- This topic has 13 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
(1) Helen still doesn’t have a positive case to put as a defence to the charge she’s facing.
You more than most will be aware of this and I for one, have no patience with her or the storyline right now.(2) How can Helen simultaneously have friends that were pushed away by Rob and yet have no one to act as a character witness? An inherent contradiction methinks.
Spot on! Rob pushed away, Ian, Fallon and Kirsty. Isn’t Kirtsy on the prosecution team though or is that just Pat?(3) Do I have to hear each time Toby and Pip or Lillian and Justin are arranging to have, are having or have had a tryst?
Yes you do and though I love you, you are a The puritan! 🙂(4) Apart from the link between Robin Fairbrother and Elizabeth and the late Grace, what’s going on with Jill?
I put it all down to Grace, Grace and more Grace!(5) When did Alice become so arrogant? I think I preferred her when she was silent. Very Harsh, I like her, I’d like to hear some “Chris” occasionally
(6) Why do we need “dare devil” Dorothy in the cast? Just wondering? Couldn’t agree more!
Roifield
Thinking about your team mates Josh and Oliver and their un-black surnames …
I’ve thought about the “dare devil” Dorothy and her being named after Dorothy Dandridge.
It made me think that maybe she’s black or mixed race … and when I looked at the cast list, I found the actress is black.
So that makes her “diverse” Dorothy. I’m sure no one wants to make a big deal out of it but she’s one of very few non-white British characters in the show and it’s great that there hasn’t been any lazy stereotyping. So far!
Miss mid City.
I like “diverse” Dorothy, that made me laugh!It was a slip of the tongue when I said unblack “surnames”, I meant “first names”. I had never thought about it until Lucy said, you lived in Notting Hill and I thought yes they sounded like typical white middle class names.
Is it racist to assume that a black actress is playing a black character #oscarssowhite 🙂
I want to hear the resolution of the Helen story, but in a ‘Rob explodes under cross examination in the courtroom, leaps the barrier and attacks Anna’ double episode!
(1) Helen still doesn’t have a positive case to put as a defence to the charge she’s facing. The trial date looms in September. Anna is apparently a composite of both a barrister/advocate and a solicitor – as well as a psychotherapist, it would seem – but she doesn’t have the power to weave a defence out of nothing.
Yes! I understand that Helen is still traumatised and has mentally blocked all the worst things but she has started to change her language a bit and say things like “he manipulated me by…”. But she is still treating Anna as some annoying nosy person insisting on asking her irrelevant questions and not the very expensive barrister that is going to help her avoid a prison sentence. I really don’t understand her “what do you want to know that for?” attitude. Piping up about Jess for example would be an obvious thing, not directly linked to the rape&stabbing trauma that she is obviously still blocking out.
While Helen is opening up about the wider manipulation from Rob, she is avoiding Anna finding out about the rape. I think Helen still feels immense shame about the rape, because she feels like it was her fault for not fighting him more. I think once she has told someone about the rape, probably Kaz, she will find it easier to disclose it to Anna. Its one of those things that people need to be told by someone on the outside of the situation that its not their fault before they can feel like the victim instead of someone who was complicit in the act.
I think that Anna will get confirmation that Helen phoned the helpline but they will not give her details as per Helen’s request. But she will open up to Kaz about the rape. Kaz will tell her that it wasn’t her fault and that she should tell her barrister. Anna will then get permission to speak to the helpline and retrieve the call. The call will be played in court and Rob being the arrogant misogynist he is will admit the act while maintaining that he has a right to sex because he is married and therefore its not rape. Part of the job done in showing the jury what a nasty bastard he is and getting him charged with his crimes.
Is this a bit too hopeful?I think Jill’s obsession with the fairbrethren is really annoying and a bit out of character, but then as a relative latecomer to the archers (5 years) perhaps this is just a facet of her character I haven’t seen before. The Grace jealousy thing seems so odd considering the woman died 50 years ago.. Then I was thinking about my Grannie who is the sweetest, most generous person I know, but very occasionally shows some intolerant traits (Daily fail reader) which seem completely at odds with her personality. Perhaps Jill is the same.
No, Kiwi Listener, I don’t think it’s racist to assume a black actress is playing a black character. I don’t see why that would be racist. At worst, it might be lazy or unimaginative thinking but it’s not racist.
Dorothy isn’t a common name anymore and Dorothy Dandridge isn’t exactly a household name. I know of Dorothy Dandridge and “Carmen Jones” because she was a pioneering black actress and I was introduced to Pearl Bailey (whose music I love) who also starred in the film through listening to Benny Green on Radio 2 on a Sunday afternoon. And I remember there was a Halle Berry biopic some years ago.
