Archers addicts 3!

A baby born in prison can stay with it's mother (in prison) until it is 18 months old suzied and merlotgran. A baby under 18 months can go into prison with its mother and stay until it is 18 months old. Of course Helen could reject the baby because of the circumstances.

My question - where's the vicar, he doesn't seem to have visited anyone?

It'll make for good 'Granny Wars' with Peggy stirring it between the two of them

There's got to be a reason for the scriptwriters moving Ursula into BHC so maybe she'll look after the baby and Henry will stay with Pat and Tony, who surely wouldn't be able to cope with a baby as well?

Kirsty might hand in her notice at Grey Gables so she can run the shop for Pat and Tony which will put her in a good position for a reconcilliation with Tom.

Perhaps Ursula and Bruce will try to look after/ adopt the baby. If Helen's banged up and going through a trial, they may not have provision for the baby in prison.

An interesting article Gracesgtan.

I think the longer Henry stays with Pat, Tony, etc., the more likely it would be that he would be left there and Rob will be in no condition to look after him for some while - at least that is what I am telling myself. Also, as he is a witness would Rob even be able to talk to him - Helen hasn't been.

It will go on for quite a while as, as you say J52, it take ages for these things to come to trial. From Helen's point of view there is a case for saying the longer it goes on the stronger she may be able to become again.

This made interesting reading: The Archers wife on trial: Qualified barrister puts case for and against Radio Four character, accused of attempted murder, who is dividing the nation...and Mail writers give their verdicts

I think I'm more worried about what will happen to poor Henry if Rob recovers.

I know nothing about this parental right thingy. Surely it doesn't give as much power as adoption?

I heard/read that the story will run for another year, presumably it will take that long to come to trial.

I wondered if Rob will recover, in time and at the last minute save Helen as long as she returns to him!!

Probably too far fetched!?

x

I'm sure you are right merlotgran. Rob and Jess - or rather Rob (dragging right back in my memory) did think about moving out of the village didn't they? This bit seems to be a little misty for me.

Helen certainly would not be an easy person to know

Ah, so did Helen live at home then? That figures.

I think Rob rented BHC when he was married to Jess then after they split Helen and Henry moved in with him. Pat and Tony were not best pleased but knew that if they kicked up a fuss Helen would make sure they didn't see much of Henry.

I've never really liked Helen. Obviously I'm rooting for her now but she's always been selfish and difficult.

I think you will be right Alea. I can't imagine Rob changing the tenancy when I think about it.

I thought Helen was the tenant and Rob just moved in with her before they got married. Would the terms of the lease change automatically?

I imagine Helen and Rob have a joint tenancy Alea. You have to wonder what Usha feels about her cottage being the scene of "attempted murder".

So Ursula was on her hands and knees scrubbing the blood off the floor! Given that it is/was Helen's cottage, I am surprised PatandTony had not been round.
Mind you, our utility room floor must have looked a bit like Blossom Hill Cottage kitchen last night. A tub of fresh tomato sauce rolled off the worktop as I was putting the shopping away and it just shattered on the HARD floor. Tomato sauce everywhere ?

it's remotely possible a barrister may defend Helen pro bono (I think that means free) on the basis the barrister would get huge publicity if they won the first case using coercive control as defence against a serious charge.

Although - perhaps if only her personal money is taken into account it'll highlight how little there is and that Peggy's money has gone.

Doubt it, Luckygirl they're 'rich' farmers!

A barrister is going to cost-a-load - I wonder if she is eligible for legal aid.

NOOOOO don't feel sorry for Ursula, there are limits NfkD.

Aaaahhhhh! And now I'm feeling sorry for Ursula!

Very thoughtful article Alea - thank you for sharing.

I know we are talking about the sentence but, because we have all the investigations and trial for attempted murder to go through, it could raise even more the questions about what coercion and control actually are.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/08/blind-epidemic-domestic-abuse?CMP=fb_gu

Good article in The Guardian, reflecting I think the way the conversation here on GN has moved on too from the issue of abuse to the likely outcome of Helen's prosecution.

Yes she just seems to be incriminating herself. In fact ever one seems to be saying the "wrong" thing.

Chelseababy Sorry I see the confusion.

What I meant was that when it is an interview with the police she has to be read the official legal pronouncement about "anything you say" caution.

Then there is the Police "caution" not to do whatever it was again or the police will
get you next time!

If Helen she is just having a private conversation with her solicitor she can talk to her/him and explain fully what has happened and just set out a proper defence.

Anyone who has been arrested and is totally stressed is going to find it incredibly difficult to make a clear statement about what has just happened.