Archers thread #182: The Shit hits the Am! 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 be delighted to oblige your employer by cleaning up sewage spills without proper training or equipment in place of your normal duties, 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.)

Credit for the title goes to @echt. Can't think of anything much to say about current storylines. Credulity is strained to its limit on many fronts, unfortunately, but there are a few nuggets in the slurry. I did enjoy hearing Natasha's outrage that Fallon is doing obvious, sensible things at The Bull even though it might hit Terum. I thought Natasha was supposed to be an entrepreneur!

Over to you!

Exactly- moving in with Helen and the boys and waiting it out is the best solution.

Moving in with Helen and the boys would make the house feel very different from when it was Philip's. I don't know whether I want her to make that decision immediately or whether I want it all drawn out a bit so I hear Natasha's reaction to not getting a mortgage.

I won't be able to listen this evening because I have a thing. A few weeks ago it was all such rubbish I wouldn't even have bothered with catch up - the SWs have slightly upped their game, fair play.

Seems as though we were all shouting at Kirsty to tell Natasha to do one.

I'd kick all the Archers out the Beechwood house, redecorate and get on with living there. The look on Natasha's face would be enough to soften the bad associations with Philip Moss.

Surely if she did she could leverage it to buy willow cottage without having to sell. She must have a mortgage.

Would you really want your friend who is also your landlord who previously lived in the house to move into the house you were legally renting from her and considered your home? This is a crazy idea.

Well it won't be Kirsty's decision will it?

Agree. It seems both Helen and Tom have totally twatted Kirsty about for months. A good argument for not selling your house to people you know. Though I don't blame her for giving Helen first refusal, if only Helen hadn't been such a div about it.

I don't know how Helen could afford to pay for it, though, unless the Bank of Pat'n'Tony stepped in. Of course, the same goes for Tom and Natasha.

I would rather live in a tent in Siberia in January than share a house with Helen. Or any of them, really! Which is a shame, because I'm sure they all speak very highly of me. 😉

If neither Helen nor TomNTash buy the house there aren't many other options within the current cast.

I suppose Alistair and Denise could buy it or maybe Joy's magic money tree could buy it for Rochelle.

Not that I've listened, but I'd like a Felpersham Uni lecturer to buy Kirsty's house. They can have a family who befriend the Gills' kids or Keira.

Or maybe Jamie Perks could move back to Ambridge and start poking his nose into what's going on at the Bull.

If the Bridge Farm tearoom is losing money, which will only get worse after the hike in living wage and employers' NI hit, presumably Pat and Tony will abandon any hope they had of building a passivhaus.

BTW, has anyone in Ambridge ever had anything delivered on air or even mentioned having to wait in for a delivery?

Alice. When they started ramping up the alcohol story - she was waiting impatiently for a wine delivery. (Possibly a Covid monologue? Not sure - but I recall her pronunciation of the word whoyn - like Roy with an ‘n’ at the end - was all wrong for an expensively educated local aristo …)

And Elizabeth must have had at least one, since she was returning a dress via the PO once and had to enter the value on the recorded delivery form. It really wasn’t much - maybe a hundred pounds, years ago - but Susan was gobsmacked.

Oh, Natasha is deliciously awful! Hark at her with her "We've got it so much harder than everyone else". And I almost cheered when Kirsty pointed out that she'd been waiting a long time for Tom'n'Tash to respond and now it was in their interest, they were chasing her up for an immediate response.

Tell her to eff off, Kirsty. You know you want to.

Arent Alastair and Denise in Denise's matrimonial home?

It's a pity Ed and Emma aren't able to scrape together a reduced price. A reduced price isn't unreasonable and Kirsty wouldn't feel exploited selling it to them. And the look on Gnasher's face would be priceless.

No it isn't. It makes economic sense for Helen and Kirsty and keeps Helen's boys in their home.

I couldn't do it in Helen's place. It's a recipe for a ruined friendship. And Helen will need to move out at some point anyway, why prolong it for this?

Also Helen would make Kirsty feel like a lodger in her own house (like Oliver).

Did anyone else notice Pat's little comment about the twins' stuff on the hall floor. Narasha certainly didn't notice.

@CaptainMyCaptain , yes to both.

The Maliks to buy Willow Farm, and Kirsty to sell to Ed and Emma would suit me.
Kirsty could rent Kathy's house.
TomTash&Twiins and Helen&theBoys couldn't squeeze into Bridge Farm, so one of them could buy Little Grange and move it to BF land.

She would be a lodger in her own home though. While Helen has a tenancy it's her home and Kirsty would be a lodger at Helen's indulgence. That's why it wouldn't work.

She would be a lodger in her own home though.

Like Oliver. It is the Ambridge way.

It would be the other way round.

Helen's tenancy has ended. Helen would be the lodger. Lodgers do not have tenancy rights. Helen would be there at Kirsty's indulgence. There used to be (might still be) tax advantages for resident landlords.

Isn't Hazel Woolley the landlord of TnT? Tash describing her as a 'poor woman' feels like they're about to retcon us.
Though I suppose Hazel's last appearance is a good while ago and we've not heard complaints recently (if ever?) about her being a bad landlord when it comes to repairs, and maybe Tash hasn't met her.

@Agapornis ,not unless she has quietly bought it from Kathy Perks.

Hazel is Chris' landlord. He moved into her flat after Tom Tit and Gnasher moved out. Chris is Jakob's landlord.

Ah of course, thanks @PassivAggressivHaus. She still owns the flat above the shop though, right?
Edit, crosspost, thanks @IHaveAlwaysLivedintheCastle

Helen's tenancy hasn't ended. It doesn't end until she moves out or gets evicted by the court. So if she moves a lodger in it makes no difference if the lodger is the homeowner or not, Kirsty is still the lodger with no rights. It would be a very legally dodgy thing to do and extra foolish for Helen - as if Kirsty decided to illegally evict her she'd have additional difficulties proving it through court but ultimately she's the legal occupier until she voluntarily leaves. The landlord can't move in and end the tenancy agreement from inside the house!