Archers thread #195: Run, Amber, run! 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 19 is an ideal age to have a baby with a convict, 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.)

Emma spoke sense to George and Amber tonight. Goodness only knows where this storyline is going. I can't see George being Father of the Year. Oh dear.

Over to you!

Akram and his wife are Muslims and therefore the BBC feels it need to present them as perfectly adorable in every single way. It needs to do this to stop the country from sliding into a seething hotbed of racism and intolerance....

Personally, I'd prefer to see a realistic couple with both virtues and faults. I have several Muslim neighbours - most are lovely and some are a bit more hard going. Like any other sub-group of society, in other words.

But the BBC's social mission should obviously trump good drama.

I think it's because of the type of tenancy her father had. There is something called a generational tenancy so as long as she can pass the competency/livelihood test she is guaranteed to keep the tenancy. Presumably the landlord wants to sell the land

Everyone knew about Chelsea's abortion. Vince shouted about it in the Bull to everyone. It was partly why Ben had his breakdown.

i think they've missed a chance here by having the Bridge Farm archers ask Clarrie to come back and for her to say "why on earth would i do that?"

I was rather pleased that Peggy’s art work was rubbish. Quite a fitting ‘f you’ to the old cow, who now seems to have been sainted by all.

oh that was bloody brilliant tho - finally got her stained glass window and it is titchy. (it does sound lovely, though)

Loved David's little dig at the beavers and Kirsty just swatting it away.

I cannot WAIT to hear Lilian's reaction.

I find it a bit distasteful that Akram is reduced to bowing and scraping for the chance to do all Helen and Pat’s odd jobs, while being neatly sidelined so Josh and Esme can turn Meadow Farm into the latest Scion of the Archers. Like all the working. Like the working classes, it seems all the ‘incomers’ (dare I say, ethnic minorities…) are never allowed to get into the Archers farming empire

Spot on, @Sinittaadancers. This magicking of a plumber into a milkmaid is distasteful and misguided.

It’s almost as if the writers drew lots to determine which character would proceed to Bridge Farm servitude, regardless of verisimilitude.

Something like this, I'm hoping.

I looked up 'meal to heal' to see if this was some established concept I've never heard of, but no results. Has anyone else? Would have preferred it if Akram phrased it as something he'd used in his own life e.g. 'We did this when we fell out with neighbours in Solihull over the correct maintenance of a hedge'.

😆

There is no chance on God's green earth that Esme could pass a competency/livelihood test. She is not competent and it's clear that the farm has not been, is not and never will be her livelihood.

"the applicant must show that in at least five of the preceding seven years, more than half of their household living expenses have been paid for with earnings or benefits in kind on the farming unit which includes the holding to which they are applying"

She hasn't been on the farm for more than about ten days during the past seven years, and none of her livelihood has been coming from it.

In the very unlikely event that Esmee was eligible to continue the tenancy, she had to submit the application/business plan etc to the Property Tribunal a fortnight ago.

It would have been far better to have introduced Esmee as a very rich IT person who sold their company share to a big firm and decided to “do” farming with a chequebook. I seem to know quite a few “friends of friends” who sold up in their early 40’s.

It would be quite fun for Josh to flounce off to a neighbouring farm (and certainly more realistic than Adam’s flounce).

In fairness farming's a bit like that in real life. If you're not to the manor born it's very, very tough to get in as anything other than slave labour!

I don't generally like to pick up on people's spelling (it's an informal chat, who cares as long we know what you mean?), but it's interesting that the punning TV show title "To the Manor Born" now comes to mind more easily than the origin of the phrase which is "to the manner born", straight from Hamlet:

though I am native here / And to the manner born

So Akram is both new to the "manor" but is also new to the "manner" / customs of the place where he now lives.

Well this has blown my mind. I had no idea the phrase wasn’t “to the manor born”. Every day a school day!

In Hamlet it means "born to this manner of behaviour" or even "used to these manners"; that doesn't actually mean (as the explanations often suggest when aligning it with "to the manor born") that it has anything whatever to do with nobility or class. A Danish commoner would also have been to the (or that) manner born. The "oh well it just means born into that landed class" explanation shows all the signs of a back-formation, to me. Even if it does date back to 1859 or sometime around then.

The episode isn’t finished yet but gosh isn’t George’s actor fantastic. As a character of course he is often absolutely reprehensible and his attitude to women is often appalling but the way the actor played his approach to Esme was so heartbreakingly earnest.

I'm a bit confused: I thought they said it's five feet wide? Just how big were they expecting it to be: the Kelpies??!

So, Neil and Susan really believe that George and Amber will be fantastic parents? Or is this just meant to show how far they’re prepared to go to avoid being cut off by them again?

O my god, that episode made me want to kick the radio. Stupid Esme being taken in by George and thinking he's perfect after meeting him for 2 minutes, I bet she'll take him on.

Then Neil, who previously had the measure of George, now proclaiming that he and Amber are going to be wonderful parents. On what basis has he made that ridiculous decision? Because there don't seem to be any clues that 2 selfish, self-obsessed individuals, who hardly know each other, are teenagers, one is an ex-con, no jobs worth having, no home, are going to be great parents.

Are we seriously supposed to believe that George has miraculously changed his life round and everything will now be rosy for him and amber? Surely not.

SPQRomanus
O my god, that episode made me want to kick the radio. Stupid Esme being taken in by George and thinking he's perfect after meeting him for 2 minutes, I bet she'll take him on.

If only Hannah were not being ill for a month or two, she would be the obvious person for Ruth to suggest Esme talks to about George: Hannah has been the woman who tried to work with him, and ran up against his horrible sexism and his attitude to having a female boss. And then been made homeless by him as revenge against her when his completely ignoring the rules about not taking pork products into a pig-farm got him sacked – not by Hannah but by the grandfather George is now sucking up to, only George blamed Hannah for his own mistake.

actually I thought Ruth was unnecessarily mean about George. Fair enough to mention what had happened but she more or less threatened her with ostracism if she employed him
There has to be some chance for him to redeem himself, and taking him on as a casual worker is a low risk strategy. If she made it clear that he was on probation, gave him clear instructions and checked his work it could work.
On the other hand I agree Neil and Susan must have had their fingers crossed behind their backs. But the danger is they will have confirmed it as a good choice. There's surely something between 'this is a disaster' and 'a baby is always a blessing to a family'

Did they not say 5ft the "sculpture", that's not tiny - true it's not quite the Angel of the North or Nelson's Column but it's not shoebox size either

I'm wondering whether Esme will take a chance on George despite Ruth's interference ?

I think it's a sort of sculpted bit of wood with a small stained glass window in it? So the wood is 5ft. Not the insert.