- This topic has 15 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Go Tom! Jazzer deserved everything he got and more.
Am I right that Helen’s family has given him a place to live since the flood? If so, he would have a lot of cheek to complain to an employment tribunal.
Excellent writing, once again I was completely transfixed and couldn’t wait to see what would happen next.
Agreed! Except I never liked Jazzer. I hope that Tom doesn’t wind up apologizing to him. One of my Archer complaints (reading this, Keri?) is that people in Ambridge never get seriously called out for their rude behavior.
Did you guys know that the actor who plays Jazzer is blind? I’ve always found that fascinating.
I wonder how the actor felt when he read those lines and figured out that his character was about to change from loveable rogue to ungrateful jerk. Perhaps he was just happy to have a story line.
Witherspoon, I wonder if your complaint that the people of Ambridge never confront each other or call each other out for bad behaviour is not a cultural difference. The British communicate in secret code that is almost imperceptible to foreigners like you and I. I bet there’s a lot of confrontation that we never recognise as such because it all sounds so civil.
The kinds of confrontations you are looking for just aren’t something that happens a lot.
Neil and Josh’s conversation about the egg partnership was a stark contrast, with Neil schooling the young pup on what’s what.Yes! I agree Witherspoon, especially Susan. For example when she was horribly rude to Peggy over the Bridge farm shop while Peggy was actually trying to save the Village shop by influencing Hazel. Did she ever apologise for that?
Like Witherspoon, I have never been a fan of Jazzer. He’s just a complete and utter boor. I’d have lamped him ages ago for less than what he said about Helen.
Witherspoon we (us Brits that is) don’t do confrontation! That’s why no knew gets called out for their rudeness I’m ambridge. It just isn’t done this side of the pond.
Jazzer will be jazzer. He’ll see the error of his ways. Esp if he ends up homeless.
Does anyone think (however cruel it would be) that Jazzer will end up being Key in the trial
I’m just throwing ideas at the wall but”i questioned The defendants innocence was violently assaulted by her brother, Fired from my job unjustly
And made homeless” reflects pretty badly on the Archer Family because “if Tom is violent maybe it’s A family thing”Short answer for Tom Williams: no.
I don’t think Jazzer will end up being key in the trial. Largely because I don’t see how when he saw nothing and heard nothing and didn’t come anywhere near the scene at any time.
Jazzer’s on quite a long list of people along with “the silents” who can have absolutely nothing useful to add to either the prosecution or defence case.
Helen’s propensity for violence or otherwise is what’s on trial – not her family. You can hardly say violence runs in the family based on Tom hitting Jazzer (or even dredging up the fight between Tony and Eddie Grundy that what referenced a while ago). Helen and Tom are not the Kray twins.
The prosecution doesn’t need angles. It needs to prove its case: wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Key to that, is proving Helen’s state of mind and what she intended, what she foresaw would happen and whether she was reckless (in the legal sense) amongst things. Jazzer adds nothing to any of the issues a jury would have to grapple with.
I was thinking from a bias Prosecution stand point
If word got out the defences brother assaulted an employee and fired him for Expressing an opinion(I’m clutching at straws i know but i know i’m not the only person on here whos trying to interconnect Everything )
Tom, I reckon you’re trying even harder than the script writers to make sense of all of this! You’ve got to sift through everything that isn’t relevant and focus on the core issues: (i) Helen stabbed Rob, (ii) what was her state of mind at the time and (iii) does she have a defence?
I don’t know how the prosecution would come to find out about Tom firing Jazzer but I don’t think it would interest them much. It’s something that’s there for the audience but it’s unlikely to help the police with their enquiries and, as I’ve said in my view, it’s not going to help the prosecution prove their case.
If anything, Tom firing Jazzer reflects badly on Tom and might discredit him as a witness. (I can’t remember if he and Kirsty were convicted over their GM crop protests. If they were, then they would not be regarded as people of “clean character” and might not be good witnesses.) Still, I can’t think what Tom would have to contribute to the defence (or prosecution case), anyway …
This Helen situation makes me think of OJ Simpson’s trial where on the face of it, the prosecution had “an open and shut case” and overwhelming evidence of guilt – but then still managed to snatch defeat from the jaw of victory.
Like OJ, the evidence against Helen is pretty powerful. At this stage, I’m assuming the writers will let the case go to trial because they’ve come this far. And having dominated the drama and totally consumed it for so long, whatever the outcome, Helen is going to remain central to what happens over the next few years. This is already such a pivotal incident in this character’s life that nothing will ever be the same for her.
However, I don’t think it would be good to let the story develop into Helen serving a prison sentence. We’ve had that situation before with Susan being “unjustly” imprisoned. I don’t think it needs to be repeated. I wouldn’t want to see Helen imprisoned and then have to go through the agonies of a campaign for her release on appeal. Nor do I want to endure the agony of her on the inside and her family on the outside dealing with being a prisoner for years and years. In my view, Helen should be found not guilty and then return to Ambridge to face her new circumstances.
The full ramifications of her story have yet to be explored: such as being on remand in custody or remanded on bail outside Ambridge in social isolation, having a baby that she may not be allowed to care for (if she’s remanded in custody, the baby would be taken from her), losing daily contact with Henry and the rest of her family and friends, adjusting to a new and awful reality, ending her marriage but then having to continue to deal with Rob being part of her life as the father of her baby and Henry’s step father … Ugh!
I agree with miss Mid City that Helen can’t be convicted based upon Tom being violent. I can’t see any reason he’d be a witness in her case.
It would be an interesting plot twist if Jazzer lawyered up with some ambulance chaser and threatened to sue for assault and unfair dismissal. He could make Tom and the whole family suffer greatly , made even worse that it would happen at the same time as the Helen problems. I don’t think he’d do that in real life, I think he’d recognise he was wrong.
Maybe when Rob gets back and hears what happened he’ll encourage Jazzer to sue.
I used to have quite the lady boner for Jazza but he has reverted back to type on this one. He has always been more of a pig than his charges, i appreciate Neil trying to get him to see he is in the wrong but i think getting the cold shoulder from a few people might do him some good. Shame to hear Jim isn’t keen on having him back either.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.