|
|
Post by goodhelenstar on Aug 30, 2016 6:58:00 GMT
The ludicrous Helen/Rob storyline was given a five-minute slot on Today this morning and the trial hasn't even started yet. I used to listen regularly but haven't done so since Nigel fell off the roof. That was bad enough – this editor is even worse. Shame, as I used to enjoy a gentle stroll through Ambridge of an evening. Please let normality return when the editor goes back to Walford.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2016 11:41:08 GMT
It hardly seemed like detective work. Conversations involving 'Max' always seemed so stilted. I have a kerazy theory that, given the number of peoplev who seemed to hear 'he' and 'husband' when those words were never used, that it was a psychological wheeze, in advance of The Trial. to show how people's recollections were prone to misrecollection, due to something as simple as a traditionally male forename's abbreviation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2016 11:47:56 GMT
The ludicrous Helen/Rob storyline was given a five-minute slot on Today this morning and the trial hasn't even started yet. I used to listen regularly but haven't done so since Nigel fell off the roof. That was bad enough – this editor is even worse. Shame, as I used to enjoy a gentle stroll through Ambridge of an evening. Please let normality return when the editor goes back to Walford. Reminds me of how, when we'd complain about a Big Ben clocktower sized T Rex, without explanation, some would dismissively say that 'Dr Who' is just a kid's programme, anyway. Can we not have dramas that aspire to more than that? I'm sure some do, even on the BBC... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2016 11:06:51 GMT
Just had the italicised bit deleted from a comment on Peet's, because it was 'superfluous' (the link did work, btw): I wonder, did the anonymous mod mean that mention of this board was 'superfluous'? Good job he/she didn't know the link worked (unless it doesn't for non-members?) Lesbian Lurve on TA |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2016 20:14:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sleepyp on Sept 11, 2016 16:04:06 GMT
The Big Day today  ... I will be out so will have to find out at the end of the evening...wonder what the twist is going to be  Graham Seed on Saturday PM said he hoped Archers fans would like it... |
|
|
|
Post by marion on Sept 11, 2016 16:10:37 GMT
Are we taking bets? I reckon she will be guilty of the lesser charge. That is mainly based on my dislike of the character. Not that I have any time for Rob either, although I do like the actor. Quite frankly the Bridge Farm Archers have ticked me off so much, the final straw being their stage whispering all through the flaming trial, I want them to have as much misery as possible, before matters are reversed on appeal. I am just amazed the case seemed to go so well for Helen. I cannot see how such a late defence was permitted, how Kirsty was allowed to yell the odds, how Jess wasn't challenged as to why she was so keen to sleep with her rapist and pretend he was the father of her son. It was all bonkers. But at least the custard got a mention, . An hour tonight! I shall have to record it as I cannot listen to Pat shrieking away without hitting the pause button. And celebrity jurors no less. But this epi is Sean O'Connor's grand finale I believe. |
|
|
|
Post by goodhelenstar on Sept 11, 2016 17:02:56 GMT
Yes, thank goodness, he's off back to Albert Square. Leaving a bruised and damaged Archers behind, IMO. My guess is Helen will be found guilty of wounding with intent and then get off on appeal when various skeletons in Rob's cupboard come tumbling out. I hope so anyway - it wouldn't be realistic for her to be acquitted. That said, the trial has hardly been realistic! What a pity Usha didn't function as her solicitor with a barrister who wasn't such a walking catastrophe herself.
Will the verdict be given tonight or will there be one of those cliffhangers we all enjoy so much? That doesn't work well with Barwick Green ...
|
|
|
|
Post by deansay on Sept 11, 2016 19:42:57 GMT
Well now we know.....but it ain't over yet for sure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2016 20:09:11 GMT
What's next...big custody battle?
|
|
|
|
Post by marion on Sept 11, 2016 20:22:36 GMT
Well I thought that was a complete pigs' breakfast of an episode. Everyone talking over each other, stereotyped jurors, the consideration of what happened to Tristan's friend rather than the evidence of the case, then a completely divided jury bringing in a verdict by the end of the day. What tosh! I was on a jury for a murder trial which lasted six months and we deliberated for a full week. Not once were our discussions like this rubbish.  |
|
|
|
Post by deansay on Sept 11, 2016 21:41:09 GMT
Some one has posted in Mustardland that perhaps intelligence tests should be given to jurors ..........they posted this .........OH is wondering whether "yer average thicko" should be able to serve on a jury? Or was SOC trying to make a point?
|
|
|
|
Post by goodhelenstar on Sept 12, 2016 8:02:34 GMT
Well I thought that was a complete pigs' breakfast of an episode. Everyone talking over each other, stereotyped jurors, the consideration of what happened to Tristan's friend rather than the evidence of the case, then a completely divided jury bringing in a verdict by the end of the day. What tosh! Couldn't agree more. It was really difficult to make out what they were saying at some points – that was obviously the point some of the time, but it didn't make for clear understanding of the different arguments. What a mess. What I did like, though, was the suggestion that jurors can be influenced by their own life experiences, as both Catherine Tate and Nigel Havers' characters were. That struck me as quite likely, unfortunately, though real-life jurors would probably be less blatant about it. So, now there will be a custody battle I suppose, with Jack living with Helen and Henry with Rob – still obliged to hand him over one day a week, or will that now change given that his mother is free to look after him? |
|
|
|
Post by marion on Sept 12, 2016 10:03:44 GMT
I thought the big problem with the scenes were that the right-on message was very heavily scripted, as intoned by Dame Eileen and Tristan (I didn't help my friend so I am going to help this woman) whereas the guilt-inclined were made to sound like chavs. The exception was Nigel Havers who at least had some delay before his true colours were revealed. I mean had I been on the jury, I would have wanted to know what relevance Tristan's friend had as evidence in the trial! He sounded a) like Tom and b) as if he had drifted in from a support group. I cannot see Rob being able to keep Henry, and I do not believe for one minute he has any true feelings for the boy (allwight). And Helen can surely rescind the parenting order. But Gideon/Jack is another matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by rozk on Sept 12, 2016 10:35:36 GMT
I don't listen to the Archers regularly any more but catch bits when in the car around 2pm. I caught up a bit playing the snippets on the R4 iplayer, had thought I might listen to the special but not a lot of point now I know the verdict. Helen will get Henry back but he may be difficult having been brainwashed.
Presume Gideon/Jack is the product of rape, would that give Rob any rights over him?
|
|
... I will be out so will have to find out at the end of the evening...wonder what the twist is going to be 
Anymore to come?
