Hunks and Hypocrites: Review 31.07.2012

Kudos to Pete Lawson. He should write more of these.

Tonight's episode was good. It was watchable, it was well-written and scored some points in emphasizing the flaws in a lot of characters who need some home truths spoken to them.

Jake Wood proved tonight, once again, why - along with Steve McFadden - he's the best actor on Eastenders. His scene in the charity shop with Ann Mitchell was brilliant. Good to hear Bradley mentioned again. In proportion to the amount of times we get Saint Stacey Slater rammed down our throats, we hardly ever hear about Bradley. Tonight I understand why, and how much mentioning him hurts Max. The scene with Cora reminded me of a similar scene between Max and Carol after Billie's death, when he was explaining to her how the hurt of losing a child never gets better, but becomes something that a parent loves because it's the only thing left of the child who died.

This was Max at his best, coming clean about how even though he had Bradley for 22 years, he missed out on so much with him (leaving the unspoken bit about the reason for that, being Cora's other daughter). It was good seeing him reference his guilt about Stacey regarding Bradley, and how he thinks about what he'd be doing now and how he wants to see him again, just to hold him one more time. Cora's reaction, however, showed she's just as much a hypocrite as her daughter, ticking off Max for presuming that she was like him, for letting her children down.

Sorry, madame, but you're wrong. Max may be a serial cheat, but he's provided a home, shelter, and emotional as well as material comfort for his children, including Bradley. Denied by both Tanya out of selfishness and Rachel out of revenge from seeing Bradley as a child, Max saved for years in order to be able to present Bradley with £41,000 on his twenty-first birthday, a gift that Saint Stacey made him refuse. Cora pursued her own pleasures, clubbing, drinking and gambling whilst her husband lay dying and her girls later partied down. It's no wonder that Tanya, Rainie and Lauren have addictive personalities. They did learn a lot of their behaviour from their mother and grandmother.

Just another thought: Cora got pregnant at eighteen with her first daughter. I seem to recall the day Tanya wed Greg, when she was on the way to the church with a drunken Cora in the limo, and Cora reminiscing about her wedding day when she was "five months gone." So Cora got pregnant by Bill Cross also. Except he married her.

I've never understood the attraction of Tanya as a character for some people. Everything Cora said to her yesterday was the cold, hard truth, and her initial reaction of denial and poking the blame back at Cora, saying she'd learned everything she was from Cora, was just another pisspoor example of the shifting of responsibility inherent in today's main characters, especially the females. Archie was a control freak, but Roxy isn't. Max is amoral; Bradley wasn't. Most of the Slaters were loud-mouthed chavs; Little Mo wasn't.

Of course, Tanya is selfish. Everything has always been about her - how something affects her, how she figures in a situation, what she wants being paramount. Lauren is the same, as she has showed consistently - she's lazy, entitled, won't hit a lick of work, expects to come and go as she pleases and treats her father like shit, all the time expecting him to pay her way. The purpose of this work with the homeless - whom Tanya disdained as "tramps" - was, in Lauren's words, to get them tickets to a gig where they could get "wasted." - which makes me wonder where the hell the rehab line came from tonight. Lauren spent half an hour talking to a locum doctor and refused all other help when Lucy dragged her home from a night out.

It's interesting that, of that trio tonight (Lucy, Lauren and Whitney), only Whitney was cognizant of underprivileged people. I guess her character must be growing up, remembering that she, also, was homeless at one point.

As for Lucy - first things first. If that actress isn't anorexic, I'm a Dutchman. Her arms are like sticks, and she has the classic lollipop head of an anorexic. There were a lot of sleeveless tops on show tonight, amongst the younger girls, and that was ample opportunity to compare. Lauren, Whitney, Poppy and Alice - none of whom are anything other than petite, had toned and fleshed out arms. Lucy's were like skin over bone, with her shoulder bones protuberant. Joey, corn-fed and steroid-enhanced, looks as though he could snap her in two. And, please, please, please, someone tell her to stop allowing her mouth to hang open. It's not only unattractive, it's puerile and annoying.

So she's conjuring up her mother's ghost because she's angry at her father's abandonment. Please. She's influenced by a plank of beefcake who has daddy issues himself and who's paying her bills for the privilege to sleep with a rag, a bone and a hank of hair, live free-of-charge, and influence her against dear old dad. Ian's spoiled Lucy rotten, and she's given him nothing in return but grief, and to think she's going to bend to the will of a walking penis just because of service from that tainted member is a joke. Her empire? Please. Three weeks ago, she was quaking in her shoes in fear of Derek. As for "Cindy's", what, exactly, does she remember about Cindy?

If I recall correctly, when Steven shot through, she remembered precious little about her. When Cindy abandoned Lucy for Italy, she was two years old. When Cindy died, she was five. There's very little to remember, and Ian certainly wouldn't have painted a kind picture of Cindy. He didn't of Mel or Laura either. And pardon me, as for her "empire," aren't all those businesses still registered in Ian's name, including the stall? Let's see how she copes with paying business rates, VAT etc. Or will Joey find a way to cheat the authorities like his old man? What a stupid girl!

By the way, I like the way Big Mo put poncy pretty boy Joey in his place.

Let's get something straight (bad pun) about Syed and Christian, and I'm a big fan of theirs. With all the best will in the world, Christian is Yasmine's stepfather, not her father. And Syed has the final say in anything concerning her. The tiny tot beauty contest is just a crumb from the big table at Eastenders thrown Syed's and Christian's way, as they've become little more than glorified extras recently. It's also yet another comedy ploy for Nina Wadia. I'm a bit tired of Zainab the OTT Everything, and I can't believe that this woman who was being psychologically and physically abused the better part of last year has so conveniently forgotten all of that and recovered.

Ray is another beefcake hired for the purpose of poncing about in a towel. I suppose Ray is to the older contingent of female viewers what Joey is to the younger, except he's just as annoying. I used to like Ray and thought him a decent bloke; but now I think he's someone supremely in love with himself, with a high opinion of himself to the point that he disdains others. I hated his remark to Kim about "his" women, as if every woman he knew were his own personal property. Kim isn't "his" woman. There's nothing to denote her as such, except that he sleeps with her now and then. That is a really offensive and sexist remark, and all the moreso, regarding women as "possessions" considering Ray is Afro-Caribbean, and should really know better. As for Sasha, less is more, and the actress should be axed.

Weak points: Anthony Moon, Sasha, Fatboy, Poppy and everything in which they were involved.

Of course, the appearance of Ian at the end was the climax of the show, but apart from that, I'm left with a niggling question of what was meant by the weird reaction of the ever-annoying Jean to the news that Janine was bringing Scarlett home at the end of the week?

Very good episode, made all the moreso because Katshite wasn't in it.

Cora's Daughter: A Little History Lesson for the Luddites

OK, Luddites, listen up. I'm going to explain to you why Cora just might be telling porkie pies about Ava being dead.

Long, long ago in a universe far, far away called the Sixties (sometimes called the Fifties too), it was a great shame for women to have sex before they were married. Nice girls didn't do that - or, rather, they didn't get caught. If you got caught and got up the duff there were few things you could do about it.

You could:-

(a) have an abortion, but that was illegal and dangerous and you could die
(b) you could marry the man/boy who porked you (This is what Jim and Reenie Branning had to do when Jim got Reenie pregnant with April/Derek, depending on who is currently considered the oldest Branning)
(c) you could go to a home for unwed mothers, have the baby and the council would take the child and put it up for adoption. Adoptions were closed then, and you didn't know where your child went. It was considered "for the best."
(d) you could keep the baby, but if you did, you were a source of great shame for your family. This option was doubly shameful if you had had sex with a black man and had a mixed race baby. Things were different then.

