Discuss The Archers  permalink

Darryl is ok.Elona is suspect.

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 36 of 36
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by binocular (U10832169) on Tuesday, 15th May 2012

    He sounds like an easygoing straight forward guy.

    Elona sounds like ze evil one.

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by dualstargazing (U14259685) on Tuesday, 15th May 2012

    He seems a very straight forward person. Wants to please everyone.

    Whereas Elona wants every penny she can get out of everyone.

    Not nice.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Tuesday, 15th May 2012

    I thought that Elona refused money from Tom for the gardening. If she wanted every penny she could get, wouldn't she have accepted payment?

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by dualstargazing (U14259685) on Tuesday, 15th May 2012

    Thee's something not quite right about Elona. I can't accept that she is sooooo good

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Dora Pandle (U14741938) on Tuesday, 15th May 2012

    She's refused extra payments from Peggy and so has Darrell. I think they're quite good characters.

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by dualstargazing (U14259685) on Tuesday, 15th May 2012

    So Darryl has turned over a new leaf then?

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by Dora Pandle (U14741938) on Tuesday, 15th May 2012

    I suppose we'll only really know if someone offers him stolen goods. He seems to regret what he did although he hasn't said very much yet.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Tuesday, 15th May 2012

    Darrell was stupid and did something illegal, and got caught and jailed for it.

    We do not know that he has had a history of repeated criminal behaviour, but I do rather see his point that in a time of recession when jobs are hard to come by it is likely that having a recent criminal record is going to make it more difficult for him to find a job than itis for others.

    I think that he is a blithering idiot to do work cash-in-hand for Matt, and so does Elona, but I doubt if he sees not paying tax on some earnings as being the same as stealing from his employer.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by Another Horrobin (U15270188) on Tuesday, 15th May 2012

    Beggars can't be choosers. Matt wouldn't take him on on the books, and if cash-in-hand is all he can get, he's got to take it. Jobsseeker's Allowance for adults is currently £70 a week, and I doubt if Ilona's eligible.

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Tuesday, 15th May 2012

    Elona is in full-time employment, so why would she be eligible for jobseeker's allowance?

    If Matt pays someone cash in hand I would suppose that is cheaper for Matt than having someone employed officially, because he then doesn't have to pay any other expenses than an actual wage. He knows that he can pay someone cash-in-hand if that person is desperate for work, and I don't think it is to do with his being reluctant to have him on the books.

    I would say that it is as much because Matt is essentially someone who likes to break the rules and make a little extra by doing so as for any other reason.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by mick-the-miller (U15121006) on Tuesday, 15th May 2012

    Elona is in full-time employment, so why would she be eligible for jobseeker's allowance?

    If Matt pays someone cash in hand I would suppose that is cheaper for Matt than having someone employed officially, because he then doesn't have to pay any other expenses than an actual wage. He knows that he can pay someone cash-in-hand if that person is desperate for work, and I don't think it is to do with his being reluctant to have him on the books.

    I would say that it is as much because Matt is essentially someone who likes to break the rules and make a little extra by doing so as for any other reason. 
    Of course it's because he doesn't want him 'on the books' - it's so much cheaper - no tax, no national insurance, no holiday pay, no sick pay etc etc ... And then god knows what Darryl 'claims' for - jobseekers? - could be a slippery slope!

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Earldunda (U14196337) on Tuesday, 15th May 2012

    He seems a very straight forward person. Wants to please everyone.

    Whereas Elona wants every penny she can get out of everyone.

    Not nice. 
    I find her nit picking, and bothered about details that I suspect few Eastern Europeans would worry about.

    But him I find shifty.

    Wouldn't trust either of them!

