Rather late in the day, I know, but just stumbled on these. Interesting perspective from someone who actually specialises in the field:
http://www.annmccabe.co.uk/is-anyone-still-listening-to-the-archers-part-1/
http://www.annmccabe.co.uk/is-anyone-still-listening-to-the-archers-arrangements-for-children/
Interesting, joe. I thought this bit was odd, though, considering sheâs a solicitor:
âThere are a lot of ifs and buts. Even if Helen does persuade the jury of the abuse she suffered and is found innocent of murder, she could still be convicted of manslaughter and stay in prison.â
People in England are found not guilty, not innocent. And Helen wasnât accused of murder but attempted murder. So she couldnât be convicted of either murder or manslaughter.
The closing part of the second article also struck me as a little sloppy: âRob might try to argue that Helen is mentally unstable, but this is difficult for him to prove, particularly when found to have abused herâ - I suppose she was assuming that the Family Court would find that to be the case, but then⌠ngh?
Still, canât blame a starving solicitor for trying to drum up businessâŚ
The âLegally, this is a case that could go either way, which of course makes it perfect for high-tension drama.â would have been great if only it had happened, but it was the least interesting, and least coherent, half hour in TA since Ye Grete Fludde (funny that, the same person wrote both) and had no drama in it at all, going from lots of shouty âsheâs an evil womanâ stuff in the jury-room to âwe find her not guiltyâ with no explanation at all.