The way Cora described the "hospital" where she was, how it was very strict and how the sister wouldn't allow visitors sounded very much as though Cora, who was eighteen at the time, had to go to one of these homes for unwed mothers. Also, even though Cora reiterated at the beginning and end of her story that Ava had "died," the way she described the people "taking" the baby and her not being allowed to say good-bye, had all the trappings of the way Social Services would come for such an infant being put up for adoption and taken to an orphanage to await new parents. There were orphanages about in those days as well.

I would also imagine that Cora told silly Tanya that Ava had died, basically to get her to shut the fuck up about her sister and why she wasn't told; but also, I suspect Cora's told herself every day for the past 47 years that the child died, because that was an easier way of dealing with the situation, of having to look at every woman of a certain age and wondering if that woman were she.

Maybe the child did die, and maybe this is a reasonably well-written piece of character development. Maybe  Tanya will go off to find the missing sister, if she somehow discovers Cora was lying or maybe .... Shirley is Cora's daughter.

Women Can Be Assholes Too: Review 30.07.2012

Last things first.

I am not a Cora fan, but I stood up and cheered to the rafters at that last scene between her and Tanya. Six years Yummy Mummy's been on that show and for some viewers, she could do no wrong. It took Cora, her mother to tell the world what I already knew - that Tanya was one of the most selfish and self-centred characters ever to grace the show. She was the wife Max cheated on, but she was the silly little bitch he was cheating with when married to Rachel.

Cora reiterated what Max stated back in 2007: that Tanya didn't give a rat's ass that Max was a married man or that he had a child. She doubled-down all efforts to take him away from Rachel, and she wanted him to put her children first. And she was a lying, stealing, drug-and-booze-addled little kappa slappa. WooHOO! And a shout-out to Cora for exposing the fact that Tanya really is no better than Max. Well, in fact, we know she's worse - because she tried to kill him. Oh, Cora, you left out an important bit about which you don't know - how the fragrant Tanya prostituted herself to the local psycho in order to get him onside to kill Max.

Great scene! Give the writer, the actress and the character she played all kinds of awards. I've been waiting for those home truths to be hit home against Tanya's big arse for six years now.

Bounce away, Tanya.

I'm not sure whether Cora is lying about Ava being dead or not. At times, it sounded as though she was, but when she described the hospital ward and how they "took" the baby and wouldn't let her say good-bye, as well as the sister not allowing visitors, it sounded almost as if Cora were in one of those antiquated homes for unwed mothers, which were very much the part of the fifties and sixties. It also sounded as though the baby were taken away to be put up for adoption.  Because that's the way things were done then as well. Maybe Cora comforted herself with the notion that the baby was dead to stop her worrying herself to distraction about where she would be. Or then again, maybe the child is dead.

It very much sounds as though the child may have been mixed race, but then, maybe not. It depends on how the writers want to develop this.

Or then again ... as vaslav37 is now fearing (proves he reads this blog), maybe her daughter is Shirley.

One thing for certain: she's not Sharon.

Score one for Cora for telling it to Tanya.

Zainab was another one who got put in her place tonight. Who the hell is she to question something Masood wants to do, when all he's done all his married life is ask "how high" whan she's demanded he jump. I was pleased he stood up to her in his quiet, indomitable way; and I was even more pleased when Number One Son Syed, royally put her in her place about the way, not only that she was speaking of Tamwar "going to stupid college", but also Masood, for wanting to pursue a dream.

The fact that Masood loves her enough to forsake that dream in order to give her what she wants speaks volumes for him and little for her. She's another mouthy mare who doesn't appreciate her husband. We all know now that they'll be doing what Zainab wanted all along - running the Argee Bajee.

What is the point of Lauren? She's totally despicable and unlikeable. A spoiled rotten brat, who looks down upon the homeless as shiftless tramps. Sign her up for the Republican Party in the States. Lauren's all right. She gets money handed to her by Yummy Mummy and Daddy, so she doesn't give a hoot about anyone else. God knows what's wrong with me - I give kudos to Whitney, who's been homeless, herself, for pointing out to that ignorant little bitch that people are often not homeless by choice. Oh, and Lauren wants to go to a gig to get wasted.She's learned nothing. May she choke on her vomit.

No sympathy either for chav-queen Lola. You do the crime, you do the time, and she got off easy by sweeping the streets. For free. Boo-hoo. Are we supposed to feel sorry because she can't see her baby? It takes more than goo-gooing and da-daing to be a mother. Billy does all the heavy work. And, oi, WTF does Billy mean by putting someone's name down on the birth certificate as the father. Is he stupid? She can't. Not unless the father goes with her to the registry office or gives witnessed, written permission. I hate this character and hope she leaves.

I actually liked Christian tonight. I liked seeing him with Yasmine and loved seeing him and Syed acting like a proper couple, arguing. For once the roles were reversed. It's usually Christian who takes care of business and Syed who's left tending the baby, so the turnabout was interesting.

Basically a good episode, especially for Tanya's unpalatable home truths.

What's Good for the Goose Is Good For the Gander: Jack the Slut

There's an interesting little discussion on Walford Web Kindergarten initiated by their resident matron, Mrs B. It's all about Jack and the direction in which TPTB seem to be taking his character.

There's actually been some good debate, with some posters referencing the fact that Jack's now shown with a different woman, each half his age, weekly, culminating in him having had a threesome with two stewardesses, who appeared, immaculate and in complete uniform, on each or his arms in Wednesday's episode. Before that, there was a young brunette; and before that, an even younger blonde.

Mrs B points out, with approbation, that Jack seems happy. And why shouldn't he be? she reasons. He's single and he's having fun.

Ay, but there's the rub! Several other commentators pointed out that Jack's behaviour is nothing better than the way a slut would behave. I agree. As others pointed out, if this were someone like Roxy appearing weekly with a different man on a different day, culminating with two for a threesome, there'd be hell to pay, and Mrs B would be leading the charge. After all, Roxy, like Jack, is also single and should be having fun.

There's something about Jack that people easily forget, and that's not difficult, because Jack easily forgets it too ... he's a parent. In fact, he's a parent three times over. He's got a daughter who lives on the Square, in whom he invested five minutes of his time when it suite him to try to paint her mother as unfit, whilst employing underhanded and illegal tactics in that effort as well; he has a disabled daughter in Paris, whom he sees once every couple of years; and an accidental son in Portugal, whom he could care less about.

But in Jack's eyes, he's a good parent, because he "pays" for his kids. Throwing money at Amy's, Penny's and Richard's mothers appeases his conscience and allows him to bunk up with whatever nameless piece of skirt happens to float within eyesight of Jack. He's even donned (pun intended) a Don Draper 'do to add to his presumed sex appeal.

He is as abysmal a parent as Katshit across the Square and his own brother Derek. And the fact that he's "single" shouldn't be used as an excuse for him to flit from woman to woman night to night. Roxy's single, yet she catches hell whenever she goes out for an evening with Christian or Kim. That makes her a slut.

I'm glad some people haven't forgotten what a male slut Jack is and how absurd his behaviour is in a fortysomething man. Such behaviour was deplorable in the braindead twentysomething known as Tyler Moon; it's even sadder in Jack.

