I've been watching Series 1-3 obsessively (again) during the last 7 days. Mainly Helen and Nikki's story arc. When I get to the end where Trisha tells Nikki to go after Helen I've started to feel sorry for Trisha and Nikki's relationship. They were together for 7 years, then the attempted rape and Nikki being sent to prison. It seems it is a tragedy. I guess I'm really wondering if Trisha hadn't have broken up with Nikki would Helen and Nikki have ever happened? Like, were Helen and Nikki predestined? Whenever they would have met it would've been on or do we need this setting of prison for it to happen at all? I just want to see others opinions on this. We know that Helen has been interested in Nikki from the beginning. First, as a potential ally and then caring enough to reach out to Nikki and make her time in prison productive and easier to cope with. I love Helen for this. When she says in the club "I wouldn't have missed it for the world", I so believe her and love her even more. Nikki, on the other hand, from the beginning, is not really receptive towards Helen. It is after her breakup with Trisha and then in the next episode, Helen letting her off with a warning, that puts Helen on her radar as a potential something. We know their love grows and actually it's really fast as far as episode by episode goes. I'm just wondering if their love story is built upon a tragic set of circumstances? Terrible fate but in the end all for the better? It's still a great story, I'm just feeling a bit sorry for Trisha now. Good for Helen and Nikki not so good for Trisha and Nikki.

This is a great topic, consolata and I absolutely agree with you.

I have been sympathetic to Trisha and feel that she has a point of view. She and Nikki were in an impossible position for the 2 years Nikki was in Larkhall and her line about 'not being expected to stop living' is the other side of the coin from Nikki's anguish of her one hope outside Larkhall going out the window. Trisha was honest enough to bring up her 'cheating on Nikki' at the Club and Nikki genuinely and generously forgave her. There is an indication from those in the visitor's gallery at Nikki's appeal that she had friends on the outside from whom Nikki had cut herself off from rather than remind herself of what she was missing on the outside. If the attempted rape hadn't taken place, it is highly likely they would have remained together.

it is strange how both Nikki and Trisha were under the firm impression that Nikki's sentence was 10 years though the shock of hearing the verdict is a possible explanation.

Consolata quite rightly describes the circumstances under which Nikki and Helen became open to the possibilities of each other though I'm not sure about destiny. It was certainly the case that each was the answer to the other's needs and they saw possibilities in each other despite the situation (them against us from both perspectives).

It is interesting that Trisha initially sort of warned off Helen in the club or that Helen took it that Nikki was spoken for in addition to what Nikki said to Helen about Trisha earlier on. However, because Trisha knew Nikki so well and observed the interaction between Nikki and Helen, then Trisha reevaluated her position. You got Nikki's 'let's get blasted' which was a peculiar admission that getting reunited with Trisha wasn't at the top of Nikki's thinking.

I'm wondering about the sequence of events from Nikki's side. I categorise this under "things I've missed", but the other night as I was watching S1E4 something struck me for the first time. Whether it was just a coincidence or not, I'm not too sure (but, knowing Shed, I'm leaning more towards the notion that it was no coincidence) - when Chrystal was singing Amazing Grace, the camera panned to Nikki's face just as the song came to "I was blind, but now I see". I think this was a comment on Nikki's emotional state at the time. I think it was during that time, alone in her cell, that she maybe "saw" Helen for the first time. This "seeing", or realisation, was then intensified by Helen's ("innocent") actions in later episodes, which lead Nikki to believe that the feeling was mutual.

I was thinking that the only reason I wondered about whether they were destined is because I've read too much fan fiction. Though good reading, there's usually an element that upon meeting these two (Helen and Nikki) couldn't be kept apart.


As far as Trisha and Nikki thinking it was 10 years, I like your idea that they were possibly in shock. Maybe they just didn't understand the judge's order about the 10 years before even being considered for parole because they aren't versed in legalities. I always just thought it was the writer's creating more drama. Making the situation more dire. For instance, Nikki's "9 years to go" was always wrong considering how long she had already been in jail.

Trisha in the club. The look that she gives Helen is curious and territorial. I know that this has been discussed somewhere on the board but what was Helen doing waiting outside that club after that look Trisha gave her. Plus the fact that Nikki had said she had a whole new life for her once the appeal was out of the way. Helen was really being bold. I wonder if she would've gone back in to the club to get her woman :) Trisha really loved Nikki to let her go and push her to be with Helen. In the end she knows Nikki has moved on. Her heart's with someone else.

Microsoftly, I never thought of that. It's an interesting take on it. The way I saw it was that Nikki's was hurting over Trisha and being reflective.

