Archers addicts 3!

I was talking about Helen being a victim of abuse, coercion and control Margaret, something you seem to ignore. You say "You have to accept the women as they are in the situation that they are in and to have no desire to improve them or make them into better people or different" but you have not accepted Helen as she is - in the post I was replying to you said "Helen ... should have moved out earlier. She was a poor judge of character and of the situation she was in". "Helen" acted as "Helen" would with her background and the situation she was in. I would agree with your supervisors - we need to accept that and let her work from there.

My experience of working with victims of domestic abuse, as well as of supervision, were very different from yours MargaretX. As well as work, I have known too many of the professional people you refer to and I don't know what you mean about them not appearing in the statistics.
I agree with Lully that Helen felt she must make her marriage work. Her self esteem and ability to recognise she was a victim of coercive control and rape were eroded. That's what happens. I wonder if there some form of Stockholme syndrome has been a factor

gracesgran how am I blaming the victim when I stated the fact that she had stabbed her husband and almost killed him. She has to face up to this fact and I sure that any form of counselling will take this fact into consideration.

Thanks for the input. Our training (3 years, monthly psychological supervision) was not to take sides in any case! You have to accept the women as they are in the situation that they are in and to have no desire to improve them or make them into better people or different. All their progress must come from themselves with our help of course. They rebuild their lives on a building block basis one step after another. As I repeat, in 25 years I never met one case where the women had caring supportive parents. It was often the reverse.
Many abusers are higly educated professionals and their partners, with the financial help of the parents, leave and live somewhere else. They do not appear in statistics.

Presumably any counselling will have to wait until the trial is over to prevent her being led.

I think the reason Helen didn't move back home , when she should , was because she felt she had to make her new marriage work and became more and more embroiled in believing the brain washing.

It only she had confided in someone. Now we see Peggy was the obvious person. Pat and Tony would have believed her surely. But she did and does seem incapable of articulating or indeed understanding what was going on.

She is however driven at present by a horror of Rob having custody of the boys which may be the key, let's hope so.

Just one more thought Margaret. There is no question of a caution; Helen will either be found guilty or not guilty.

I couldn't agree more AyjayF

MargaretX, I nearly replied to your post last night but thought I should sleep on my reaction before I did so. It hasn't changed. How is victim blaming any help? Is this what you did to the poor women in your care at the refuge? Helen is no more a poor judge of character than the rest of us. Sadly, any one of us could be conned by the "right" person, although I am sure none of us want's to believe that.

You also seem to have put something of an old fashioned class view on the situation. If you have been trained (as your post would suggest) to care for women in this situation you will know that for every apparent advantage a "Helen" seems to have she will also have the disadvantages of the same situation.

One thing we need to remember is there will people on the jury who are equally as judgemental. Let's hope they do as they will no doubt be instructed to do and take account of the evidence not their prejudice.

Three cheers for Peggy!!!

My experience of working in a refuge is that most women there don't have caring parents with enough money to give them and their children a roof over their head. Helen had that and should have moved out earlier. She was a poor judge of character and of the situation she was in. After all she stabbed him and could have killed him, I can't see her getting off and actually can all people who stab their partners just get off with a caution?
I read these posts but don't listen anymore.

I'm afraid you are right merlotgran - poor Henry.

I think Peggy would always have backed Helen without knowing if Helen was in the right or the wrong imo but with H saying so much about protecting the children she will certainly be asking herself questions.

I suppose the next challenge for Bridge Farm will be when Rob finds out Helen will be keeping the baby with her. He's not going to be a happy bunny and I wonder how Henry will fare.

Gracesgran and LullyDully - how I agree - a very good episode, especially after all the dire ones we have had, with no one talking about Helen much. Those who went through the war years or just after often have very strong characters like Peggy, and I do hope she starts supporting Helen and not Rob!
Lets have more episodes like this please.

Hype.....how daft

I gather that the actor who plays Rob is going to have extra security when he opens a village fete this weekend, just in case people mix him up with Rob. Now that is crazy!

Three cheers for Peggy .......she brought me hope, must have made such a change to Helen.

