Archers thread #201: Tempting fête in Ambridge? Free entry to 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 to administer Bert's mucus medicine, 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/5538836-the-archers-spoilers-thread-12-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.)

There's a fair amount of stuff going on at the moment but I don't feel inspired to say anything more about any of it for now. Over to you - I hope you all have more enthusiasm than I do!

That was a really sad episode but it got off to a funny start for me as I thought Harrison was reading Monty his rights.

This. Definitely.

I agree. Her plans, such as they are, will duly go sideways. She was unconscionably rude and dismissive towards Freddie.

I wondered if she was feeling a bit narky about Freddie inheriting. It will be a weird transition of power and responsibility when it happens.

Interesting. They will presumably be coming up to a series of centenaries of publication of the various books, there could be some interesting conventions around books like The Nine Tailors and Murder Must Advertise. Makes a note to keep on eye on this ...

I don't understand what the timeline with Monty is supposed to be. The B&B guest were booked for two nights but left straight after the funeral so didn't stay the second night. They got up, had breakfast - and then hung around while Lynda and Robert went for lunch? That's not how B&B works, is it? And then at lunch time, finding themselves with time to kill before the funeral that was the purpose of their stay, instead of doing something as predictable as having lunch, they took their host's dog for a walk? Then they accidentally set him loose in a field full of sheep where he went on an extended rampage, but they caught him, sneaked him back to the B&B, cleaned him up so there was no sign of blood on him, popped along to the funeral like nothing happened, came back to the B&B like nothing happened, and casually announced they were going home early? Or alternatively, packed their stuff after the sheep massacre and put their bags in the car in order to make a swift getaway after the funeral?

I think all of this would be very poor storytelling in terms of educating people about responsible behaviour re. dogs and livestock. What are the listeners supposed to learn from this? Beware, lest someone abduct your dog and involve it in a crime? Don't let someone else's dog loose near livestock? It's a really far-fetched scenario and not really something people will think about when they go and let their dog "who wouldn't hurt a fly" off in a field that "looked empty".

Is Lynda going to organise a protest? I'd join her.

Presumably they also cleaned Monty up so there would be no obvious evidence when Lynda and Robert returned.

I must say, I struggle to understand Fallon's credentials for running an arts venue.

Perhaps Freddie is understandably working up to suggesting he should have more of a say in things given that the business and house are closely intertwined?

Oh Monty. Oh Lynda.

Wish I'd fast fwd through that episode.

I hope Freddie charges Elizabeth a hefty rent for 'her business ' using his property. Or tell her to run her business elsewhere. She's insufferable.

If he was given any part in the running of LL instead of serving time in the abattoir, he would do.

OTOH, didn't Lily have some part in an art show when with CallMeRuss? Someone will be along to enlighten. This is all about Elizabeth calling on Lily's skills, excluding Freddie, making trouble down the line.

@Scotiasdarling's idea of his charging rent is a good one.

I think Freddie wanted to point out that as he inherits next year (all news to us,) he should have more involvement of the running of LoLo, and at the very least, be informed of plans before the new employee is onboarded. Elizabeth shoukd remember thst without the house, she has no business, so she shouldn't upset Freddie too much.

Do they have Monty's DNA or just doberman DNA? Will there be another doberman attacking livestock just after he's destroyed?

What a pleasure it was to hear Harrison masticating again. I wonder what goes through the director's mind when there's a scene set around a meal. Do they actually direct an actor to pop some grub in their gob and talk with their mouth full? Or do they give the actors free rein and Harrison runs with it. David is another offender.
Can't imagine Lynda Snell talking with her mouth full.

I seem to remember they took a sample from Monty.

Lynda sounded like Brian and all the other insufferable wealthy Archers characters - the law doesn’t apply to me, I’ll call “my” solicitor and make this nonsense go away.

Yes. I thought they initially found doberman DNA from samples taken from the dead sheep, so they took a sample from Monty.
Harrison was certainly saying it was a match for Monty's DNA last night. I'm obviously not an expert but I presume a DNA match in dogs would be pretty good evidence for it being that particular dog, as it is in humans (though obviously not infallible).