To their credit, no-one has alluded to Dorothy’s racial origin in “The Archers”. It’s obviously not important. For me, it was simply that as someone who has a slightly quaint first name (the same name as a phenomenal opera singer, a martyr and a legendary Hollywood actress) I was curious.
RE : Jill, yes, I don’t understand her obsession with the Fairbrethren either. The wise people of twitter appear to put it down to bad feelings about Grace but I don’t really get that either unless I have missed something in the story. As I understand it, Grace was Phil’s(?) first wife. She died in rather tragic circumstances. Phil later married Jill. Most women who marry widower’s don’t have a grudge against the first wife do they? At least not anything very serious. After all she isn’t even around any more! Don’t get it, what have I missed?
Interesting about Dorothy. I noted that SW have made her a dare devil after people complained that she seemed way too boring. I have to say though, I don’t think extreme sports make her any more interesting.
Unfortunately Anna won’t get confirmation that Helen called the helpline, because Helen refused to have the call logged. You’ll recall the advisor asked her at the time if she wanted a reference number for the call, so they’d have a record in case she wanted to call back.
This whole charade around Helen not giving Anna enough information to build a case and all the stuff around it is really p-ing me off. Where is Jess, and why is Helen’s solicitor and/or Anna not asking about Jess? Surely they know he was married before, wouldn’t the ex be their first port of call as a potential character witness?
Plus the fact that no one seems to be speaking to each other in the village – there were far too many people who suspected what the dark lord was like before the ordure hit the fan.
Oh, and another thing: Saint Shula needs to get off her high horse and ‘fess up to her experience of Rob decking the sab – pronto. She could always ask for immunity from prosecution in view of the situation and see if the police can help, because Rob is guilty of assault. That could not only have him convicted, but help Helen to build a solid case. Frankly I’d have thought her religious belief (and the fact that Helen’s a family member) would have pricked her conscience well before now. But apparently not. Badly done, Shula.
I agree Blithe Spirit! Helen just has to start talking or the story line is just too painful! She was quite candid with Jess before she stabbed Tichynob so I don’t know why she can’t speak up now.
With respect to the helpline, when Helen called, the counsellor asked Helen to take a down a number, Helen refused, the counsellor then urged her to take the number and said that this would allow them to identify her next time she calls. Next thing we heard was Helen and Rob talking as Rob came in the door. Although Helen said “no” to taking the number down the first time, we don’t know for sure that she didn’t write it down after the counsellor urged her to. We didn’t hear her say goodbye, hang up or anything like that. She may have quickly written the number down. If Helen has it, the number would be confirmation that Helen called the help line.
I also think Shula should fess up! Even if she does though, it just proves that Tichynob assaulted someone once, it doesn’t prove anything about what went on between Helen and Rob. Also Shula can fess up and then have to face the old question “you lied then, how do can we be sure you are telling the truth now?”
Jess is not necessarily a reliable witness because she’s an embittered ex-spouse. It’d be too easy for an experienced prosecution counsel to discredit her. Ms Bubbles mentions the old question challenging credibility, similarly, if Jess starts making accusations about Rob’s past controlling, abusive behaviour she’ll be cross examined as to why she didn’t take steps to report him. In the end, he was the one who left her for Helen. Even after he left her, she still wanted him back. And they had their post-break up tryst which led to the paternity test implausibility conundrum.
I wouldn’t be pinning my hopes on her as a defence witness …
I think Shula should keep her trap shut. Alistair is right to warn her that she could be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice: she made a false statement to the police. That alone is going to undermine her credibility and usefulness as a witness. Plus, Alistair has a point: they’ll lose respect in the village. It’s not that they are regarded as Ambridge’s moral power-couple but I’m not sure most residents know about Shula’s dalliance(s) and Alistair’s gambling. Shula’s dishonesty in covering up for Rob would be all over “The Borchester Echo”.
I wouldn’t be pinning my hopes on her as a defence witness, either …
Basically, there were no independent witnesses to what Helen did that fateful evening. There’s only Henry. What Helen actually needs is a defence. So far, she’s put forward no explanation, excuse or justification – no narrative to pin her actions on at all.
Good luck with that one, Anna!
I’d love to see the storyboard for the story that cannot be named. Do you think they’ve planned all this stuff out, or are they making it up as they’re going along? Anna was a super busy hotshot lawyer and they didn’t think she’d necessarily be able to take on Helen’s case – and now she has all the time in the world to investigate and provide emotional support. I hope we hear the episode where Pat & Tony get the bill. (Or is this legal aid, in which case she’d have even less inclination to spend all this time)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.