If TPTB really had their balls about them, they'd do a storyline where Jack catches the most annoying type of STD - crabs; but now might be an inopportune time for that, as TPTB have planned a romance to brew between him and Sharon; and that sucks too, because the last thing they need to do is use Sharon as a means of validating any and all kinds of Branning.

Jack should get syphilis. It's a slut's disease and Jack's a slut.

Songs for the Shaggerman: Suspect Number 5

I had a hard time thinking of a song that would aptly describe Jack Branning. I had thought to use Rod Stewart's "Do Ya Think I'm Sexy?" But I think this one was more appropos, considering Jack's less-than-dynamic personality and his priapic tendencies in the bedroom.

I still don't think he's the shagger, however. Jack slept with Rainie Cross, a slighly less-hygenic version of Katshite, but he was drunk. Unless he's deep in the throes of alcoholism, he wouldn't touch her. However, his other ladies who seem to be hanging around of late, could provide him and Katshite with a nice little line in STD.

For what it's worth, I'm thinking Derek.

Songs for the Shaggerman: Suspect Number 4

He's pasty, he's bald, he's ginger and he's always got a ciggie hanging from his mouth. He's totally the most amoral character in Eastenders, and he knows it and doesn't pretend to be anything else. If he were porking Kat, they would be two of a kind, with the only difference being that she would still cling to a moral high ground, and upon her reveal, shift all the blame onto him.

He's used to that, however, being blamed for everything. After all, it was his fault that Stacey seduced him and his fault tha this wife and daughter tried to kill him.

I don't think the shagger is Max Branning. He's finally being allowed to pork Tanya again - so much so that he turned down Roxy, who - on a bad day - can be pretty rough, but looks like effing Kate Middleton in comparison to the whore AKA Kat Slutter.

What attracts the ladies to Max?

This ...

Open Mouths Which Say Nothing: Review 25.07.2012

This was a watchable episode, mainly because Pete Lawson wrote the thing, and his dialogue ability and timing are better than most of the writers the programme employs.

Shame about the characters, so few of them being likeable. That was what always kept me watching Eastenders - the fact that there were characters in whom one could invest emotionally; but I can't remember a time when I've liked characters less.

The best thing about this episode, and one which added to its watchability, was the fact that there was no Katshit, no odor of Katshit and no sign of Katshit altogether. And that was a good thing.

The biggest criticisms I had of this episode were twofold and were found within the younger generation of Eastenders' models actors - Joey and Lauren.

Really, Joey is no better than Tyler, and David Witts is no better than Tony Discipline - two underwear models who happened to be at the right place at the right time when the BBC's flagship programme opts for unknowns with no acting experience but lots of pects and who look good in a pair of briefs to feature as the principal boys in what's rapidly becoming a year-long pantomime.

The only thing which differentiates Joey from Tyler is that Joey bears a passing physical resemblance to Dennis Rickman and they've paired him with a likeable enough character whose presence is really nothing more than a rag, a bone and a hank of bleached-blonde hair.

I hope Joey and Lucy don't marry and procreate. Their child will have an enormous gaping mouth and a tongue that lolls. Seriously. Please, Eastenders, someone tell Hetti Bywater that open-mouthed pouting is not attractive at all; and all David Witts seems to do to look intimidating or sexy or sexy-intimidating is loll his mouth open and waggle his tongue back and forth from cheek to cheek. And as much as Tony Discipline needed diction lessons, Mr Witts could do with a few, himself.

I have a feeling that Witts has difficulty with the Cockney accent. I've heard him speak and he's really quite posh. So in order to hide this fact, he does a Beppe di Marco-Steve Owen whisper in rapid cadence, which makes it hard for anyone to understand him. I don't think we're meant to understand him anyway. He's beefcake, another stud in the image of Connor and Tyler, and it won't be that long before he's flashing his pects about. Eastenders morphing into the latter, terminal stages of Brookside.

As for Lauren, does Jacqueline Jossa still take acting lessons? Once again, this is not a silent movie, and she is not on stage. She doesn't have to exaggerate her vocal intonations or gurn for the audience to get the gist of what she's trying to impart. As is, Lauren is an unlikeable character at the best of times. If ever there were a reason for smacking a kid, Lauren's the living embodiment of that philosophy. She's rude, lazy, entitled and she should be baking now in some juvenile prison for attempted murder. She can walk away with Tanya whenever she leaves, and I'll not miss either of them.

Since when did the Masoods become the sitcom within Eastenders? In fact, there are two sitcoms within Eastenders - Life with the Masoods and Zainab and Denise Go Large. Does anyone not find it slightly disconcerting that all the comic elements in Eastenders seem to be focused around people of colour? Doesn't that scream "token" to people, or are people just too pigshit ignorant to be bothered about that?

I recall a regular commentator, one of the brighter and more intelligent ones, on the Walford Web Bullyfest, rosalie, who once remarked, quite rightly, that all of the ethnic characters on Eastenders were tokens and - to a great extent - stereotypes. I agree. Nina Wadia's character is an amalgamation of every Asian character she parodied on Goodness Gracious Me. Rudolph Walker's Patrick is the Love Thy Neighbour character forty years older. Kim certainly is a stereotype, and Ray has morphed into one also. Ray has turned into a slimmed-down version of Lenny Henry's Theophilus T Wildebeeste, and Kim ... well, once there was a great American comedian named Flip Wilson. Back in the Seventies, he'd dress up in drag to do a character called Geraldine Jones. I'm not saying that the writers fashioned Tameka Empson's character on Geraldine Jones (essentially a black man in drag parodying the stereotypical behaviour of black women of the time, but watch a clip of Geraldine and judge for yourself. You can easily picture "Kim" as "Geraldine."

If Tamwar's returning to college means he'll be leaving the fold and the show, I'm glad. I used to like Tamwar when Himesh Patel was delivering classic one-liners and proving an apt mimic with the Rude Masood website, but he's turned into a twenty-one year-old bitter and twisted elderly man, clinging to his mother's aphorisms, judging the rest of the world by her standards and generally turning into an old maid in britches. How to waste another character, yet another chapter in Bryan Kirkwood's ego book.

And as much as I love Nitin Ganatra's Masood, I somehow felt that, between his caricatured endeavours to tell his dominant wife that he was leaving the post office and getting a job in education and the sexual frustration jokes between Denise and Zainab at the Minute Mart, I was watching two British sitcoms from the Seventies, centering on stereotypical ethnic minorities.

I just realised that the majority of this episode contained and focused on the Brannings, arguably the biggest family (in size) in Eastenders history, and so cancerously increasing that the show is in danger of becomimg "Branningville."

Minor Branning Story: Jack reprising the Leonardo di Caprio scene from "Catch Me If You Can" revealing that he'd spent the night with not one, but two airline stewardesses, complete with uniforms. Jack in a threesome, whoda thunk it? Of course, we'll have it eventually revealed that this is all an adverse reaction to Ronnie's divorce and his losing custody of Amy, which will all be compensated by the arrival of Sharon. Really, gong or no gong, Lorraine Newman should have the balls to finish Scott Maslen's character. Sharon should not be used as a vehicle with which to establish the Brannings' credibility as characters.

Mediocre Branning Story: The ever-decreasing circular one of Derek and his children. Let's just cut to the quick - Derek and Joey are both cut from the same cloth. When they're not thinking about their own narcissism, or when they are focusing on Alice, they'll get along; but when it's pointed out how similar they are, then they'll both storm off to their corners of the field like petulant bulls. We know that there will be an epiphany. It's not rocket science, because we've all been there before. And these characters need to stop being force-fed us by the writers.