Not a problem of 'too much fanfiction", consolata :) That is a testimony as to how much the storyline had gripped the imagination and the richness of the narrative. I think I expressed it wrongly about destiny. what is remarkable is how each sought the other out against the odds and the remarkable way they were attuned to each other until the sequence of events got in the way in Series 3.

I need to rewatch the Amazing grace scene as this is a new one to me. Thanks for that one, microsofty.

I'm not completely sure about this but this was my opinion after reading some prison stuff a while ago. After 2003, a sentencing judge who imposes a life sentence must also state the minimum term to be served. Before 2003 (ie at the time of BG S1-S3), the sentencing judge makes a recommendation to the Home Office and it is the Home Office who decides the minimum term. I don't think the judge's recommendation had to be made public so the note Helen saw was probably a private note. I'm only guessing that as Nikki hadn't yet appealed or applied for parole, she may have been unware of the term imposed by the Home Office. The ten years she thought she had was maybe a typical parole period for a life sentence. (Maybe someone more knowledgeable can correct me here?)

Your theory certainly holds up, Cassandra, and meshes in nicely with Nikki's own ready self description as a 'lifer' - check out her initial objection to Bodybag when Barbara was first allocated to share her cell. Nikki's perception was certainly that she had a 10 year sentence.

The ten years was always a strange minimum sentence if the judge genuinely believed Nikki to have killed a policeman in cold blood; she would be looking at longer than that. But then for a show that was supposed to be realistic and have consultants they did some very odd things - Shaz's crime, for example, was ludicrous, and there are even more examples later on (e.g. Di Barker / Grayling / Fenner being sent to Larkhall and even G Wing - but the show had lost the plot by then).

This is a very interesting thread re Trisha. Rewatching S1-S3 I am quite sympathetic towards Trisha now and I feel like I have more of a sense of the N&T relationship now I have been in a long-term relationship and lived with someone myself. There is even a part of me that occasionally worries how N& H would do in the outside world (if they were real people :rolleyes: :D) having only known each other through this very passionate romance that is always conducted in secret and much of which is in their heads and about absence making the heart grow fonder and so on - of course we have lots of great fanfic to show us how they might cope with making it work when they were free. Rewatching the end of S3 though it does strike me that Helen goes after Nikki only after Thomas had dumped her. And Nikki goes after Helen only after Trisha urges her to do so. I don't know if it was deliberate to have the ex-partners push our Juliet and Juliet together but it was not something I really picked up on when first watching the episode, so astonished was I to see the happy ending! Now I notice it and sometimes even find myself wondering - I am a heretic, I know - if Nikki would not be better off with Trish in the long term and Helen with Thomas. I know, it is shameful to even think that way!! But it is almost as if I can see why Nikki & Trish worked in the long run, there is a sense of something there, and I also saw how well Helen & Thomas got on. Now obviously there is also, you know, the whole N&H thing, and it is a very deep and true and pure love and so on and so forth - don't get me wrong - but I wonder if it would last nine years the way N&T did once N&H are in the real world together. I'm not saying it wouldn't - I just wonder, sometimes, if they could continue to be passionate about each other but find it difficult to be together because other stuff gets in the way in a way I don't think it would with the two Ts of Thomas and Trisha. I do think those relationships would both be less passionate and more boring, absolutely, but... well, just thinking out loud (in typing form) here.

Is my N&H forum membership going to be revoked :o

I've been on a S1-S3 run the last few weeks..even watched parts of Coming Out last night. Unlikelyheroine, I too have some of the same thoughts. A lot of their relationship and coming together have to be taken on faith. What makes their story in general so fascinating to me is that it really is something so private. In life, I say, "you never know what goes on with two people". You can never know what other's relationships are like for them. A lot is happening in these characters heads. It's like we're peeping in and we only get some things. How was Nikki so sure about Helen. She pushed. I would've doubted what was going on and given up but Nikki never did. She didn't let up. When Helen comes back in S2E6 she's so magnificent. Dedicated to her relationship with Nikki, determined to get her out of jail so they can have a future. How did she get there? As a viewer I ride along and think well these two really get each other. They support each other. They love each other. I'm rooting for them. I don't know if it's because I'm queer and invested in seeing a lesbian relationship play it self out on TV or what. To compare, I didn't feel this way about Josh and Crystal.

