Archers thread #193: Christmas in Ambridge! Don't expect any wise men (or women). 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 a couple of acquaintances to clean and tidy your house without your permission, 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/5457344-the-archers-spoilers-thread-11-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.)

What do we think - best Christmas ever followed by a nice quiet New Year? No, me neither. We have the tractor run to look forward to , and then whatever they've got lined up for the 75th anniversary of the first ever episode - New Year's Day 1951. I can't imagine that anybody involved with the programme then expected it would still be on the air 75 years later. I wonder what they would make of the current direction. The lack of farming content would be a surprise, given that was the whole reason for devising the programme in the first place.

Over to you!

Seems like all new characters must have a very strong accent to help us simple listeners keep up. All part of the general dumbing down of drama across the board really.

I read something the other day about how TV writers are keeping stories more simple now as they are aware people are always on their phones and not paying full attention 😆

I read something the other day about how TV writers are keeping stories more simple now as they are aware people are always on their phones and not paying full attention

Yes, it's the "two screens" issue. That's also a reason why recaps are built into the scripts, ie one character explaining to another character what has gone on so far.

When Tracy mentioned she couldn't afford Eddie's turkey and wouldn't buy one as it would plunge her into debt, it made me wonder a) how much the turkey cost and b) why is Tracy so (relatively) poor? I understand she is in what is probably a minimum or just above minimum wage job. But Jazzer works FT, Brad works and will 100% be contributing, Chelsea works and Bert has a pension. They live in a council property so rent will be below market.

If the household income is still so low she cannot afford a small luxury like a turkey then surely she must qualify for universal credit. It doesn't make sense.

Oh dear. Is George going to attack Keira next? 😔

Tracy’s poor because they’re the SWs’ nominated poor family.

He might have already done it.

Not that we’re having poultry this Christmas, but I was showing DH the prices of free range turkey vs big chicken (using Ocado).

The former free range whole turkeys are about £19-£22/kg (Oakham basic is £11.61) whereas chicken is coming in at £7-£9/kg (with Oakham £4-£6). Capon/cockerel is £13/kg in case Josh has plans to keep a few boy chickens.

Aldi do a Christmas dinner in a box for 4 (turkey/spuds/parsnips/carrots/gravy) for just under £30

Eastie77Returns
They live in a council property so rent will be below market.

Is there a difference between a council property and a housing association property?

I think they are both considered social housing? Only difference is one is owned by the council and one by a housing association. I assumed Tracey lived in a council property as I vaguely remember an issue concerning the council tenancy and Bert years ago.

When her brother moved out (can't remember which one, not Clive obviously) I remember her saying she was going to struggle to pay the rent so I understand she is on a very low income. It just seems odd that she continues to struggles so much because it sounds as if she should get in work benefits to top her up. Anyway, none of this is surprising as TA is disconnected from reality when it comes to these sorts of issues.

Gary was the one who moved out.

The Horrobin siblings are Susan, Keith, Stewart, Clive, Tracy, and Gary. I don't know the birth order but I think Susan is the eldest.

The house at 6, The Green, where the Horrobin family has been living since Susan was born there (she is the eldest, born 1963) is now owned by a Housing Association, and was when Tracy was wangling herself onto the tenancy agreement. I just wondered if it made a difference whether it was a council house or not.

The order of the Horrobin children by age is Susan, then probably, going by the order they are listed as her sons in TBoTA and TAE plus internal evidence from the programme, Stewart, Keith and Gary, followed by Clive (1972) and finally Tracy (1975). The reason I think Gary is the youngest of the three middle boys is that he was still living at home when Tracy moved back there.

Poor Keira. I've felt ever since George started with his misogynistic/ incel attitude that Kiera and/or Emma are at risk from him.

Going back to Esme. Perhaps we are being a little unfair. She grew up on the farm and the farming kids I know are going out to the fields with their parents and helping feed calves and lambs by age 10/11. Although she then moved away quickly she still would have been visiting and talking to her Dad about the farm. She would be far from turning up with no experience but I think the sw need to decide, is she going to be capable or not? She seemed pretty proactive with the silage and realising that was her priority. I'd much prefer she is capable of making a go of it. It's also becoming very trendy now for corporate 30 something's to realise they don't want the city life anymore and completely change their lifestyle. If she grew up there then it's perfectly reasonable that she may have come to realise it's where she feels at home. The tenancy issue is irritating however.

I am enjoying this week!

Perhaps Emma will now realise that her darling George is dangerous, and that Keria is just as important as George. Sometimes Emma talks like Keria is an after thought and George is more important than her.
I hope they throw George out because he shouldn't be around his sister or any female.
And to stop this Ed should tell Emma what's been happening and stop covering for him.
Prison hasn't helped but he was bad before that.

George had done something to Keira but she wouldn't tell her parents. Are we going to have a CSA storyline, full EastEnders type?

I'm surprised that the reopening of a village shop would draw such a crowd that they needed a marquee and so much wine.

I dislike Susan much more than Joy. The community shop exists to feed Susan's ego more than the community's needs.

I missed the very end, i was bored with the shop and dinner was ready. Did we find out what was the matter with Keira?

Poor Chris! I bet he can’t wait for his night out with Martin G this evening. Tonight is ‘Mad Friday’ (!) according to R5’s Wake Up To Money so the boys night out is perfectly timed…

I don’t think Keira is at risk of CSA from George but he is definitely just one step away from losing it and shoving her out of his way so she bangs her head on a kitchen table, for instance.

@CaptainMyCaptain no, they just said she was upset and I think.Ed knows George is the reason even if she wouldn't say. I have a horrible feeling Emma will bury her head in the sand.

No I don't think CSA either but I think it could escalate to him really hurting someone in that house.

Thanks.

Where has the concern about George harming Keira sprung from? Can someone say which episode has caused this concern?

It’s just been simmering since he came home, @echt. Usually Emma or Ed mentioning in passing something that indicated Keira preferred domestic life when George wasn’t there. Like the day they were looking after Martha, and Keira was looking forward to being the ‘big’ one, until George muscled in. And how they’ve been - what’s a word worse than bickering but not as bad as quarrelling? So not one major incident, just enough ongoing stuff to worry their parents. And not really about him specifically ‘harming’ her - but as mentioned above, Ed knows what George is capable of - which is why he was so quick to rush home yesterday.

I thought the episode was going to end with Ed muttering “let’s not tell your mum about this, George is a good boy really..” to silent Kiera. It wouldn’t shock me because the excuses both he and Emma have made for George’s behaviour defy comprehension. I can see Ed manipulating Kiera into colluding in a cover-up in order to “keep George out of prison”.

I agree with a PP that Kiera has not been prioritised and seems to be an afterthought to Emma who is completely obsessed with her first born. Susan and Neil should take her in to keep her safe.

Maybe Keira needs to talk to Lily?

I mean, on the one hand, we hear Emma fussing over George because Archers teens aren’t usually given a voice until they’re about 16 and able to get into trouble independently*, so there may not be a permanent ‘Keira’ actress yet - but on the other, we do know that Lily felt sorely de-prioritised by Elizabeth when her twin was convicted and sent to prison.

*Henry being an exception.

I think Kiera would be more likely to confide in Poppy? We’ve heard it mentioned that they are very close and they both share a brother in George..