Yet another trick lunch connived by Alice, this time at another house, with a view to uniting Joey and Derek. Where will the next one take place? Jack's flat? Perhaps she can get Jack to line up a couple of floozies they can share. Really, I've heard of repetition for emphasis, but this is too much.

Mildly Interesting Branning Story: Max needs money, and he needs money because of something Derek knows about. My guess is that Max is married. I think that Derek was involved in "importing" women from Eastern Europe (Non-EU Eastern Europe) with a view to setting them up as sex workers. Perhaps one was in danger of being deported, so Max, who was with Derek at the time, married her. He needs money and he wanted an address. Maybe he hopes to buy the woman's silence. Watch this space.

After all of the above, I'd say the suspects for Shaggergate are now narrowed down to two - Ray and Derek. And because of the propensity of the writers to involve the Brannings in every conceivable storyline, I would say that Derek is the Shagger.

Lola the Chav: Billy's left holding the baby. Anyone surprised? Lola doesn't like changing nappies. Lola was forced into holding Little Wotsit, and suddenly smiled at the baby. That doesn't mean she'll like changing shitty nappies or wiping baby puke off her fragrant shoulder. Like I said, Billy's left holding the baby. Still hate the little bitch. Still think the actress is the shits.

Cora Cora Cora: The Great Missing Daughter Mystery. For what it's worth, I think Cora was involved, when she was very young with a black man. This would have been during the early Sixties, when people of her generation and the previous one, were not as enlightened as they are today. I think her child was mixed race, and that she was forced to give her up for adoption.

Cora's daughter is not Sharon. If Cora's daughter be not mixed race and if she be anyone on the Square at all, she's far more likely to be Shirley than Sharon.

Let's see how the fragrant hypocrite Tanya would deal with that.

Watchable episode. Not great, but watchable.

She's Coming Back

Real Walford royalty returns. Forget your scrubbed up trailer trash (Tanya), your hardnut bullywomen (Shirley) and your hypocritical, high-minded sluts (Kat) ... The real Queen of Walford is back to claim her kindgom. And just look who's gazing back at her in the last frame ... Sorry, Mona.

We'll be welcoming the Queen, whilst bidding a temporary farewell to the Crown Princess ...

Just imagine Walford next year when they'r both on the Square.

And neither one is Cora's daughter.

Vaslav37's Oedipal Complex

Thus saith vaslav37 of Digital Spy fora, who is slightly more than fixated on the drunken Cora Cross:-

Cora is the NEW MATRIARCH OF THE SQUARE...

BK proposed this when Peggy left.          

Sorry to disappoint you, vaslav37, but Bryan Kirkwood got the sack. He is toast, and whatever he may have intended can and most likely will be overridden by a woman who cut her teeth on Eastenders as the programnme, itself, developed.

Suck it up and get over it. "BK" stuffed Eastenders, and he stuffed it to serve his enormous ego and the egos of overgrown children who don't have a memory past last week.

If you want a fantasy soap, cop this one:-

Eastenders is grounded in reality ... or it should be.

      

The Cora Oedipal Complex: Why She's NOT a Matriarch

Before I lose my cool and chastise vaslav37 and his homeboy Tom_Willis about their singular desire to latch their lips around each of Ann Mitchell's respective nipples, let's look at the "Matriarch" system as it's existed in the Square.

First, there have been - my count - five matriarchal figures in Walford's history: two main matriarchs and three minor ones. All but one grew and evolved into the role, and three were only "localised" matriarchal figures, exerting influence only within the confines of their own family unit.

Those women were Lou Beale, Pat Evans, Pauline Fowler, Peggy Mitchell and Dot Branning. Lou and Pat were the real matriarchs of the Square. The rest wielded their influence within their family domain.

From the beginning of the show, it was established that Lou Beale commanded a position of respect within the Walford community. She had been born and bred on the Square, married another resident, ran a business and raised her family there. She'd established firm friendships and treated all the residents as part of her extended family. Lou was instantaneously recognised as the "go-to" woman of Walford. She didn't mince words, and her advice was often harsh. She may not have liked certain people (Pat, for example), but she respected them. She was approachable, and beneath her brusque no-nonsense exterior, she had a full and loving heart.

I actually think TPTB thought to develop Pauline into the role of inherited matriarch, after Lou's death, but somehow, that didn't pan out. Pauline lacked the natural all-encompassing warmth and compassion for the whole of humanity that Lou had. Pauline's focus was centred on her family - Arthur, Mark, Michelle, Martin and Vicky, with special concern for Pete, Ian, David Wicks and, whilst she was married to Pete, Kathy. Everyone else on the Square simply didn't measure up. She treasured Ethel, but only because Ethel had been Lou's friend; but for years, she treated Dot with tolerant disdain and found her company taxing. All other residents of the Square were never as good as the Fowlers or Beales. Pauline's influence didn't extend past her kids, who often and blithely defied her wishes.

Pat was the character who stepped into the matriarch breach, and she is still, today, the absolute best example of character development ever in the show's history. She arrived on the Square a blowsy, loud-mouthed and - frankly - common fortysomething slapper. An ex-prostitute, an ageing party girl, who'd been an unfaithful wife and an abysmal mother. She'd been married to Pete Beale. Whilst married to him, she'd slept with his brother Kenny, Brian Wicks and (possibly) Den Watts.

When Angie gave her work behind the Vic's bar, no one was pleased. When she was brutally attacked, many people suspected Pete Beale. Pat didn't begin to round out as a character until she married Frank Butcher, settled down and began to raise his children. Whatever maternal qualities she lacked with her own sons, she made up with the Butcher children, especially Ricky, and - after she bonded with Kathy on Pete's death - Ian Beale.

She matured into a surrogate mother for both Ricky and Ian, both of whom treated Pat better than her own boys, although they, at times, let her down as well. It was significant that both Ricky and Ian, as well as David Wicks, were with Pat when she died.

Pat had certainly lived a life; and for the most part, she'd learned from her mistakes. She was the least judgemental character on the Square. When asked, she gave advice, although it may not be the advice people wanted to hear, but she was a firm friend. She never gave up on people either, even though they might have thrown her support right back in her face. Those whom she loved, she defended unto the death. She was the one person in Walford, outside of his own family, whom Phil Mitchell respected.

Was she a saint? No. Her Achilles heel was Frank Butcher, and she betrayed her fourth husband and her best friend when she had a last fling with Frank. She also betrayed Yolande Truman, when she enticed Patrick into an affair. But from the Nineties onward, Pat had the undeniable position of wise woman of Walford.

Her best friend, Peggy, was more like Pauline - a woman totally invested in her family and in protecting them, up to a point. Peggy knew when a Mitchell should step up to the plate and take responsibility for something that was his fault. She harped on Phil about this, and it was she who actually made sure Ben went to juvy for attacking Jordan Johnson. Yet when she felt her brood were being unfairly victimised, she advised flight - Sam, after Den's death, for example.

However, as Pauline was Fowler-Beale centric, Peggy was Mitchell-centric. No one mattered but the Mitchells, and whilst Peggy would fight to the death for one of her own, she didn't give a rat's arse for anyone outside the family unit.

Dot was a late-bloomer. Until she married Jim, she was a figure of hypocrisy and ridicule on the Square. Overtly Christian and spouting Bible verses, she'd raised a hellacious son, whom no one liked but whom Dot repeatedly worshipped. Once, Nick revealed that her means of punishment when he was a child was locking him in the understairs cupboard,whilst she prayed for his sins outside.

