The Archers

[Tim Hall]

I thought the same. I don't think a second listen will help.

It's like Sean O'Connor was trying to be Sidney Lumet.

(I once did jury service with a woman who represented Ray Galton & Alan Simpson.  Their take on 12 Angry Men is much better)

[Wowbagger]

(click to show/hide)

I was a bit disappointed with last night's episode. The guilty crowd were in the majority most of the time with only two (?) members speaking out on Helen's behalf (I was cooking dinner at the time so may have missed a bit but I only remember the older woman, and the young man who told the story of his friend). The story went quickly from quite strongly guilty-leaning jury to a not-guilty verdict on both charges without hearing enough of the discussion that lead to the "guilty" members changing their mind, particularly the chair.
Also, once Mrs W had pointed out that the chavvy "hang her" character was played by Catherine Tate I couldn't really take her seriously .

I'll have another listen today at 2.

(click to show/hide)

The turning point came when it turned out that the bloke who had inveigled himself into the role of Foreman of the Jury turned out to be a wife beater who wasn't allowed within 500 metres of his old front door, nor allowed to see his kids. I agree, some of the subsequent discussion would have been rather helpful. Straight from there to a "Not Guilty" verdict was a bit of a leap, for my pore brane at least.

[robgul]

Have to say I thought the jury discussion - especially at the start - was a bit disjointed . . . and other than as an ego trip for the producer I can't see what having Nigel Havers, Catherine Tate, Eileen Atkins etc added to the pudding??

Rob

[Tigerrr]

Watch out Henry...bad things are going to happen. It's not over yet. Nor likely to be for ages as it will be very hard to revert to old Archers after this.

[rr]

Watch out Henry...bad things are going to happen. It's not over yet. Nor likely to be for ages as it will be very hard to revert to old Archers after this.

I suspect bad things have already happened, hence the return to bed wetting. Helen seemed like she'd been drugged a couple of times.

[Oscar's dad]

(click to show/hide)

I was a bit disappointed with last night's episode. The guilty crowd were in the majority most of the time with only two (?) members speaking out on Helen's behalf (I was cooking dinner at the time so may have missed a bit but I only remember the older woman, and the young man who told the story of his friend). The story went quickly from quite strongly guilty-leaning jury to a not-guilty verdict on both charges without hearing enough of the discussion that lead to the "guilty" members changing their mind, particularly the chair.
Also, once Mrs W had pointed out that the chavvy "hang her" character was played by Catherine Tate I couldn't really take her seriously .

I'll have another listen today at 2.

(click to show/hide)

The turning point came when it turned out that the bloke who had inveigled himself into the role of Foreman of the Jury turned out to be a wife beater who wasn't allowed within 500 metres of his old front door, nor allowed to see his kids. I agree, some of the subsequent discussion would have been rather helpful. Straight from there to a "Not Guilty" verdict was a bit of a leap, for my pore brane at least.

Ah, that's OK then.  I listened to the hour long episode on iPlayer which kept stopping.  When they suddenly jumped to the jury returning their verdict I thought I'd missed a bit and was going to listen again to check.

The trial itself was just brilliant, the acting and story line were both superb.  I didn't think the jury room episode was as good.  Are jury deliberations really like that?  I suppose they could be if you got the right mix of characters. 

[hatler]

I heard somewhere in all the Archer related stuff that the editor (producer, writer ??) had done jury service a couple of times and used that experience to inform the hour long episode.

I'm still waiting to be called for jury service. Is there a point where age excuses you ?

[robgul]

I heard somewhere in all the Archer related stuff that the editor (producer, writer ??) had done jury service a couple of times and used that experience to inform the hour long episode.

I'm still waiting to be called for jury service. Is there a point where age excuses you ?

Yep it's 70 (which meant that Eileen Atkins at 82 wouldn't have been able to serve!)

. . . I was called once in about 1974 but was genuinely away on holiday so didn't have to do it  - no word since then and I escape the call-up next year.

Rob

[Tim Hall]

(click to show/hide)

I was a bit disappointed with last night's episode. The guilty crowd were in the majority most of the time with only two (?) members speaking out on Helen's behalf (I was cooking dinner at the time so may have missed a bit but I only remember the older woman, and the young man who told the story of his friend). The story went quickly from quite strongly guilty-leaning jury to a not-guilty verdict on both charges without hearing enough of the discussion that lead to the "guilty" members changing their mind, particularly the chair.
Also, once Mrs W had pointed out that the chavvy "hang her" character was played by Catherine Tate I couldn't really take her seriously .

I'll have another listen today at 2.

(click to show/hide)

The turning point came when it turned out that the bloke who had inveigled himself into the role of Foreman of the Jury turned out to be a wife beater who wasn't allowed within 500 metres of his old front door, nor allowed to see his kids. I agree, some of the subsequent discussion would have been rather helpful. Straight from there to a "Not Guilty" verdict was a bit of a leap, for my pore brane at least.