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by Another Horrobin (U15270188) on Tuesday, 15th May 2012

    Having been away for a year, I hardly know who Darryl and Ilona are - in fact this is the first time I've heard Darryl speak. As a Horrobin, I like to stick up for those of us who have no choice but to be pragmatic about making ends meet. I used that expression "on the books" because it is the converse of "off the cards". I thought most people in construction who take on short jobs like this are self-employed anyway. I'd have thought that Matt would have a pool of such blokes anyway that he already knew could do the job and be trusted. I'm all for a storyline that involves an ex-criminal wanting to go straight and the difficulties he faces, particularly finding employers willing to take him on *on* the books. Ilona seems to be trying to keep him out of trouble, but it's not easy when you're skint, and more and more jobs ask for CRB checks, and the general public thinks once a criminal, always a criminal.

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by barwick_green (U2668006) on Wednesday, 16th May 2012

    So Darryl has turned over a new leaf then?
     
    He's a thieving toerag and may well still be on parole having been released 'early' from what may well have been a two year jail sentence. (We know he was in jail for about eight months and then a spell in pre-release hostel in Coventry).

    Tayler cannot confirm if Dal Boy has an electronic tag but it is possible he is still under a curfew.

    As someone who recently had £1500 worth of building goods stolen (bricks,slates and wiring) I have no time for the likes this thieving toerag.

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Dinah Shore (U14984316) on Wednesday, 16th May 2012

    He sounds like an easygoing straight forward guy.  He sounds like a shifty person, who is willing to dodge tax paying on money he gets for work done, who thought it was acceptable to steal from his former employer because some other fool told him the employer would not mind (and he /believed/ him!!!).

    He sounds well dodgy.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Wednesday, 16th May 2012

    (AH, I can speak only about TA because I do not listen to Ambridge Extra, but I gather you might find out more about Darrell if you went and asked over there.)

    Elona (that's how it is spelt according to Who'swho) has been around quite often since March 2011, first in The Laurels looking after Jack and then as Peggy's choice of helper who had to be found somewhere to live in the village so that she could work for Peggy.

    Darrell (that's how it is spelt according to Who'swho) has spoken only this year and appeared in about three episodes so far, one in February, one in March and yesterday. He has been a looming, imprisoned presence for a while -- actually, in spite of only having been inside for a year or less he was in a hostel in Birmingham rather than being abllowed to go home to his family, which is weird, but that is what the scriptwriters decreed to make him unrealistic from the very start.

    I think the difference between Darrell and the run-of-the-mill employee is that Matt is paying him cash-in-hand no questions asked, which for some reason suits Matt. It is only to imbue them and the business dealings with a seedy air, I think.

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Wednesday, 16th May 2012

    Dinah, he was done for receiving stolen goods from his mates, not for stealing from his employer.

    Jack Woolley was decidedly dodgy when he arrived in Ambridge and so was Sid, and I have a feeling that Neil is a convicted criminal, so it seems it is possible for Ambridge to absorb people with a record or a musrky past and not judge them harshly.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by Another Horrobin (U15270188) on Wednesday, 16th May 2012

    Thanks again for the info, Chris. I looked on Who's Who and they don't tell you much about any of the family. They did however show me a photo of one of the actors, which I didn't want, with a note saying I could click a button to opt out of photos - no button existed. So I won't be visiting Who's Who again.

    I too find it odd that Darrell went into a hostel on release, since he's got a good caring loving family and hostels are very expensive with space at a premium.

    I find it odd that Matt is paying cash-in-hand because his business is in Lilian's name and she wants it all to be squeaky clean (at least she did just before I left on hearing of Nigel's death). Is Matt keeping secrets, does Lilian turn a blind eye, or is it just that she can't keep up with his dodgy dealings (the latter, I suspect).

    Of course if Darrell is still serving the other half of his sentence in the community, and is caught breaking the law again, he stands a good chance of being sent back inside.

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by Another Horrobin (U15270188) on Wednesday, 16th May 2012

    Barwick Green, I sympathise with your anger. I was burgled twice. There is no excuse for it.

    But a two year jail sentence for receiving stolen goods sounds pretty reasonable to me - a lot of people get off with less, even community orders.