As far as how they're getting on now. Sometimes they way Helen spoke to Nikki :eek I wonder if she carried that on once they were together on the outside. Six or seven years have gone by now. The optimist in me believes it may have been tough going at the beginning but now things are going great :)

Though the show is very rewatchable, especially the Nikki and Helen bits, the last few episodes are always hard to digest. The last epi in particular, Trisha telling Nikki to "just go" after Helen is easier for me to take than the situation with Helen and Thomas. I like(d) Thomas. I think he's a nice guy. I just don't like Helen with him at the restaurant trying to salvage her relationship with him. When she says the thing about prison twisting and distorting things. Helen!! I just want to shake her. Thomas saves the day for Helen and Nikki and us fans by basically saying she's in denial and Trisha saves the day by loving Nikki enough to let her go. I agree, that if Nikki had stayed with Trisha and Helen with Thomas those relationships would have most likely worked out but Helen and Nikki really would've missed out on that special something that they have with each other. Also, it would've been terribly disappointing as a viewer, so I am glad that it didn't turn out that way.

In my opinion a statement such as this is based on the premise that Nikki had remained unchanged throughout the whole experience, which I don't think is the case at all. Not only did the Nikki that went into Larkhall differ from the one that came out of Larkhall, but the Nikki who killed also differed from the one who could not even imagine it possible to kill another person.

There have been all these subtle as well as overt changes in Nikki in terms of personal development, whereas Trisha appeared to be stuck. Trisha did not even display the sort of loyalty that one would expect from someone who someone else has just killed for and are now bearing the consequences of such an action. She moved on, seemingly unchanged. I don't think Trisha would ever, in a million years, be able to fully realise or appreciate the hell that Nikki went through.

Helen, on the other hand, was there - and in some instances she was instrumental in the change and personal development taking place in Nikki. This might not be the only (or very stable) foundation for a relationship, but at least between Nikki and Helen there was an understanding (and even at times an appreciation) of where the other one was coming from. These two grew together, whereas, in my opinion, Nikki and Trisha grew apart. Nikki would forever be frustrated by the lack of Trisha's understanding. And how could Trisha understand? She wasn't there. After the initial shock, her life went on as per usual - she even moved on from Nikki at one stage.

I would like to comment on Nikki's sentening. The piece of paper that Helen read in S2 E7, which is the judges recommendations goes exactly like this:-

" I hereby recommend that Ms Wade for the committing murder the sentence to be LIFE IMPRISONMENT (15 YEARS).
Ms Wade showed no remorse for the life she has taken and I recommend that she should serve TEN YEARS BEFORE BEING CONSIDERED FOR PAROLE."

So according to the recommendations Nikki's original Life Sentence was 15 years. I think Shed made a couple of mistakes with continuity. I personally think Nikki's Life Sentence was AT LEAST 12 YEARS - DEFINATELY NOT 10.

I'm not from the UK, so my deductions are based on assumptions and not facts. If it's standard procedure for prisoners to be up for parole after having served an x amount of their sentence, it is quite possible that Nikki fixed her eyes on her possible parole date and not her actual release date as such. Shell did the same, even though she was also sentenced to life imprisonment. If prisoners were aware of the standard procedures, they would also be aware of the required minimum time that they have to serve before being considered for parole. It then makes sense that Nikki made references to "9 years" and "10 years", does it not?

In the US, a life sentence these days really does mean life. But in what I've read about the UK, a life sentence is less literal, and I think some study (nice how concrete I am with my references, eh?) said that an average life sentence in the UK actually only lasts 12-15 years, because of early release, parole etc.

As for whether Nikki was better with Trish, and Helen was better with Thomas, I think that's a good question, and in the end a person's answer probably comes down to their own views about what constitutes a good relationship. An ex of mine once talked about his current relationship saying "I would have married her if I had the chance to live five lifetimes. But since I only get to live one, I decided she wasn't the person I wanted to spend my one lifetime with."

To me, this encompasses Nikki and Trish (and, frankly, Helen and Thomas too). Both of those were relationships which could have lasted a long time, a lifetime even. But only if Nikki and Helen were the type of people to be satisfied with "good enough," and I don't think either of them were. They were both idealists, and uncompromising, and once they had each had the taste of this kind of passion and love, they weren't going to go back to the other kind, even if the other kind was more stable, peaceful, easier etc.

I like all the points microsofty made about Nikki changing during her time at Larkhall, and how instrumental Helen was in Nikki's growth. And I think the same can be said about Helen's growth, and how instrumental Nikki was in that. Neither Sean nor Thomas was ever able to get Helen to change her decisions, or feelings, or anything, based on their desires. Nikki was.

I'm really glad the point has been made that Nikki had been through changes in the time she was in Larkhall. I always felt that their similarities attracted each other despite the odds of their different positions.They learnt from each other's differences (i.e. Nikki learnt to work through the system and Helen to deviate from it if needs must).