As to the timeline, I thought the family probably did "hang around" the B&B until they were ready to go to the funeral.
As far as L&R knew - because they'd gone out - the family returned, decided they didn't feel like staying after all and went home.
I doubt they would have gone home straight from the funeral, because, they were initially planning to stay on, so they would have to return to the B&B to get their luggage once they decided that, after the funeral, they didn't feel like staying.
But maybe they weren't telling the truth about the timeline...

I've never owned a dog or cleaned one up after sheep-worrying, so I don't know how long it takes to clean one up after a normal muddy walk, much less one involving sheep carnage, so maybe mine isn't a feasible theory and this will be like the perm evidence in "Legally Blonde"* and will dramatically save Monty.

*Other, more highbrow, law films are available, I'm sure.
That was the first that came to mind.

I think it’s far fetched and completely ridiculous really. The idea that the boys (and their parents?) witnessed the sheep massacre, took Monty home and cleaned him up to such an extent that sharp eyed Lynda failed to notice anything was amiss and then left is completely bizarre. I’m surprised so many people on the thread think it’s a feasible scenario.

The Monty storyline is horrible and feels contrived and cruel

Makes me wonder what it’s leading to.

Would it save Monty if it does turn out it's the fault of the guests? At the very least I would have thought he might have to be rehomed somewhere well away from farms.

Apart from anything else, David saw the dog in question running off - didn't have time to fetch his gun and shoot it himself - there was no mention of any children/teenagers with the dog. Presumably the B&B kids would have been calling to to Monty or are we supposed to think they immediately legged it? Is the purpose of the story to illustrate that any dog can savage sheep, even one who wouldn't harm a fly such as Monty (it was this phrase that made me immediately ID him as the culprit weeks back)? Also to illustrate that dogs can be ID-d through their DNA, just like human criminals, and that rural police officers like Harrison are there for just such detective work. And also perhaps as a reminder not to take someone else's doberman out without permission (or indeed to leave your dog unattended in a place where this might happen). Whatever happens, it's curtains for Monty. It all feels a bit cobbled together - as if someone at a brainstorming meeting for rural plot lines suggested sheep worrying and this is what they came up with. Badly done SWs, badly done.

Not looking forward to the inevitable episode where David goes round and shouts at Lynda.

I don't know.
I don't want to become the prosecution for Monty.
I just said last night what I thought was going to happen and then tried to answer a couple of points when I was quoted.

Just as a last point, I've just noticed PuggyPuggyPuggy's post:

What are the listeners supposed to learn from this? Beware, lest someone abduct your dog and involve it in a crime? Don't let someone else's dog loose near livestock? It's a really far-fetched scenario and not really something people will think about when they go and let their dog "who wouldn't hurt a fly" off in a field that "looked empty".

I think maybe the SCs would hope that most people don't think about this in such a concrete way and could extrapolate a little.
I'd think the lesson would be that any dog should be considered to have the possibility of causing damage.
So, we've all seen Monty as a lovable, obedient dog but - the putative lesson could run - in the wrong circumstances, with people less responsible/ dog-aware than L&R, even Monty could become a savager of sheep.
So don't let your dog, or anybody else's if you happen to be in charge of one, off the lead in a sheep field.

I think it’s far fetched and completely ridiculous really. The idea that the boys (and their parents?) witnessed the sheep massacre, took Monty home and cleaned him up to such an extent that sharp eyed Lynda failed to notice anything was amiss and then left is completely bizarre. I’m surprised so many people on the thread think it’s a feasible scenario.
Fair-enough.
I certainly hope I'm wrong, it would be a very sad storyline.

Just read LillianGish's post at 09:00 and very much agree with it.

Lynda sounded like someone who was having her rights read to her for a crime she knows she wasn't involved in. Her beloved dog is being taken away and will probably be destroyed. I'd be getting legal advice too. What a nightmare.

That would be a result if it got rid of Lynda and Nu-Robert. (I have never taken to him!) They could move somewhere far, far away and never be heard of again.

And David didn't identify the dog as Monty, did he? Even at a moment of complete horror, you'd clock the dog. Round here, when livestock owners post on the village WhatsApp about dogs attacking their animals, they always know what kind of dog it is and usually identify its owner.