    It says in Who's Who that he was led astray, and from what I can gather, wants to go straight now, only is finding it difficult to stick to the letter of the law because he needs money, hence being prepared to work cash-in-hand. If he is still on parole, and is caught breaking the law, he will probably be sent back inside, hence Elona's concern perhaps.

    He may have *been* a thieving toerag, and I agree that a lot of thieving toerags are precisely that and don't care and deserve to spend plenty of time in jail. But the justice system is there not only to punish, but also to rehabilitate, and it looks as if Darrell is a good candidate for rehabilitation. He has (or soon will have) served out his punishment. With people like that, should we continue to punish them for the rest of their lives by stigmatise them, and by making it very difficult for them to get a proper job?

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by irene (U14262395) on Wednesday, 16th May 2012

    darryl appears to have a nan living reasonably near. a loner went to visit her yesterday. (its the same one as carls obviously)

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Wednesday, 16th May 2012

    Another Horrobin (please, may I call you "Anners"? That is a lot to type, and I spell Horrobin wrong with monotonous regularity), you say They did however show me a photo of one of the actors, which I didn't want, with a note saying I could click a button to opt out of photos - no button existed.  They go out of their way to confuse. There is a picture, and below it the words "Hide all photos". If you click on those words, you get the words "Show all photos". At that point you won't see any of the photos of actors.

    The "i" for information tells you that this is possible but doesn't tell you that it isn't a button.

    If I am going to consult Who's who I go there, open a "silent", and click on the "Hide all photos" line. Silents and babies don't have photos so that is safe.

    But don't assume it is an accurate bit of the website: it isn't. For instance it says By day a maths teacher, Ifty lives for cricket. In 2011 he agreed to run coaching sessions for Ambridge youngsters.  under Iftikar Khan. That was prescient of him, since he was not asked until 2012.

    The Timeline too has careless errors; Scruff was saved by Lynda, as it says, but it would have been better if it had not got it happening in the wrong year...

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by Dinah Shore (U14984316) on Wednesday, 16th May 2012

    he was done for receiving stolen goods from his mates, not for stealing from his employer.  I thought El Moaner told Peggy Darrell was a goot man, but his co-workmates had persauded him to sell on stuff they had nicked from their (joint) employer, and everybody did it and the employers expected it, and he believed them? So he was, at secondhand, maybe, stealing from said employer.

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Wednesday, 16th May 2012

    He was quite speiifically done for handling stolen goods rather than for stealing them himself, and it is a different crime in English law. So no, he did not himself steal from his employers, or so the prosecution service seem to have decided.

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by Another Horrobin (U15270188) on Wednesday, 16th May 2012

    Thanks again, Chris, for all the information. I have saved it for future use. Talk about complicated!

    Yes, you may call me Anners (I suppose it's better than Horrors. Mind you, isn't Anners how the BBC pronounces the Norwegian Anders?). I am waiting till I hear a suitable Horrobinesque name in the queue at the Post Office before I decide which Horrobin to be.

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by BlackSheepBoy (U11150138) on Wednesday, 16th May 2012

    If Darrell is not on anyone's payroll, but is earning money, I suppose he is effectively self-employed.

    So even if Matt does not want the bother of employing him properly, I suppose he could make regularise himself by acknowledging self employed status, necessary paperwork, and paying tax and NI.

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Wednesday, 16th May 2012

    Not one that they already have, I assume, so not Stewart, Clive, Keith or Gary, nor yet Bert or I suppose Brad. That leaves a lot of possible names.

    Trevor, perhaps, or Gavin, or Malcolm.

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by joe (U13868420) on Wednesday, 16th May 2012

    Even on a subcontract basis he'd be paid net, not gross. Or are we to believe Darrell has a turnover in excess of 30,000?

    www.hmrc.gov.uk/cis/...

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by BlackSheepBoy (U11150138) on Wednesday, 16th May 2012

    So as an ex-con who wants to be completely clean (let's assume), what course of action should he take in relation to Matt's work, and all these other odd jobs that he does for bits of money?

