r/Ambridge

I find this storyline a bit ridiculous - he hasn't slept properly since seeing Ruth's photos? They would have been horrible to see no doubt but I wouldn't expect a 15 year old to be sent into such a tailspin by something like this.

Given how contentious some of the debate on this topic is getting, can we go back to discussing how ludicrous the "our B&B guests let the dog out, hosed him down when he came home covered in blood, and didn't tell us, but confessed immediately when we called them" story is?

It's particularly stupid because everyone listening who actually needs to hear the PSA about keeping your dog under control near livestock will not remotely relate to the scenario. Based on my direct knowledge of the family members who have farms with livestock that have been attacked by dogs, it's almost always people walking their dogs off the lead who swear up and down that their dog is "always good" around sheep or cows. That is the whole point - any dog, even if you think you have them under control, even if they've been around livestock before, can attack livestock.

Many people unfortunately don't take the warning signs seriously, so it seems like a missed opportunity for the writers to bungle this with such a convoluted and unrealistic story.

Right, I know where she has come from, but...

She has apparently grown up on the farm next to Brookfield, but none of them knew her? No one in the village has had a relationship with her?

And what is her accent?

I know it’s Grundy parenting we’re supposed to think is awful, but let’s not let the middle-class Maliks get away with their performance this week.

Twice already they’ve waded in and interrogated an obviously uncomfortable teenager, not stopping for a second to think about the situation, or question why information isn’t forthcoming. Once with their own child, then again with somebody else’s.

The kids have been clearly unhappy about the interaction, but the Maliks plough on regardless. Of course they’re well-meaning, but if you treat teenagers like you’re forcing them to give you information against their will, and don’t pause for a second to look at the bigger picture or think about the nuances of their response, then you’re a lousy parent. There, I said it.

Dare I say it this makes you the sort of parent whose kid might barge into somebody else’s house and then repeatedly accuse them of lying while refusing to leave. Which is totally off the scale of unacceptable.

Yes, Khalil annoys me, but after what I’ve seen from his crappy parents this week, I’m not surprised he is how he is.

So I'm pretty sure that this evening's episode was the writers signalling to us that Harrison and Lily will get together in the near future. Thoughts?

Will Harrison's baybehhhhh be born with a silver spoon in its mouth?

Also, the scene with Lily showing him the camera footage... Good Lord, it was as if it was the first time he'd been exposed to any kind of evidence gathering or investigation. By 'eck, that CCTV ain't half bad.

Let’s see where we stand.

View Poll

I didn't realise Fallon had proposed the idea to Elizabeth. However from a business perspective, Freddie's instincts seem good to me. Was there any business plan, forecasting, consumer research? Also it seems unfair recruitment if the new post was not advertised.

Hi folks! Is anyone from this subreddit planning on attending any of the Archers live events? I’m going to the one in London soon and I’m stoked! 🐄

The attack happened a while ago but the turnaround since it's come back into rotation has been very quick, I would've thought the apex of the drama would've been the fact it was the Snell's dog but there wasn't really much buildup and it just kind of happened. The real focus seems to have been 'there's no way he could've done it', to the point where they've repeated that so often it makes me wonder whether that's the real plot line.

Now they've introduced the idea that he may be put down (if that's what Ruth was implying) then obviously the drama becomes whether he will/won't be. Ruth said they'd talked about it so presumably David is of the same opinion and won't be talking her out of it, so I would just find it very strange if this long drawn out process of a storyline ends with the dog being put down. Usually in these kinds of things, if someone bad is going to happen then it's very sudden (Nigel, Kenton's dog attack, the river crash) and then the following episodes are about healing, whereas typically with longer storylines then they result in a positive resolution (Helen & Rob). It would seem strange to highlight the dangers of dogs off leads and the impact on farmers and livestock, only to them have a big whodunnit and the dog is cleared because there's no lesson in the 'highlighting social issues thing' they do aside 'don't believe DNA and if you believe hard enough then your dog's innocent'.

Also, wasn't a fan of Robert and Linda's opening chat about 'it seems so cruel to leave him locked up' and 'Ruth and David know how much he means to us' like they're the victims. Thankfully at least Robert did correct her on the 'there's dogs in there that have done terrible things'

I know not everyone listens to the BBC Archers podcast, but Emma Freud mentions ‘nepo babies’ in the Archers practically every episode, and now there is a whole episode discussing it. It beggars belief considering her background, family privilege and the fact she is the mother of a certified ‘nepo baby’. Totally clueless!

>!A longgggg while ago, I recall Rex and Kirsty meeting with a strange eco warrior about releasing some beavers illicitly onto the land before they got approval, Khalil was present there being the young passionate animal love that he is. I wonder if he may possibly try and get in touch with this woman to save Monty from doing doggy porridge. Just an idea, maybe giving the script writers too much credit. !<