Two women, ages 94 and 83, completely own The Archers

A brilliant critique of two of the strongest characters in The Archers and the women who play them. June Spencer was brilliant on tonight's episode imo and helped to round out our view of Helen and the strength she is showing in spite of her lack of internal resources - where would she have got them from after what Rob has done to her.

I really felt it was an outstanding episode.

I agree about Anna Iam. She is short of time - of course Helen will have had her interview by now - and she needs to keep Helen focused; I felt that was what she was doing. Now whether I could have that patience ... ... ...

Good post there Gracesgran. I've just listened to tonight's episode with Jennifer and Linda Snell talking about the Helen/Rob situation, sympathetically and with some insight I thought.

Social attitudes to the abuse of women and children, what used to be called "a domestic" have changed out of all recognition in the last 50 years or so. Women were blamed either for not standing up to their abusive partner or for provoking him. Those responses have been seen in many discussions about Helen. As Gracesgran says, Rob is responsible for his behaviour and it will be interesting to see how the history of their relationship and her final break down type response is shown.

I didn't think Anna sounded exasperated - barristers spend much of their time having in depth discussion with clients who have injured their partners, or worse (to my mind) their children. The barristers just get on with it on the basis that everyone has the right to a fair trial. That'll be Anna's focus. Just a shame she can't ask leading questions init.

You could analyse the character of Helen in that way Merlotgran and it is interesting to do so. However, whatever her character what we are dealing with is the law and that it now recognises that coercive controlling behaviour is a form of abuse.

The character may be unlikeable but so are a lot of people. It may even be possible to say that Helen is an unsympathetic character but I don't think so as we do seem to understand her even if we don't want her as a friend. She is self-absorbed and even a little churlishness but perhaps we will find out a little more about how she came to be that way. Again I would say that though that may make us less sympathetic to Helen as a person the law should not be swung by this.

At one time if a women was beaten by her husband people (sadly other women at times) would criticise her for "being such a mouse" or "giving him a mouthful" but nothing other than self-defence gives a wife beater a get out. Similarly, we may understand more about what made Helen vulnerable to Rob - that is interesting - but it doesn't stop Rob being responsible for his own behaviour and therefore should/may make Helen not guilty of the charges.

(It does make it interesting though doesn't it )

Exactly merlotgran. While some aspects of this story line may ring true I have often found Helen a character who it is difficult to sympathise with!!

Surely we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Helen also has a manipulative side to her character. When she wanted something she would go all out to get it. Her parents were often perplexed by her actions and she could wind people round her little finger when it suited her. She got Tom to take the blame for her drink-driving episode and once she'd set her sights on Rob she was happy to dump Henry on Pat and Tony when she wanted to be with him. She also deceived Pat with the bracelet she was supposed to have made at evening class.

I don't think TA has ever had a more self-absorbed character. She convinced herself that her life was perfect and when she realised it was all going horribly wrong she had no idea how to deal with it because this time she couldn't shove it all on to someone else to put right for her. Despite Kirsty's advice, she couldn't even leave Rob in a sensible way - there had to be an 'event' and now her life is in ruins.

The bit about the sweets was unnecessary, misleading and a total waste of time.

I thought Anna was beginning to sound quite exasperated and maybe doubting whether taking the case was such a good idea after all.

I can agree about both Elizabeth and Ruth nonny - those story lines seemed very out of character and context for both but the last thing I would personally call the Helen story line would be soap opera. To me they have researched well and played it out in a timely way using a character to whom the scenario seemed entirely appropriate. In what way does it seem like a soap opera to you? Sadly this is a side of real life for many.

I have listened to the Archers since I was a small child in the early 1950's and it has been a part of my life. The present Helen storyline has become so "soap opera" like that I have stopped listening to it. I had just about coped with Ruth going to New Zealand for Christmas and Elizabeth's unlikely afair with Roy but this is over the top for the Archers!!!!

William Troughton -Tom- talks about the siblings, their brother John and Rob

Seeing as I'm playing the part of Pat's backbone at the moment, first thing in the morning I'm going round to that retired Miss Parker's cottage with a large tin of Quality Street.

I'll leave you to imagine the rest.

Hopefully she won't remember that she never told me about Toffeegate.

Then maybe Danny whatsisname could apply for a job at Bridge Farm and Tom could thump him as well.