Dot was the cartoon hypocrite - the drinker who only had sweet sherry for medicinal purposes, the gossip who was never one to gossip, the Christian who sat in judgement. It's only been in the past decade that she's bonded well enough with her step-family to afford her the epithet "matriarch" and that's only been with various Brannings. Once Jim left the Square, she seems to have divested herself of all things Branning, so one wonders.

I am sorry to annoy any and all Cora-lovers, but Cora is no matriarch. I have a feeling younger viewers are putting her on the pedestal by virtue of her brashness and her ability to down a drink. And I also think that TPTB are rushing to have her fill Pat's shoes by crashing her through a Pat-like short-course development within a year - trying to turn her in twelve months into what it took Pat a decade to achieve.

It ain't gonna happen.

At least not before Cora addresses her alcohol dependence. She's a closet alkie who's got a permanent buzz tempered by the perpetual cigarette hanging from her lips. Notice that Tanya makes Max go outside to smoke, but Cora lights up anytime she's at the Brannings, and that cigarette usually accompanies her sucking on a drink. Her very first scenes involved her being pukeworthily drunk, rude, loud and practically obscene. It's no wonder that both her daughters and her granddaughter have drink issues.

Cora not only threatens a pregnant woman, she harrasses her when she's in the early stages of labour. She's dishonest, conniving and totally hypocritical. The fact that they're using another pejorative character brought in and advertised as the next Stacey Slater (Lola Pearce-Mitchell-Whatever) in order to show Cora's supposedly soft side is a double-whammey of trying to salvage both characters.

Finally, for the last god-damned time, Sharon is not Cora's fucking long-lost daughter. Lorraine Newman's been with the show for 20 years. She knows Sharon's backstory like the back of her hand. The appearance, only a few times, of Carol (not Cora) Hanley was not insignificant. Her rejection strengthened Sharon as a character and reinforced her as someone who finally accepts that she is, first and foremost, a true member of the family who adopted and raised her, the Watts family. Even Vicky referenced that in 2004 when she remarked that the only one of Den's children to bear his surname was his adopted daughter, who was more of a Watts than she or Dennis would ever be.

If Newman even attempts to retcon this story, it would be the grossest sort of insult bot to Letitia Dean and to the history of the show. There is no way an original cast member and truly iconic character like Sharon should be used either to enhance Cora's profile or to validate her position on the Square. If she's even tempted to throw caution to the wind and proceed with this fantasy, she should resign immediately, because she clearly isn't up to the job at hand.

And to the know-it-all asshole on Digital Spy who calculated dates and ages for Sharon and Cora, calculate THIS - and you can check it out on Wikipedia: Sharon was born in 1969. She is 43. Cora's character was born in 1946 (although the actress is really 73). Carol Stretton Hanley was born in 1950, which would have made her nineteen when she gave birth to Sharon. Besides, according to Cora's backstory, she married Bill Cross in the late Sixties, and he was a younger man. Since Sharon wasn't born until October 1969, that would have left precious little time in the late Sixties for Cora to have met and married Bill Cross. Chances are, Cora was married to Bill when Carol Hanley had Sharon ... and that means that Cora's daughter would have been born significantly before 1969 and before she met and married Bill.

Now if Cora's daughter is close-at-hand, there's someone on the Square who was born in 1963, the height of the Swinging Sixties when a seventeen year-old Cora Cross might have been putting it about Soho and Carnaby Street ... Shirley Carter.

Far more sense for Shirley, if anyone, to be revealed as Ava Anderton than Sharon. That would give Shirley a familial connection in the Square. She's as hard-faced and as abrasive as Cora, smokes like a chimney and drinks like a fish. Can't you see the resemblance?

That would also give Tanya her leaving line - she'd leave in shame.

Think about it.

Sit Down, Shut Up and Listen: CORA IS NOT SHARON'S MOTHER

Right, I didn't want to do this, but since certain posters on the Digital Spy forum and elsewhere are proving the point about people becoming more and more stupid as years pass, I'm forced to reiterate what sensible DS posters like felixrex, Filiman, PerfectPrincess, ayeshire lass, maurice75  and kitkat71 have been hammering home repeatedly.

Cora is not not not not not not not not not Sharon's mother.


As has been repeatedly pointed out, we know who Sharon's birth mother is. We saw her. She constituted occasional appearances and played an important, if limited, role in a very major storyline which culminated in Grant and Sharon's wedding.

This is a picture of Sharon's mother, Carol Hanley:-

And here's the actress who played her, Sheila White:-

Here is Ann Mitchell, circa 1990:-

Mitchell is 73 and plays a 69 year-old woman. Sharon was born in 1969. When she met her birth mother, it was intimated that Carol Hanley, nee Stretton, was a teenager when she gave birth to Sharon. Sheila White is currently 62 years old and would have been 40 when she appeared as Carol Hanley, but was probably playing a few years younger. Still, even if she weren't, the character would still have been nineteen when she gave birth to Sharon, instead of twenty-six, as Cora would have been.

Still, logic aside, let's look at the circumstances surrounding a story which some forum members on Digital Spy are arrogant enough to think that just because they weren't around to savour the storyline that established Sharon's biological mother, the writers now should just brush that storyline aside as though it didn't exist and accommodate their fantasy in order to validate a new character into a role that's too big, at present, for her to fill. The theory that more people would accept Mother Superior Cora as the Matriarch of Walford if she were related by blood to one of two remaining original cast members and ensconced as the landlady of the Vic by virtue of this relationship is pure unadulterated hoakum.

Sharon should not be used to validate Cora's existence on the Square at the expense of dismissing her as a part of one of the most important families ever to grace the show - the Watts family. Neither should she be used as a vehicle by which to impose the Brannings as the focal point of the programme. That's cheap. It was done exploitatively when Pam St Clement left, and it was disrespectful to the actress and to the character she played.

Now, boys and girls - and by this, I mean vaslav37, Tim Willis and Louisiana - listen up. This is how important Carol Hanley was to Sharon's story.

It was 1990. Angie had been gone from Walford for a couple of years. Den had died. Sharon had found out that Vicky was her sister. She'd been betrayed by Simon with Cindy, and was just beginning to get close to Grant Mitchell. She was uncertain of herself, and when Grant inadvertantly referred to her as "princess" one evening, she went on a downward spiral, until Michelle suggested she try to find her birth parents.

She got her birth certificate, learned that her mother's name was Carol Stretton, She made the enquiry properly, along the accepted channels - Eastenders did research in those days. They knew that if no attempt had been made by her birth parents to trace her, there would be no contact, but there had been. The agency arranged a meeting, and instead of going along, Sharon sent Michelle to speak with Carol and find out about her. Michelle met her, thought she was genuine, and referred Sharon, telling her that Carol was now Carol Hanley, married and pregnant.

Sharon and her mother met a few times, always in a public place, always for coffee. She learned that her mother had been very young, and that her birth father was a boy named Gavin. Sharon wanted to establish a family unit of her own, as she felt that she'd been deceived by Den with Vicky and was worried she was getting too close to Grant as a crutch for fear of being alone. The last time she saw Carol, she was in hospital, having given birth to her second son. She introduced Sharon to her older son as a "friend," and Ron, Carol's husband told Sharon it was probably best that she bow out as they had their own family unit now.

So she was rejected by Carol. Believe me, there was no babyswap, no mistaken identity at birth, none of that shit - and given the recent unpopular babyswap storyline, preceeded by the equally inane Corrie babyswap ten years after it happened and then swept under the carpet, anything like this would just be Eastenders not only jumping the shark, but getting a shark-bite in the arse.

