Archers Addicts 4!!

I look in at the mumsnet Archers thread now and again because it's very funny. I shouldn't look at the spoilers thread because it can give you palpitations but I can't resist.

Three hours in a café, even one on the farm, seems far too long. I wonder how RL people manage? I suppose it doesn't help that Helen lives with her parents (not that this is a bad thing). If she didn't she could take Jack to the farm and Rob could visit him there. What a difficult situation all round.

I still worry about how angry he could get when all the delusions he lives by are knocked away.

Thanks for the explanation merlot I wouldn't like to tread on anyone's toes. I can see why it helps the avoidance of multiple theads. I don't go on Mumsnet except for the spoilers thread so was not au fait with how they work.

I'm not sure I could cope with the time two large forums could take up!

gracesgran There is no competition or ownership of the thread but if the same person announces the new one when the old one has reached its limit you avoid multiple threads which could happen if two or more people jump in at the same time to start the next one.

It works for soop's kitchen and I think that's why they do it on mumsnet - to great effect because regular posters make suggestions for the new thread title.

Perhaps they could go around the village for.supervision spots and a variety of people could supervise. I was thinking the village shop perhaps, as Rob could meet a few people there, Susan, Gill for example. Also Fallon and Emma will have to be careful what they bake this Sunday. So tempting.

Can I ask why there is competition/sense of ownership of this thread as I don't think I have seen such a thing before? Surely, as long as we have a thread to post on that all that matters and no matter who the OP is no one owns it. Is this a Mumsnet thing and if so, what are the conventions please?

Ayjayf, on the issue of family supervising contact, I agree that three hours in a cafe for a small baby ( or any child and parent) is too,long. Your point about the social work view is well made but, jack is not the subject of care proceedings so it's unlikely social workers would have a say and the are unlikely to offer their limited contact resources. Private law contact arrangements are often left to be managed by family. Tough isn't it, poor little giddy jack, how will he be fed and changed, tony will have to take expressed or formula and go into the toilet in the cafe to observe rob change nappies.

Christmas Day in The Archers now planned.

Now there's a thought. Some very funny suggestions

I was just coming to ask if you had seen them merlot. I won't say anything other than I was very worried about Tuesday week but have decided it's something we have already discussed ... but who knows!

mumsnet spoilers update

Yes, Peggy. Lillian has a professional relationship with Justin only. So that's ok then?

Gracesgran, I wish you hadn't mentioned No1, The Green! I fear Rob will move in. As you say, William can be a bit dense and will be wanting tenants as soon as it is vacant.

I read somewhere that he had a problem with changing Giddyjacks nappy.

Has Rob any experience of small babies?? Not very easy to manipulate even for Mr Nasty.

Sorry, went into panto mode there!

So Rob's now known to be a bully, he'll face the wrath of Peggy Woolley.

Ok, so not really a good op for the next Archers Addicts thread!

Yes you can. You just put a link to the new thread like they do on Mumsnet. We'll all see it on the Active list anyway.

The old one then dies a natural death - falls off the bottom!

Ah, but merlot, can't start number 5 until this one reaches 1000!

Go for it, phoenix Plenty of ammo to fire at Rob.

Possibly, merlot, possibly, if I do make it before "pipped", there will have to be thought given to the OP!

I think that the thread now deserves some sort of comment other than "away we go again" or such like.

Could be wrong, often am!

Don't get how this is right. Rob was considered a danger. He is on the farm basically with an older man. This is not the definition of "supervised visit" . How is this allowed? It's completely unrealistic. Social workers would not allow it.

Isn't three hours rather long for supervised contact with a four month old baby? Surely Jack will have to be fed at some point and with the best will in the world, what on earth can you do in all that time if you're not allowed to take him for a walk?

How can that be good for business on a Sunday??

'Hey oop' phoenix. We're on 952 posts already! Are you in the starting blocks for the next thread?

"Supervised Visit" in the teashop? With Tony?
What madness is this??