Discuss The Archers  permalink

Emma - tell Susan your suspicions

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 31 of 31
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Ruralrambler (U11117592) on Sunday, 15th July 2012

    She should have no hesitation in informing the Police about Keith's possible involvement - she won't want to go back inside again for covering up for him.

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Redbookish (U1335018) on Sunday, 15th July 2012

    Yeah, but this is Emmurgh we're talking about. She looks out for herself and no-one else much.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by barwick_green (U2668006) on Sunday, 15th July 2012

    Yeah, but this is Emmurgh we're talking about. She looks out for herself and no-one else much.   And Ed - being a Grundy (obviously) - will have a deep-seated aversion to co-operating with the police. Emma is half scrofulous hillybilly Horrobin too so her genes will be tainted from that long line of scumbags, jailbirds, ne'erdowells, child beaters and latter day Piltdown men and women.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Dailyfix (U14602649) on Sunday, 15th July 2012

    Would seem to be the obvious thing to do as her thick as pigpoo husband was as useful as a chocolate teapot on this one. In fact why not ask both her parents Susan has relevant experience and Neil is the voice of common sense.

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Ruralrambler (U11117592) on Sunday, 15th July 2012

    It would be difficult for Ed to insist she shops Keith, as he would know that drops the Horrobin family in the deep doo doo yet again.

    If Susan did it, as the person previously affected directly by Clive's villainy, no-one could blame her. If Emma does, the Horrobin clan might turn on her.

    Ed is not actually her husband by the way.

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by cherrytree (U9175528) on Sunday, 15th July 2012

    I'm not so sure any more. Ed seems to want to be a Model Citizen and doesn't seem to have put a foot wrong for a while now. I do hope that he persuades Emma to do the right thing and that she talks to the police. However I have my doubts about whether the Borchester Constabulary stir themselves and do anything.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by StargazerwithOscar (U14668197) on Sunday, 15th July 2012



    Just as a matter of interest, I had a posting removed two days ago for using the word beginning with s on line four of your posting! Glad you haven't had that too, B_G.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by barwick_green (U2668006) on Sunday, 15th July 2012



    Just as a matter of interest, I had a posting removed two days ago for using the word beginning with s on line four of your posting! Glad you haven't had that too, B_G. 
    Thanks - expect my post to be removed then.

    I will use 'dross' in future when referring to the Horrobin pond life.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Earldunda (U14196337) on Sunday, 15th July 2012

    Would seem to be the obvious thing to do as her thick as pigpoo husband was as useful as a chocolate teapot on this one. In fact why not ask both her parents Susan has relevant experience and Neil is the voice of common sense.  There;s no point is asking Susan- a convicted criminal like so many of her Horrobin clan!

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by cherrytree (U9175528) on Sunday, 15th July 2012

    Yes she was imprisoned because of her mistaken loyalty to her brother Clive. She served her sentence and since then has lived a live of almost stultifying respectability. She gossips for England we know, but I would be amazed if she ever got on the wrong side of the law again. She has too much to lose and I would imagine she'd be the first person contacting the police if she grew suspicious.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by NewEssexWoman (U9776561) on Sunday, 15th July 2012

    Yeah, but this is Emmurgh we're talking about. She looks out for herself and no-one else much.  

    I think that's a bit unfair, Red. At least Emmur's been prepared to shop Keith without any support from Ed whereas Susan went out of her way to protect Clive in times past.

    I think that Em's been the only person in this whole sorry episode who's done the right thing at all times.

    Yes, I would have liked her to be upfront with Susan, but knowing her mother's history there's no guaranteeing that she wouldn't have simply received the proverbial cold shoulder.

    Two cheers for Emmur, I say!

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by StargazerwithOscar (U14668197) on Sunday, 15th July 2012

    I think Emma is wise to remain anonymous. She owes her mother's strange family nothing - her children were at risk. I don't know how anyone could be in any doubt about her love for George after Wednesday and Thursday.

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by cath (U2234232) on Sunday, 15th July 2012

    >I think that Em's been the only person in this whole sorry episode who's done the right thing at all times.<

    Hear hear, she's also only the second person of the main players to have used their brain instead of ascending into hysterics (WR) or descending into rank bovine stupidity (DD & Jill) .

    The other person to have used their brain is of course Kenton.