What happened after this rejection is that Sharon allowed herself to become more and more involved with Grant until, on Boxing Day 1991, they married. This was, effectively, the metamorphosis of Sharon from being totally Watts to being (and still being) a quasi-Mitchell. Whenever you think of Grant or Phil now, you immediately think of Sharon.

Sharongate is the most popular storyline to date in British soap history. Before Shannis, there was Sharon and Grant, and still may be again. But even if Grant never returns, there's loads of mileage in Sharon and Phil. Sharon left Walford in 2006, involved with Phil, and she'll return to be involved with him again.

Viewers who've come of age only within the last decade need to stuff down their gullets the fact that Eastenders existed before 2000, and it had established history. Jim Branning may have been BFFs with Patrick Truman, but even Jim acknowledged that he used to be a racist and still didn't agree with inter-racial romance. At Billy's death, Carol even accused him still of racism. If we wipe away the fact that Sharon found and knew her birth mother, let's wipe away the fact that Phil didn't burn the car lot down, or that Sharongate never happened, or that Phil's first wife wasn't named Nadia. And Cindy never cheated on Ian. Mark Fowler didn't die of AIDS. What next?

More people watched Eastenders in 1990 than watch it today, but there are still a fair number of us who do, and we remember Carol Hanley and her storyline. Retcon this and enough of us will turn off for good so that viewing numbers might just be significantly affected. Contrary to what people might think, Eastenders isn't tweenies snogging about and steroidically-enhanced men parading around shirtless. It's not Shaggerman mysteries and educated professionals turning psychopathic.

Cora had a baby out of wedlock at a time when it was still shameful to do so. Cora is 69. Tanya is 36. That would mean that Cora was well past thirty when she gave birth to Tanya and Rainie. So this child would be significantly older than Tanya - possibly closer to fifty.

Now here's a thought which no one has broached, and one which would make sense. Maybe Shirley is Cora's daughter.

If you think that would make Tanya gag a maggot, think of what that would do to poor little monalisa62003.


Maybe Ava was stillborn. More than likely, Cora's lying to shut Bouncy Tan the fuck up. Maybe she finds the memory of having to give a child up for adoption too traumatic still. Maybe, as someone suggested, the child was mixed race, which may account for some of her reaction to Patrick's amorous advances. Somewhere along the line, I've no doubt we'll see Ava, but I hope it's a long way down the line, when the inhabitants of Branningville have been thinned out considerably.

But one thing's for certain. Cora's not Sharon's mother. She could be Shirley's though.

As for the Brannings, the fact that TPTB are planning on dropping Sharon in their midst immediately upon her return is just another pathetic attempt to validate this family front and centre as the focal point of the programme. Besides, a Sharon-Jack romance would justify keeping Scott Maslen on when he really should be shown the door.

The Brannings are currently shoehorned into every possible important storyline. They comprise 60% of the Shaggerman suspects. Max and Jack are going to have some sort of hagglefest over Sharon (which is why I think Derek's the one who's been porking Slut Slutter). Max and Tanya are involved in the search for Ian, and Joey's paying Lucy for sexual favours so he'll have a say in keeping Ian out of his own home.

Walford is becoming Branningville.

As someone sensible pointed out on Digital Spy, the Brannings are the current Slaters. John Yorke reckoned they'd be the next Fowler demographic, but once Michelle Ryan left, they started dropping like flies. Once Jo Joyner leaves (please, get over yourselves ... she isn't taking a break any more than Letitia Dean did in 2006 - she's leaving), then the floodgates will open for various and sundry others to depart - Derek first, followed by Jack, Joey, Alice and Lauren. Bianca should never return. The right about of Brannings are the best ones - Max, Carol, Abi and Oscar.

Update:


Still don't believe me? Watch this ...

Please Pay Attention

Here are a few things that simply need to be addressed. Please pay attention. These will aid in your understanding of Eastenders.

1. The Money Phil Stole from Roxy


For everyone on the Digital Spy and Walford Web forums who keep bringing this old chestnut up as evidence of Roxy's stupidity, please note: Phil returned the money he stole to Roxy. True, she never knew he did this, but she got her money back. If you'll just calm down a minute, I'll help you remember.

If you recall, Glenda sussed that Phil had stolen the money, and she and Roxy sneaked into the Mitchell house to raid the safe. Roxy had taken out the money she was owed, but Glenda got greedy and wanted to take more. Well, they were caught, innit? But Phil "proved" to Roxy that it wasn't he who'd stolen her money, but Mommie Dearest. Remember he paid Masood to plant the "missing" money in Glenda's bedroom. Roxy found it; ergo, she got her money back.

They didn't "forget" that storyline, they resolved it.

2. Cora's Missing Daughter/Sharon's Missing Mother


Now hear this: CORA IS NOT SHARON'S MOTHER. SHARON IS NOT NOT NOT CORA'S DAUGHTER.

After Angie had left Walford and after Den had died and Sharon had discovered that Vicky was her sister, she endeavoured to find her birth mother. She went about this perfectly correctly and the way it should have been done. You see, in those days, Eastenders did proper research, instead of making the rules up as they went along. Sharon got a copy of her birth certificate - not hard to do - and from that, found her birth mother's name. Then she went through the appropriate agency to make contact. If the agency hadn't found out that her mother was looking for her also, no contact would have been made.

Anyway, she found her mother. Her mother was named Carol Hanley and appeared to be in her late thirties when we met her. I would say the age difference between Sharon and Carol was roughly the same as between Bianca and Carol. When they met, Carol was pregnant. She told Sharon that her birth father was a boy she'd known as a teenager and his name was Gavin. Carol's husband was named Ron, who knew about Sharon, and she had two small boys. She and Sharon met several times. However, when Carol proved reluctant to introduce Sharon to her brothers as their sister, Carol confessed that she only thought of Sharon as a good friend and not a mother.

Carol Hanley is Sharon's mother. The woman she met was not an imposter fronting for Cora, and Cora is not Carol Hanley.

Someone on DS suggested that Eastenders could (and maybe should) totally scrap the storyline from 1990, as not that many people had witnessed it, and retcon Sharon so she could be Cora's daughter. If the current powers-that-be even think about retconning that, it would simply be the death of Eastenders, plus it would be cheap and would cheapen an iconic character, because it would simply be a craven attempt to link her to the current cancer-infestation that is the Brannings now.

It's bad enough that Kirkwood totally retconned the fact that Morgan Butcher had been the product of his mother's one night stand with a stranger into his being the result of a long-standing relationship between Ray and Bianca, but this would really be jumping the shark.

Sharon is not Cora's daughter, just like Lola was not Mandy's.

3. Tanya, Derek and Lauren


Derek is not Lauren's father. Tanya did not sleep with Derek whilst having an affair with Max, nor was she raped by him. Max fathered Lauren. And Tanya did not meet Derek until she married Max, at her wedding.

Jack is not Lauren's father either.

4. Kathy Is Dead


Get over it. Kathy is dead. Cindy is dead. Mark Fowler is dead. So are Den, Dennis Rickman, Pauline Fowler, Frank Butcher and Pat.

Some of them died off-screen. One died twice. They won't make that mistake again. Suck it up.

5. Jean STOLE


Sorry, Jean fans, but Jean stole Alfie's money. She took his money twice - once from his VAT account - and gave the money to Michael. Yes, Michael was scamming her, and he was committing a crime too; but Jean took money that wasn't hers without permission. She stole from Alfie the same way Billy stole from Janine. And Peggy.