The nature of the situation made their relationship develop in a peculiar 'back to front way.' At the point when Nikki says 'do you want to come back to my place?' suggests an alternate reality where both are free and Helen does literally come back with Nikki to sleep together. They ended up knowing an awful lot about each other before that one night and the aftermath and to endure the pressures that became stacked up later on. If their relationship had survived as it had done (except the brief break) they would come up against challenges, sure, but not in the same severity compared with what they had gone through

it is certainly true that Thomas and Trisha pushed them together.Trisha did that because she knew Nikki so well which is a kind of ironic twist on the theme of this thread.

Just thought I'd pop my head round the door and clear up the sentencing confusion.

Murder carries a mandatory "life sentence" but life does not mean "life" in England - as has already been pointed out - and prisoners are given a tariff which is better described as the MINIMUM time to be served. It means that their sentence can continue beyond the recommended tariff if they are still a risk to society. When people are released on parole following a conviction for murder, they are on "licence" for the rest of their life. That means they are closely monitored by the probation services and can never truly be free.

Nikki's tariff was set at 10 years, which is, as the judge describes "the minimum amount of time served before parole is considered". Nikki has obviously misunderstood this, believing that she will be 100%, without question, released after 10 years. This misunderstanding is consistent with other indications of poor legal representation at her original trial because such a distinction should have been explained very clearly. It is therefore a shock to her when Helen reveals that Nikki could well be behind bars for 20+ years especially considering her record of bad behaviour. At the time Nikki was convicted, the trial judge would have initially set the tariff. The trial judge's report would have been sent to the Lord Chief Justice, who in turn makes a recommendation to the Home Secretary, with whom the final decision rests. Therefore, as a "lesbian cop-killer" it is fairly believable that the Home Sec could keep her behind bars for many years to satisfy public lust for vengeance.

A very good example of the Home Secretary varying the tariff set by the trial judge was the Jamie Bulger murder (two ten year old boys abducted, tortured and killed a 3 year old child in 1993 - for non-UK people) where the initial tariff was set at 8 years. Michael Howard, then Home Secretary, raised it to 15 years. They took their case to the European Courts who ruled that the Home Secretary was not the equivalent of an "independent and impartial tribunal" (Article 5 & 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights) and therefore could not set sentences. In 2002, the case of R v Secretary of the State for the Home Department ex parte Anderson confirmed (House of Lords case) that the Home Secretary could not set or vary the sentences of convicted offenders.

God, we are gonna have to keep you on retainer, woman, you're wonderful! Thanks so much for the cogent explanation!! :hug2

No probs. :D

Now that's an interesting question and one that made me start thinking about what went on that we didn't see. I know there's been discussion about what was in the letter that we saw Nikki give Helen (the soppy stuff), but there appears to have been a flurry of letter writing going on early in S2 while Helen was out of sight.

We see a postcard and a letter arrive for Nikki, another postcard comes (I don't think we know if it had a letter, too), and Nikki mentions another letter when she's talking about blighted Tomato plants :thought with Barbara.

Unless I've got this completely wrong, wouldn't Nikki have had to write back in order for Helen to get the Visiting Order? Also, Barbara offered to help disguise correspondence between the two of them -- do we REALLY know if she ever did?

Sorry - I know this is purely tangental to your points and really sort of off topic as far as Nikki and Trish's relationship, but those are just some random thoughts related you one of your questions (which clearly really struck me). Here's how it wraps back in, though:

One of the lessons it seems that Nikki had to learn was how to better manage what were effectively long-distance relationships. She and Trish couldn't do it. She and Helen didn't do it brilliantly (there were some very large bumps in that road, as we all know), but they got there in the end.

Some of that likely has to do with the sense that they "get" each other, but a large part of it has to do with learning to communicate more effectively and having that effort returned. I'm thinking here about Nikki's inability to get through to Trish literally or metaphorically and Trish's "I wanted to see if you'd notice" game.

Although it was sometimes forced and/or poorly timed, N&H found ways to talk or share their thoughts and feelings. Nikki and Trish didn't. Even when it looked like Nikki was going to settle for Trish how much of it was because she still couldn't bring herself to say what she really wanted? I really don't think they could have worked out without a huge, overdue shift in their relationship dynamics.

:err Oops... gone off on a ramble... oversharing.... stopping now.

Anyway -- engaging question. Thanks.

Great post (and welcome to the board)! My reply is also on a bit of a tangent & doesn't address the majority of what you have to say, I hope other people will jump in. I was talking to a friend a few days ago about the letters and she made a really interesting point, which is that the few letters we do see must be the tip of the iceberg. Iow, for Helen in particular to get from 2.2 to 2.6 (but also Nikki to some degree), they had to have exchanged more than just those few letters; they were building a relationship (or the start of one), and her idea just made sense to me. A few letters isn't enough for that. So in this way I think BG was using a kind of shorthand, where the few we see likely stand for a larger number.