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by HtoHe (U2335032) on Sunday, 15th July 2012

    message 5

    << Ed is not actually her husband by the way. >>

    Indeed. If she told her (ex) husband Keith would have got both barrels quicker than you can say 'innocent until proven guilty'

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Dailyfix (U14602649) on Sunday, 15th July 2012

    I have to agree she has gone up in my estimation over this not relying on her husband or family to do the right thing. She has shown that she is willing to stand up for her family at personal risk so despite not being a fan I think she deserves credit for this.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by PMJ (U14739980) on Monday, 16th July 2012

    >I think that Em's been the only person in this whole sorry episode who's done the right thing at all times.<

    Hear hear, she's also only the second person of the main players to have used their brain instead of ascending into hysterics (WR) or descending into rank bovine stupidity (DD & Jill) .

    The other person to have used their brain is of course Kenton. 
    I agree.

    I think that presenting herself at the Police Station was perhaps a step too far but she has done no more than her civic duty to draw Police attention to Keith Horrobin.

    Now as one with an atypical view of the Police for a middle class Englishman, viz they are mainly undereducated and drawn to the profession for a desire to to overcome being used as toast racks at school I do think that as there is only one solicitor and one department store in the whole of Borsetshire it naturally follows that there is but one criminal family and therefore it cannot have been beyond the wit of the dullest officer to approach the Horrobins.

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by StargazerwithOscar (U14668197) on Monday, 16th July 2012

    Emma phoned Crimestoppers, so, presumably, the police have no idea who she is either. She should keep it that way, even from Susan.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by PMJ (U14739980) on Monday, 16th July 2012

    Emma phoned Crimestoppers, so, presumably, the police have no idea who she is either. She should keep it that way, even from Susan.  I know, which is why I felt that presenting herself, in person, at the Police station may have been a step more than we could have asked her to take, but in 'phoning Crimestoppers she still took an active step towards fulfilling her Social Contract obligations.

    Should, in the unlikely instance KH not be the perpetrator, I still think hanging's too good and what he needs is a boot up the backside.

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by StargazerwithOscar (U14668197) on Monday, 16th July 2012

    Sounds like a Billy Connolly joke I once heard. But hanging IS a bit of an extreme penalty for putting a baby in a plastic tiara - close, though!

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by barwick_green (U2668006) on Monday, 16th July 2012

    Emma phoned Crimestoppers, so, presumably, the police have no idea who she is either. She should keep it that way, even from Susan.  I know, which is why I felt that presenting herself, in person, at the Police station may have been a step more than we could have asked her to take, but in 'phoning Crimestoppers she still took an active step towards fulfilling her Social Contract obligations.

    Should, in the unlikely instance KH not be the perpetrator, I still think hanging's too good and what he needs is a boot up the backside.  
    And as I have posted elsewhere the police revealed to Keef that they were interviewing him as ' a result of an anonymous tip -off'.

    Firstly, I (and presumably many others) would now think twice about contacting Crimestoppers if the person I thought had committed a particular was informed that they had been 'grassed up' that way. if I thought that, say, burglar Bill had committed a crime and he knew that I suspected him then his first thought would be that I had made the call That is how witness intimidation begins....

    Secondly, if I were accused of a crime I HAD committed and the police told me I was being questioned on the basis of an anonymous tip-off I would be far more confident that they had no real evidence - at that stage- and so would tailor my answers accordingly knowing they had no substantive evidence whatsoever.

    Either way the SWs have done Crimestoppers and or the police a disservice. No doubt, Tayler will claim, they took advice from the agencies involved.

    Pah and double Pah!

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by HtoHe (U2335032) on Monday, 16th July 2012

    message 20

    << And as I have posted elsewhere the police revealed to Keef that they were interviewing him as ' a result of an anonymous tip -off'.

    Firstly, I (and presumably many others) would now think twice about contacting Crimestoppers if the person I thought had committed a particular was informed that they had been 'grassed up' that way. if I thought that, say, burglar Bill had committed a crime and he knew that I suspected him then his first thought would be that I had made the call That is how witness intimidation begins.... >>

    Of course, Burglar Bill might just assume the police were lying because they wanted an excuse to grill him; but I take your point. Why the old bill need to be quite so specific about why they want to question anyone is beyond me but I'm not going to come right out and say it's implausible because I wouldn't know about this exact kind of case. I strongly suspect the police use formulaic excuses to approach people, however. I have at least twice been asked to identify myself in the street because 'you fit the description of someone we're looking for'. OK, it might be true, but it's happened to so many other people I know that I strongly suspect they just say it as a matter of course. If Keith is a known petty criminal I should think he's more likely to assume the anonymous caller is a police invention than that it's Emma or anyone else.