And, please, shut up, about the money she stole from Alfie being stolen money as a result of Alfie scamming Derek. The Vic is a business and Alfie does make some sort of profit. Put your Alfie hate back in the trollbox under the bridge you inhabit.

6. Stacey Is a Murderer


Really, I promise you, she is. No matter how evil Archie Mitchell was, he didn't deserve to be judged, sentenced and executed by someone whose morals were only marginally better than his. Please get this straight: she didn't murder Archie because she was suffering from a bi-polar episode. Diederick Santer, himself, confirmed this. Stacey was lucid and knew exactly what she was doing, hence the gloves. She didn't murder Archie for having raped Ronnie. She knew nothing of that. She didn't murder Archie because of the way he treated Peggy. She couldn't give a rat's arse about Peggy.

She murdered Archie as some sort of convoluted revenge on Danielle, her five-minute best friend. She murdered him because he raped her (which is not a crime punishable by death, except in the Middle East, and then it would be the victim who's put to death) and because she thought Archie would suss that her baby was his. Well, it wasn't, so that really was a stupid murder to commit.

And, by the way, Stacey is far from a saint. Not only did she murder a man, she assaulted a woman in broad daylight (Janine), broke up two marriages and allowed the man she supposedly loved, to die branded a murderer.

7. Phil Mitchell Is Not Responsible for Dennis Rickman's Death.


Dennis is responsible for his own death. Dennis, like all human beings, possessed free will. He knew Jonnie Allen's amoral capability. He also knew he had a pregnant wife and the chance of a new start in a new country. (The fact that he would have been turned back by INS in Florida because of his prison record is totally irrelevant to Eastenders' lax research of late). Dennis made the decision to confront Jonnie Allen after Phil told him what he did to Sharon. Dennis was an adult. The buck stops with him.

8. And, NO, Phil Does Not Love Shirley


I'm sorry, but he doesn't. She's a warm body, friends with benefits, chief cook and bottle-washer. She is not the love of his life. If she were, he would have told her what happened to Heather. When it's revealed what Ben has done, Shirley and Phil will be toast. But they never were love's young dream. People should have realised that when he readily bedded Glenda and then was unable and unwilling to promise fidelity to Shirley, because "that was the way that he was." That's not love. That's convenience.

Where's Cat Stevens When You Need Him? Review 24.07.2012

First things first ... I never thought Patrick could be described as shallow, but here we have him mooning and winking at Cora, admiring her strength and - dare I say it? - feistiness with flowers and a lascivious wink, when everyone thought he was still harbouring fond memories of Pat.

Seems like only yesterday, he was mourning her on Valentine's Day with Dot. Oh, wait ... it really wasn't that long ago. More crappy attempts by the writing room to move Cora into the spot once occupied by Pat. And there she was today, parading around the Square, bestowing a blessing on the new Virgin Mother, Lola, and presenting her with a gift for the baby it had already been given by someone else - only it really had been given by someone else.

Cora's the fount of all wisdom now, and the go-to woman in Branningville, which will shortly be the new name for Walford.

Cora, my arse!

And here we have Newman continuing Bryan Kirkwood's fantasy Eastenders by ridding the Square of anything to do with what Eastenders was and bringing it into his chavvy universe. A matriarch doesn't appear overnight. For years, Dot was a figure of hypocrisy and ridicule. Pat started out life as a blowsy, ex-prostitute barmaid. Neither attained matriarch stature until they'd married into the Square and, over time, had acquired wisdom and gravitas.

Sorry, to sound so crude and not meaning to give Cack Jarr AKA Jark too much of the vapours, but Cora hasn't been in Walford long enough to cut a fart big enough for a smell to last. Kat did speak the truth on Monday night. She is the ASBO granny; but since most of the current cast have a retconned urgency and the propensity to forget what happened the day before, I suppose TPTB are playing to the lowest common denominator. Not surprising.

Just like everyone's forgotten what a thoroughly abominable little trouble-making bitch Lola was and still will be, once the novelty of the baby wears off. She doesn't know how to change a nappy, and why should she learn, as long as "Pops" is there; and everyone forgives her demeanor since she's given birth. Well, Janine's given birth too, and in a far more traumatic circumstance, and Cora the Fairy Godmother actually tormented Janine when she was in labour and threatened her in the early days of her pregnancy.

And this is the new Walford matriarch?

This episode was more watchable than most, but it still left a lot to be desired. The good bits, first, because they were few and far between ...

Anything Janine:  Anything dealing with Janine and Michael and their efforts to thwart their own demons for the sake of their daughter. Both are to be forgiven, really, although I'm still not sure of Michael's motives. Janine's trust issues stem almost from birth and were given a total jarring in her betrayal by Ryan. I honestly think Michael loves her, but loving someone means relinquishing a modicum of control, and as much as she pushes him away, in a survival mode, thinking of her child, he refuses to open up and be honest with her about his feelings and what bothers him.

I truly don't think he's the Shagger. I think he's a welter of confusion at the moment over Janine and his inferiority complex. As much as he's trying to pull back, he can't; because he does love her, and she loves him. She said as much to Billy.

And speaking of Billy, I love the dynamic he has with Janine, algthough I wish he'd appreciate her more. He's stolen from her and betrayed her trust. The only reason he came to visit her with flowers was to beg for his job back, fearing that Social Services would take the baby. (Lexie Billie, I ask you). Now Janine's re-hired him, after he brought the baby back to the Square in accoutrements furnished by Janine, let's see how he repays her. And whilst he's doing it, he may want to teach that skank of a granddaughter to be nicer to Janine, since she's virtually supporting the household.

And finally, I really like Whitney with Janine. I'm one of the biggest Whitney-haters around, but she's a completely different character when she's away from Bianca and Tyler and with Janine. I loved the way she comforted her tonight, and was really supportive and encouraging Janine with the baby. And, for once, I'm glad she interfered by calling out Michael. This is the good Whitney and the interesting Whitney. This Whitney can stay.

I don't miss Bianca in the least, and if she never came back, Whitney could stand alone as a friend to Janine. (Does this hint that boy Tyler might leave?)

The Mitchells: Only briefly, but Ben showed tonight exactly why he will eventually get caught for Heather's murder - the silly sign he ordered online without thinking about inserting the baby's name. This was how he got caught as the stalker of Phil, not thinking and letting his mouth trip up the game.

Sad that Shirley's going to bond with a baby over ChavLola, when it would have been far more interesting to have brought Carly back in order to explore Shirley's relationship with her real children and why she abandoned them.

The Father and Son Reunion: Surprisingly, I found the drinking game between Joey and Derek interesting and watchable. I am sorry, but David Witts is a very weak actor. I know the programme has had severe budget cuts, but they have to stop hiring inexperienced actors on the basis of their looks. Witts is nothing more than another Tony Discipline, who vaguely resembles Nigel Harman (without the obvious talent) and whom TPTB have served up as a smorgasbord of a bit of Steve Owen, a smidgeon of Beppe di Marco, a dash of  Sean Slater and garnished with a crust of Dan Sullivan. Let's call him Daddy's Favourite Casserole, because he's another one with serious father issues.

Still, the scene was interesting. Derek and Joey don't get along because they are too much alike. Derek sees this, but Joey refuses to do so. Sometime in the near future, he'll have an epiphany, and we'll have a butt-clinchingly embarrassing scene of a Z-list actor howling at the moon because he realises that he's the proverbial chip off the old block.