First off, I want to say, welcome Jules037!

The only thing I would add to this is, we weren't shown very much with Trisha and Nikki and how they communicated before. We got the very end of their relationship. Clearly Trisha had moved away from Nikki. Seeing each other for such a limited time and not in private and the daunting 10 years of that to come, didn't help their communication or relationship. It all seems so hopeless when I think about them. Helen and Nikki were very in tune with each other in the beginning. It's a testament to their connection that they communicated what was essential in their very limited time together. While Trisha and Nikki evokes hopelessness and helplessness, Helen and Nikki evoke hope. And this starts for me, when Helen suggests Nikki appeal her sentence. I'm thinking they also got to see each other more than Trish and Nikki and speaking to the choir here, Helen and Nikki, carried on a riveting to witness relationship, under a stressful and near impossible situation. The situation itself added fuel to the fire in the way they related to one another.
Speaking of which,

I think I've said this before somewhere, maybe, I think the same could almost be said for Helen and Nikki. At the end, they were misreading each other all over the place. Just so it's understood, I am a huge Helen and Nikki fan, otherwise I wouldn't be here :) I just think they'd have their work cut out for them especially at the beginning. Though I will concede, they'd probably have less work to do than Trisha and Nikki would. They have a more recent history for one. Like microsofty and Richard pointed out, Nikki went through a lot of changes. Trisha could never really understand what Nikki went through. Helen could to a degree because she was their to witness most of it. I wish we had some more time with Helen and Nikki outside of the prison dynamic so we could see it play out and not just wonder about it.

Thank you (and thank you). :)

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that there were more letters than we knew about and that they say more than we thought. That's more or less where I was headed before. I think you and your friend are quite right about the iceberg.

Here's a supporting speculation:

After she comes back we do indeed encounter a more emotionally invested Helen. I've no doubt that she's missed Nikki and all, but where there's really got to be more underlying that is in the library scene. When she asks if Nikki's a cold blooded killer, it's not just because of what she's read in the file. Neither do I think it's because of the relatively few interactions they've had up to that point. I think she asks the way she does not because she suddenly thinks she's made some bad assumptions, but because she suddenly thinks she's been led down a bad path.

Now, we know no one so fond of the written word as Nikki. Were she really more of the, say, Shell Dockley type, I think it would have been easy for her to put one over on Helen. I think in that moment, Helen's afraid that's exactly what's happened. That's why she has to ask - the question isn't so much "is he (the judge) right" as "have I been that wrong".

I just don't see how she gets that sucked in (if you'll pardon the expression) without more going on in the background than we know about. We, for example, never see Nikki tell Helen her side of the story (and we wouldn't, because we'd already seen her tell it to Monica), but it had to have happened.

Helen goes from being confused by her attraction to Nikki to being her greatest champion. I don't think it's purely based on what a great kisser Nikki is (although I can easily imagine that locking one's brain up at least temporarily). If there weren't more letters, there had to at least be more phone calls.

Trisha = into prison
Helen = out of prison

It's all symbolic, isn't it? True love setting you free?

Anyway, what about the "soppy" letter Nikki wrote Helen in Rough Justice? If your theory is correct, wouldn't those things have already been said in the earlier letters between them?

I think the difference would be the limits present in sending letters through the prison mail. They would have to be far more careful about what and how they were saying things ... it would be more between the lines.

Whereas Nikki's soppy letter was given directly to Helen - no chance of someone else reading it.

There are some great points made here. I certainly agree that Trisha's experience of Nikki's prison world was of visits every so often in the visitor's room plus phone calls in between. Helen's experience of her work WAS partly of nikki's existence but in a peculiarly circumscribed fashion. An instance of this is Nikki handing back the questionaire in Karen's presence and saying "I mean every word I said' apparently in relation to the questionaire but in reality to her love letter to Helen (an unusual chance of overt expression but not in a normal two way fashion). Also Nikki started off being a crusade of Helen's before Helen fell in love with the person behind it. Likewise Nikki went through a similar evolution starting from finding out a kind hearted perceptive prison officer who Nikki finally believed was 'for real' and then falling for the human being.

This relationship proceeded in a totally different and peculiar fashion than, say, the natural process that saw Nikki and Trisha come to live with each other. The prison context puts everything out of joint and means that the criteria for appraising 'normal relationships' have to be drastically modified. My feelings are that if Helen and Nikki survived all the crap they did, then they were headed for the long run.