Ah, that's OK then.  I listened to the hour long episode on iPlayer which kept stopping.  When they suddenly jumped to the jury returning their verdict I thought I'd missed a bit and was going to listen again to check.

The trial itself was just brilliant, the acting and story line were both superb.  I didn't think the jury room episode was as good.  Are jury deliberations really like that?  I suppose they could be if you got the right mix of characters.

When i did it, we didn't use our own life experiences to help determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.  We also didn't all talk/shout across each other.

[Woofage]

(click to show/hide)

I was a bit disappointed with last night's episode. The guilty crowd were in the majority most of the time with only two (?) members speaking out on Helen's behalf (I was cooking dinner at the time so may have missed a bit but I only remember the older woman, and the young man who told the story of his friend). The story went quickly from quite strongly guilty-leaning jury to a not-guilty verdict on both charges without hearing enough of the discussion that lead to the "guilty" members changing their mind, particularly the chair.
Also, once Mrs W had pointed out that the chavvy "hang her" character was played by Catherine Tate I couldn't really take her seriously .

I'll have another listen today at 2.

(click to show/hide)

The turning point came when it turned out that the bloke who had inveigled himself into the role of Foreman of the Jury turned out to be a wife beater who wasn't allowed within 500 metres of his old front door, nor allowed to see his kids. I agree, some of the subsequent discussion would have been rather helpful. Straight from there to a "Not Guilty" verdict was a bit of a leap, for my pore brane at least.

Thanks. I picked that up better on my second listen. Tate's character also finally revealed that she was in an abusive relationship but that she felt she had to put up with it.

[citoyen]

I have a confession to make: since allowing the Helen storyline to lure me back in, I've started listening to the Archers regularly again.

The writing seems to have improved since last time I was a regular listener. I understand this may be because they have a new editor. If so, well done them. There are still some irritations but also some very good stuff - in particular, there was an exchange between Jennifer and Susan in the shop the other day that made me smile.

[citoyen]

Stefan's not dead!

[Nuncio]

Ah Stefan. I was expecting him to turn up before/during the trial. It's difficult to imagine what could be gained 'just' by Rob's reputation being brought down any lower by any revelations from Stefan, so what are the chances of Rob trying to do away with him instead?

[MikeFromLFE]

Ah Stefan. I was expecting him to turn up before/during the trial. It's difficult to imagine what could be gained 'just' by Rob's reputation being brought down any lower by any revelations from Stefan, so what are the chances of Rob trying to do away with him instead?

I expect Evil Rob to get nasty (even if not lethal) with Stefan and thence get his collar felt by the local plod. At which point Charlie Thomas wades in.....


Sent from my brain to my iPad using my fingers and Tapatalk

[Oscar's dad]

I've lost touch recently. Who is Stefan?

[MikeFromLFE]

 Stefan was an East European worker on the mega-farm, he witnessed Evil-Rob blocking the storm drain which exacerbated the effects of the flood. Evil-Rob paid him to disappear back home before he could shop Rob. (?ISTR that Stefan was gay and had a dalliance with ?Adam?)
Charlie Thomas was manager of the mega-dairy and found out that Evil-Rob was cooking the books - Rob got him out.
Someone will be along in a moment to correct my errors/ fill in the gaps.


Sent from my brain to my iPad using my fingers and Tapatalk

[Oscar's dad]

Gosh, it seems I've missed alot!

[Wowbagger]

Gosh, it seems I've missed alot!

Or not, as the case may be!

I find reading the Archers summary on YACF saves a lot of time and effort.

[Oscar's dad]

Gosh, it seems I've missed alot!

Or not, as the case may be!

I find reading the Archers summary on YACF saves a lot of time and effort.

  

[Tim Hall]

Stefan was an East European worker on the mega-farm, he witnessed Evil-Rob blocking the storm drain which exacerbated the effects of the flood. Evil-Rob paid him to disappear back home before he could shop Rob. (?ISTR that Stefan was gay and had a dalliance with ?Adam?)
Charlie Thomas was manager of the mega-dairy and found out that Evil-Rob was cooking the books - Rob got him out.
Someone will be along in a moment to correct my errors/ fill in the gaps.


Sent from my brain to my iPad using my fingers and Tapatalk

Whilst Adam shags more people than Caroline BoneSterling, I think his Eastern European interest was in the shape of one of the fruit pickers rather than Stefan

(Sad to see that Caroline's close friend, Sara Coward, has terminal cancer.)

[Peat]

Pawel, was it not?

I must admit, I had forgotten about Stefan. And I listened to the Omnibus and missed the reference. I need to listen betterer.

[MikeFromLFE]

Pawel, was it not?

Quite right you are


Sent from my brain to my iPad using my fingers and Tapatalk

[Peat]

My temporary amnesia was due having not listened to the final 15mins of the Omnibus out of error.

Duly rectified. Stefan eh. 

[hatler]

My prediction is that evil Rob will do away with himself and the two children.

[Tim Hall]

My prediction is that evil Rob will do away with himself and the two children.

Hopefully not. Don't forget Helen's previous partner, Greg, also killed himself.