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!

Why do you believe her story? After he was five she no longer seems to have made any effort to keep tabs on him; would his mother have been so disinterested?

(Or is it just that the editorial team threw this bunch of mawk together without caring about any of its inconsistencies?)

Yes, I see now that I've googled that I'm several decades behind the times (par for the course). If I've got this right, charity trustees are usually unpaid, but trustees appointed under a will can be paid if they are there for their professional expertise and if it's explicitly permitted in the trust deed. The solicitors who drew this up for Nigel really saw him coming, didn't they. They probably danced round the office when they learned that Freddie was off to prison, thus giving them a reason to prolong the trust far beyond the point Nigel ever envisaged.

Er, what benefits do you think the trustees are getting out of being trustees?

That's not how it works.

Er, that's really not how it works.

My DH used to be a trustee for a trust which owned a lot of land, including farms, villages, and a school. The beneficiaries were his aunt by marriage and her children (his cousins), all of whom were adults. He had professional skills which made him desirable as a trustee. The aunt chaired the meetings of the trustees and her children attended as trustees.

My DH received expenses for attending 3 or 4 times a year but was otherwise completely unpaid. We didn't benefit at all unfortunately and I now look back and realise I have very little idea how the whole thing worked. I assume, for example, that my DH was not the only trustee who was not a beneficiary, but I can't be sure. I also assume the arrangement meant that ownership of the land could be passed down the generations in some way that was beneficial for tax purposes.

Had I realised this would crop up on this thread, I would obviously have paid more attention at the time. Apologies.

Which bit is wrong? (All of it, I expect. I am not a lawyer, in fairness.)

This is what I was looking at. https://www.jmw.co.uk/services-for-you/will-disputes/blog/trustees-are-they-entitled-remuneration-return-their-services

Well I am. And a lot of my work involves families like the Pargeters and considerably wealthier than the Pargeters. The trustees of this type of trust, might include a solicitor or an accountant because their expertise is needed to find the way round legal and taxation issues. After that the trustees are indeed taken from other members of the family or other family connections. Even where a trustee is a solicitor it's by no means a given that their firm will also provide legal advice to the trust.

The 6 biggest ones I deal with have no solicitors sitting as trustees. The trustees have appointed solicitors and accountants who advise the trustees on the legal and tax implications- e.g the 10 year charge and tax return. They are obviously paid for that advice in the same way as any other client pays for legal and tax advice

The paid advisors have no say whatsoever in policy decisions unless a policy decision was illegal or contrary to the trust conditions, where they would be obliged to point that out. Trustees are paid expenses, they are not remunerated.

Trustees do not take personal benefits from the trust funds they administer as that is a fundamental breach of trustees' duties.

Does anyone listen to the Emma Freud podcast?
She had Neil and Susan on this week and quizzed Neil about the foundling story v what a lot of people remembered from the dim and distant past.
Apparantly, in the.Archers, Neil's background was never revealed. What was believed to be the 'true' was actually the actor musing about what he personally thought Neil's backstop was for an article in a book or magazine.
I can't remember that far back, only started listening when Nigel fell off the roof.
The actors playing Neil and Susan sound like a married couple in real life😆

There is no family member acting as a trustee for Freddie; I am sure it would have been mentioned if there were. The only family members we have heard of even existing are Nigel's sister Camilla and her husband and son, and I am absolutely certain Elizabeth would have been very unhappy indeed about any of them having the ability to control her actions, as Freddie's trustees have been shown to do. She would have griped about it endlessly.

What a lot of very altruistic people there must be around, acting without payment for total strangers.

Surely the professional trustees get paid their hourly rate?

I'm pretty sure the trustees acting for the Pargetter Trust would be professionals, and there'd certainly be a charging clause in the will (or trust deed if it was set up separately, I don't recall the details). So yes, it would be a regular earner for them but shouldn't be excessive - unless they are milking it, and then we could have a nice Dickensian saga about that if so. What is the extent of the estate and the income from it?

Another stupid episode.

When Is Joy going to give Mick the elbow? I said he was a wrong 'un two threads ago.

What a complete load of tripe tonight's episode was. First Joy, who must be in her sixties, and is becoming even more dislikeable by the minute, crying and washing her dirty linen in public, ridiculous behaviour. Then the even more ridiculous storyline of a full panto taking place in 5 days time, with Linda being able to find a cast, venue, props etc and Joy magically being able to rustle up a star attraction by then.
The scriptwriters must be on drugs or something or somehow a script written as a joke has got through the system. I've listened for 50 years on and off and I've never been so tempted to call it a day as I have recently.

Maybe they’re usingAI?

I completely forgot it was on tbh

No they don't. The law firm providing advice to the trustees gets paid its hourly rates.

It really would not. That isn't how the set up works.

I couldn’t finish listening to this evening’s episode - any road I’m going to have an Archers-free week to miss the blummin panto and if it is still crap next month that’s it I’m flouncing off to some podcast or other!

The trusts I am talking about control multi million pounds of land assets. The solicitors and tax advisors are paid. The trustees are not paid other than expenses. The trustees are various people who the original settlors knew or had connections with and those connections pass on through subsequent generations.

The management, law and practice of trusts owning heritable property is one of the many subjects the SW know little, if anything about.

Yes, exactly. The accountancy and law firms acting for the trustees would be paid. The trustees are almost certainly partners in the those firms. So the firms would be earning money from the trustees' work. And if there is a charging clause - which there would be - the trustees could be paid for their work anyway (that payment would go to the firms in question, not the trustees themselves as their professional partnership agreement would certainly stipulate that, but it's not what we're talking about here).

Whether any of this is material depends on how large the estate is and what its income is, how much regular oversight is needed, and so on. It is not a charity and the trustees aren't family members or old friends so no one is going to be giving their time, experience and exposure to liability for free.

How large is the Pargetter estate? Is it just Lower Loxley or are there tenant farmers we haven't heard of? Are there investments elsewhere (nothing's safe these days!)? I suspect not, so we're not talking massive amounts of money in professional fees, but it would add up over the years.

https://www.hcrlaw.com/news-and-insights/can-professional-trustees-and-executors-charge-for-their-services/

That was dire tonight. A new low.

Nigel was the one on whose behalf this trust was set up in order to protect his minor heir until that heir was of an age to inherit, and it seems clear that none of the trustees either knew him or was related to him. If they had or were, I really do not credit that Elizabeth would be unaware of this fact, and would at no point have tried to wheedle them by appealing to that connection.

(Lower Loxley Hall and grounds also has five tenant farms associated with it.)

I liked tonight, the trad pa to but with an excuse for drama and “all pulling together”! It’ll be a triumph for Linda, Lilian and Joy!

WTF was that?!!! 😂😳🙃That was so completely bonkers, that it was almost good again! A panto about putting on a panto...very meta! Very topical for me, as I'm involved in an opera project at the moment about a librettist and a composer having to stage an opera in FOUR days...maybe the SW head about it somehow?!

Is Tracy's missing shoe significant?