    I am just interested. What's the way for him to be an honest man, given the way that some of his "customers" prefer to do business?

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by Dinah Shore (U14984316) on Wednesday, 16th May 2012

    I suppose he could make regularise himself by acknowledging self employed status, necessary paperwork, and paying tax and NI.  But does he? And did he declare the money Peggy gave him for changing his washer?

    Whatever he was done for, he dishonestly handled goods stolen from his employer, and believed it was ok, so he is thick as well as a criminal.

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by Another Horrobin (U15270188) on Wednesday, 16th May 2012

    I was thinking more along the lines of Tyler, Tulisa or Paris...suggestions welcome!

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by joe (U13868420) on Wednesday, 16th May 2012

    So as an ex-con who wants to be completely clean (let's assume), what course of action should he take in relation to Matt's work, and all these other odd jobs that he does for bits of money?  Back in the days when I worked for the DHSS (as it then was) his best solution would have been to declare the days he works as casual employment. He'd lose that day's benefit, but would be free from further investigation /and/ be viewed as genuinely seeking work. It was encouraged as it looked good in the statistics. Don't know how it works these days, though.

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by joe (U13868420) on Wednesday, 16th May 2012

    I was thinking more along the lines of Tyler, Tulisa or Paris...suggestions welcome!  No doubt one of the younger brood will be lumbered with Justin.

    Has there been a Chardonnay yet? (Horrobin always sounds like the wine store from hell)

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by catwomyn (U1485618) on Wednesday, 16th May 2012

    > Back in the days when I worked for the DHSS (as it then was) his best solution would have been to declare the days he works as casual employment. He'd lose that day's benefit, but would be free from further investigation /and/ be viewed as genuinely seeking work. It was encouraged as it looked good in the statistics. Don't know how it works these days, though. <

    these days employers can only use 'casual labour' up to a maximum of £100 per year per person. If you pay anyone more than that they have to go on as an employee.


    Backside Properties must be registered as an employer anyway, as they employ Brenda, so it wouldn't be too much of a hassle to add Darrell on and pay him for hours worked.

    Cat x

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by john allan (U15285379) on Tuesday, 29th May 2012

    He sounds like an easygoing straight forward guy.

    Elona sounds like ze evil one. 
    i agree rlona has always sounded fishy to me since peggy met her in the nursing home

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Sturmey Archer (U2328688) on Tuesday, 29th May 2012

    …him I find shifty. 

    Mmmm… …I wonder if he plays cricket?

    (…even if for Darrington?)

    - sa

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by Pier8 (U15292020) on Saturday, 2nd June 2012

    > Back in the days when I worked for the DHSS (as it then was) his best solution would have been to declare the days he works as casual employment. He'd lose that day's benefit, but would be free from further investigation /and/ be viewed as genuinely seeking work. It was encouraged as it looked good in the statistics. Don't know how it works these days, though. <

    these days employers can only use 'casual labour' up to a maximum of £100 per year per person. If you pay anyone more than that they have to go on as an employee.


    Backside Properties must be registered as an employer anyway, as they employ Brenda, so it wouldn't be too much of a hassle to add Darrell on and pay him for hours worked.

    Cat x 
    The work that Darryl is doing is covered by the Construction Industry Scheme (CIS) for taxation purposes. When ever Matt and Lillian's business employs sub-contractors (and in this case Darryl is acting as a sub-contractor) the employer must register the sub-contractor and pay the appropriate tax. Matt and Lillian are liable to be fined by the HMRC for not declaring Darryl's remuneration, in fact they can be fined and required to pay the tax that they have not deducted. I'm amazed that Lillian and Matt don't know this and already operate CIS for their other sub-contractors, especially as Lillian wants a squeaky clean business.
    The CIS was introduced to stop the black (cash-in hand) economy in the building trade.
    How this affects Darryl's benefits I've no idea but as someone who has to operate CIS in my business I suggest Matt and Lillian need to wise up.

    Report message36

Back to top

About this Board

Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

This messageboard is now closed.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.