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by Ruralrambler (U11117592) on Monday, 16th July 2012

    I got the distinct impression that Keith did suspect that Emma may have been the caller, from the way he spoke to her initially at least.

    On the subject of Police stopping people on the pretext that they resemble someone they are looking for, OH was stopped by USA Police way back in 1970 with the same excuse. He (rather foolishly but he was only 21) asked if the person had done anything interesting. They replied "Cut out the wisecracks and answer the questions"!

    Classic!

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by HtoHe (U2335032) on Monday, 16th July 2012

    message 22

    << He (rather foolishly but he was only 21) asked if the person had done anything interesting. They replied "Cut out the wisecracks and answer the questions"! >>

    Yes tempting, isn't it? Luckily, I was rather older than 21 when had a very bizarre encounter with a pc at Euston station a while ago. She asked me my name as I passed through the platform entrance heading for the Liverpool train. I had my ticket printout with my name on it ready for inspection anyway and showed it to her, whereupon she offered the explanation that they were looking for a vulnerable missing person who was blind and likely to be very confused. I resisted the temptation to ask if she thought this person might craftily be impersonating a sighted person who knew exactly where he was going. I still wonder what was going on in that pc's head, so strange was the excuse offered when no explanation was even asked for!

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by Earldunda (U14196337) on Monday, 16th July 2012

    Such are the brains and thought processes of the Police!

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by PMJ (U14739980) on Tuesday, 17th July 2012

    Sounds like a Billy Connolly joke I once heard. But hanging IS a bit of an extreme penalty for putting a baby in a plastic tiara - close, though!  Gratifying that you recall the BC joke - at least I'm not the only aged correspondent

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by StargazerwithOscar (U14668197) on Wednesday, 18th July 2012

    Well, I am getting on a bit it's true, but my 24 year old son is a great Billy fan too!

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by The Leech Pedlar (U15129703) on Wednesday, 18th July 2012

    I got the distinct impression that Keith did suspect that Emma may have been the caller, from the way he spoke to her initially at least. 

    Well he would if he knows she saw him running away that night. It wouldn't take a genius to put together the facts that (a) she saw him running away, and (b) somebody tipped off the police that he was there.

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by StargazerwithOscar (U14668197) on Wednesday, 18th July 2012

    There was certainly an atmosphere of self-consciousness, at least, about the way they spoke to each other. I wondered if it was just his guilty awareness of having put them in danger, but Emma's not exactly hiding it well either. If she wanted to report him anonymously (and who could blame her?) she'd have done well to think ahead to having to face her family afterwards. Those Horobins are awful. You'd think Susan, at least, would be a bit less quick with the outraged innocence act on behalf of her dodgy siblings after what she's been through. Poor Emma.

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by The Leech Pedlar (U15129703) on Wednesday, 18th July 2012

    Secondly, if I were accused of a crime I HAD committed and the police told me I was being questioned on the basis of an anonymous tip-off 

    But they wouldn't. The very most they would say is that they're acting on information received.

    They're not going to tell the person they've brought in for questioning that it was a phone-call, since he might well be able to work out from that, just who it was.

    www.crimestoppers-uk...

    This is just more imagined nonsense to try and make the storyline slightly interesting and keep it crawling (at a rate of 3mm a year) along.

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by The Leech Pedlar (U15129703) on Wednesday, 18th July 2012

    You forget, Starry. This is new 'Yoof oriented' Archers. Where everything has to involve conflict. So we get David and the Black Widow. Tony and Tom. Brian and Adam. Barmy and Usha - in fact Barmy and pretty much everybody. Oily and Kate. etc. etc.

    With practically no effort, TA could be turned into a knockabout comedy based entirely on the fact that everybody hates everybody else.

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by Ruralrambler (U11117592) on Wednesday, 18th July 2012

    There was certainly an atmosphere of self-consciousness, at least, about the way they spoke to each other. I wondered if it was just his guilty awareness of having put them in danger, but Emma's not exactly hiding it well either. If she wanted to report him anonymously (and who could blame her?) she'd have done well to think ahead to having to face her family afterwards. Those Horobins are awful. You'd think Susan, at least, would be a bit less quick with the outraged innocence act on behalf of her dodgy siblings after what she's been through. Poor Emma.  That was the point of my opening post - Susan has been inside for covering for Clive's crimes - she is not a stupid woman and would not be willing to do it again!

    Report message31

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

Copyright © 2015 BBC. 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.