Lee and Helen…


…have no shared interests?

Lee thinks Helen’s wonderful. So does she.


I’m just waiting for Lee to turn out to be allergic to cheese.


Nah - he’s been spouting nothing else since he first appeared with no apparent ill effects.


Helen’s reply to Pat suggested that Helen and Rob, unlike Helen and Lee, did have a lot in common. No, apart from sex, they didn’t. Intensive farming vs organic farming, hunting vs anti-hunting … on and on, they had nothing in common.

Pat’s just being a snob. Not that she’s wrong about Helen and Lee, I hope they are a disaster, they ought to be! But what of any of Helen’s partners have ever had anything whatsoever in common with her apart from sex? The root of the problem is Helen herself.


On the face of it, yes. But I heard it as an instinctive Hellenic reaction designed to position Pat as anti-Lee but pro-Rob and therefore Wholly Unreasonable and to provide ongoing justification for whatever deceit and manoeuvres Helen may deem expedient.

If they can write her that well, how is it that they get so much else so very, very wrong?
Or am I projecting, over-thinking, or just plain nuts?


To paraphrase That Joe, Helen thought that Rob was wonderful. So did Rob.

I think the scripties have rather more knowledge and experience of nasty people being nasty to each other than they do of farmers, or of children.


It seems to be all they’re capable of—or interested in— these days. Certainly they don’t seem to give a flying one for the programme’s (or characters’) history; hence the nonsense about Brian being hard up in the 70s. (I have quoted elsethread a rather more accurate account of his situation at the time.)