're meant to think she was already teetering on the brink of a depressive episode and this may be the last straw. Anybody want to bet on Lynda not coming to the rescue with an impromptu entertainment of some sort?

Do you dislike David and Ruth and the rest of the first families who make their livings rearing animals to be slaughtered? And their collaborators Neil, Jazzer and Hannah?

Unless you (general you) are a strict vegan (any vegetarians who eat dairy aren't off the hook) it's beyond hypocritical to dislike Vince for that reason.

David and Ruth were idiots re that loan. Loans are usually repayable.

Yes, Vince is a slightly confusing character - he does seem to appear quite rough and ready and that was how he was introduced when everyone hated him as the abattoir king and enforced by the pub performance. I wonder if the cultural hidden depths are trying to explain what on earth Elizabeth sees in him. If he’s becoming more of a central character then maybe this disparity will be explained… or maybe he acts up more for work, or maybe he was brought up in the circus by lions (will make the storylines around rehoming his mother more interesting) Who knows with the drugs the scriptwriters are on at the moment.

I still want to know what was on the signet ring then…. My limited experience of them is 21st gifts for sons of families with crests… does this one have a random crest…. Is it blank? Has Elizabeth had a pargetter (or archer?!) crest put on it? Or maybe Vince has his own family crest (in which case he may already have ring, given or inherited…. And the accent is clearly developed so as not to stand out at meat markets…). I may be over thinking this or more likely have no real understanding of the significance of a signet ring.

DH’s family all get one with the family crest when they turn 18. Point being so they can mark their crest in the wax in the letter. Which of course they don’t do. dHs sits in his bedside table drawer

I imagine this has some random family crest on so a bit odd

I can’t imagine where the panto story is going - I’m mystified by a load of people without kids clamoring to see one at the end January, even more so that anyone would think it an appropriate works outing for a workforce who are unlikely to have grown up with panto. Is it a very heavy-handed way of pushing Joy into a relapse of some mental health condition that she may or may not have had before? I don’t really care. Vince and Elizabeth on the other hand are a much more interesting proposition - I’ve long thought he will end up as the new Jack Woolley (self-made Brummy) to Elizabeth’s new Peggy. I think her approach to the relationship is very realistic (in common with other friends of mine of similar age with their own homes and grown up families who don’t require either of those things from a new relationship and are therefore happy to carry on as they are).

Was it perhaps a nod to Pip's claim in the programme that she was "more evolved" than Josh because she had a kid and a girlfriend?

The SW's must have been 'aving a laff" with that line.

It was certainly risible....

Unless you (general you) are a strict vegan (any vegetarians who eat dairy aren't off the hook) it's beyond hypocritical

Why does everything have to be beyond nowadays - can't I, as a non strict vegan, just be hypocritical?

The horror of an abattoir repulses me. I turn a blind ear to much of what occurs on TA such as lambing and pig rearing.

TA isn't about farming, just every day life dramatised for listening purposes.

Anybody want to bet on Lynda not coming to the rescue with an impromptu entertainment of some sort?

Let’s do the show RIGHT HERE!

😱😱😱😱😱😱

Sigh, the village will rally round to give Joy her panto dream

i love a good panto. Seeing Ian mcellan as a panto dame was quite something.

worst was when they had 3 drag queens as sisters and mum. The humour was far too adult

Panto has always been "knowing", though.

Yes - but there is a line and this was just out and out adult humour. Some people left

It highlighted how a panto Dame is quite a specific act and not just a man in a funny dress

I am always saddened by the fact that "adult" used to mean "grown-up" and now means "unfit for children".

True - I suppose it is these days when you see film warnings etc

in reality it means overtly sexualised humour I suppose

Up to you how hypocritical you want to be and maybe you do avoid all animal products but anyone who eats meat or dairy products is being precious if they can't bear the thought that abattoirs exist.

Obviously any carnivore who exclusively eats meat from animals which they have personally reared and slaughtered or shot has a better case to criticise Casey Meats.

If Casey Meats is a well run local abattoir there's little to criticise him for. I would be surprised from what we know about Vince that he would tolerate poor welfare standards.

This sparked a discussion here as to whether you could be "beyond hypocritical". It was a sadly brief discussion, as we agreed that hypocrisy is an on/off state, unlike (say) stupidity. So you can be beyond stupid but not beyond hypocritical.

Just delurking to say that you can search for just the OP's posts on the app (it's the weird symbol at the top that looks like a plastic funnel). I discovered this the other day when having to use the app as the actual website was crashing all over the shop!
Which makes people not checking what at least the OP has said even more annoying...

I was thinking about Vince, and how my reaction to him has, errm, evolved, the other day...iirc, when he was first presented, it was from the perspective of several of the farmers (David, especially, I think), who resented him for gaining a monopoly over slaughtering in the area. He was presented as a "bad guy" who was swallowing up local businesses that were finding it impossible to compete. Since we see him more in his own scenes, we're getting more of his perspective, which is more along the lines of "sensible businessman that has enlarged his business by anticipating/following market trends". David et al. didn't know anything about Vince as a private person, but we got the impression that he must be a boor in all ways, to go along with the "bad guy meat magnate" image. Now, it appears that this image was lacking in nuance, and that Vince has quite a few positive qualities (along with some negative ones). I have to say that I rather like him as a character, but I also quite like David (most of the time).

Ah, thanks! I tried the app for a time but gave up as it seemed to add nothing to the website and lacked some useful features. That's one of them. Good to know it's finally there.

But to be “beyond stupid” says you’re not stupid, you’re somewhere on the other side of stupid. It doesn’t make any difference whether stupid is an either/or or a continuum, you”ve gone the other side of it

Just came on to see if this had been mentioned as I caught up with the episode a week late- I was actually mostly listening and only half watching and the voice was unmistakeable. I don’t think I’ve ever seen what he looks like before. I was thinking that the actor must be very good at playing “aftermath of an accident” given Tony’s history and now this character in a gas explosion!