Look at the similarities:-

Both are deceivers. Derek deceived Jack about "Chrissie," his long-lost daughter, whilst Joey deceived Derek about drinking gin tonight.

Both are pathological liars: I would think that both Derek's memory of Joey's seventh birthday and Joey's are valid, up to a point. But they're not above lying to get what they want.

Derek is a violent man, and if I were Lucy, whose brain cell seems to be implanted up her skinny arse, I'd be careful. Joey's all sweetness and light now, but he's a control freak like his old man. Just look at the way he treats his sister. Watch this space.

Oh, and Derek's warning to Joey at the end is worthy of note. Derek always ekes revenge, which is why I think he's Shaggerman. Alfie made Derek lose face and he lost money in the bargain. And, please, note Kat's tenderness to him in her mercifully few scenes tonight.

And this leads to the bad bits ...

Loey and Jucy:  Sorry, Eastenders, but this is not Sharon and Grant. It's not even Tiffany and Grant. It isn't even Kerry Skinner and Robbie Jackson. Lucy's seen Joey a grand total of four times in her life. The last time she saw him, she kissed him. Now, after he scammed his old man and saved the damsel in distress with five hundred quid, she invites him to move in. We know he won't be kipping on the couch. So Joey gives Lucy money and Lucy lets him sleep with her.

There's a name for girls like that. The big word starts with a "p". The word with one syllable starts with a "w". Hint: Kat.

I can't figure out why Jane hasn't been in touch directly with Lucy and Bobby. If they don't want her to know about Ian, they could lie - they've been doing so already. Instead, Jane calls Tanya to tell her she's off to the US to tend her sick mother. Not Christian, her brother. Not her stepchildren, but Tanya. What happened to this "Bobby's-going-to-visit-me-every-weekend-in-Cardiff" shit? Just that: shit.

At first I liked this version of Lucy; now, I'm not so sure. Of course, she's worried about Ian, but she's letting herself get manipulated into punishing him, not knowing or understanding his circumstances, by Mr Who Needs Fathers Branning.

The Brannings of Branningville: That awful dinner, with Tanya jumping the gun about Cora's and Patrick's relationship. Tanya thinks only in terms of sex. That's the basis of her relationship with Max. It's totally beyond her ken that a man and a woman can have a friendship. I'm glad Cora asked her if she were drunk.

Awful family. Totally awful.

The Goodness Gracious Me Comedy Slot: Zainab asleep in the Minute Mart. Hard to fathom that this time last year, she was in a treacherous situation with Yusef. Now, she doesn't even think of him.

Eastenders: Soap to the Lowest Common Denominator.

Eastenders' Hattrick in Reverse: Bianca, Kat and Now Sharon

If media consultants ever wanted a masterclass in How to Turn an Iconic Character from Hero to Zero, the consultancy should, perhaps, hire Bryan Kirkwood, with Lorraine Newman in reserve.

Kirkwood plotted and then achieved the break-up of the classic couple that were Ricky and Bianca, only to turn Bianca into the vilest of chav petty criminals, complete with entitlement and anger management issues. She left Walford for jail (again) in the back of a police car, and if we never see her mingeing face in Walford again, it would be too soon. I don't miss her, nor do I miss her despicable demon-child Tiffany.

Then, we all know what he's done to Kat. She left a totally redeemed character, secure in Alfie's love and loving him unconditionally, her demons conquered. Now she's returned a totally horny bitch, slapping, strutting and bullying her way about the Square, a physical and emotional abuser of her husband, an abysmal mother and a cheat. She is, without a doubt, the worst species of whore. I hope her karma is swift and hard. Where people once loved Kat, now she's reviled.

In two weeks, Sharon returns - a character who personifies Walford and Eastenders: daughter of Den, ex-wife of Grant Mitchell, on-and-off lover of Phil Mitchell, friend of Ian Beale, widow of Dennis Rickman and mother of his child.

And what do they do?

Well, if the Week 33 spoilers are anything to go by, they're wasting no time in getting Sharon cosied up to the Brannings. Max is attracted enough to offer her the loan of some of Tanya's clothing, so we've set up Bouncy Tan to look down her cleverly made-up chav nose at real Walford royalty. Then, I gather, from the spoilers, it looks as though there's going to be a dalliance with Jack, who offers her a place to stay.

Just like Pat's death, this return is being used as a vehicle by which to promote the cancer that the Brannings are becoming. Pat's death featured bullying by Derek and a visit from Max and Tanya, who'd never said two words to Pat in all their time on the Square. The two weeks afterward and her funeral was all about the Derek-David feud.

Now, it seems as if we're going to have Sharon getting jiggly with Jack and moochy with Max, when if Lorraine Newman would pull her head out of her arse or wherever she's mislaid it and remember, Sharon wouldn't touch either of these men with a barge pole. To begin with, she'd never pursue a man in a committed relationship. If she did, that would make her no better a hypocrite than Bouncy Tan. And as for Jack, besides the fact that he's ex-Old Bill, she prefers a bit of rough, Mitchell-style. Anyway, she's a mum now, FFS. Aside from the fact that Sharon is the sort of person who would cling to familiar faces in a return to the place where she grew up, she's not the sort to bond that easily with new people, and she's certainly not the sort to horn around after a man the way Kat does.

It's now almost obvious that this return is yet another notch in the belt of the Branning family. As it probably eliminates Max and Jack from the list of Shagger suspects (of Kat, anyway), that really narrows the suspect list down to two - Ray and Derek ... and based on the Branning leverage, it's obvious who the Shagger is going to be.

Derek the Shaggerman, Max and Jack lusting after Sharon, Joey living with Lucy and indirectly involved in Ian's return (and he was found by Max and Tanya), Cora midwifing Chavvy Lola ... can we have Alice working at the Minute Mart and silly Lauren working for Zainab at the Argee Bajee?

Why not just call the damned show "Branning Place" and be done with it.

Like a bad rash they are ... Still, I knew I had reason to suspect Sharon's return.

Nice one, Eastenders ... a hattrick in reverse. I'm beginning to wonder if Lorraine Newman isn't the closer for this show?

Songs for the Shaggerman: Suspect Number 3

A psychopath is someone suffering from deep-seeded attachment issues, usually which occurred during the first five years of his life: Michael Moon re Eddie Moon


A psychopath is someone who, because of the above, lacks total empathy: Michael Moon


A psychopath is a master manipulator, a con man: Michael Moon


A psychopath is someone who always has to be in complete control of events surrounding him and his own emotions: Michael Moon


A psychopath feels that the world doesn't appreciate him for what he is, that he's not being noticed for the genius he is and that he isn't someone. He feels grossly and unjustly unappreciated: Michael Moon


For what it's worth, I don't think Michael is the shagger. He wouldn't go there again, not since he's now focused on manipulating his wife, Janine, who isn't psychopath, but a sociopath.

This song's the one for Michael.

Songs for the Shaggerman: Suspect Number 2

He fancies himself a gangsta, but he's really DelBoy on steroids, with a choice of two Rodneys. He punches down to the point that he's a bully - but he always seems to bully women and schoolgirls. Got a violent edge. More importantly, he's as horny as Kat is and really her moral equivalent. He's been without a woman's touch since he was in prison, and he likes a skanky girl. Well, he had Rainie Cross, who's almost as much of a dirty girl as Kat is. Bah ... the only thing dirty about either one of them is their knickers. And given a chance, as much as he banters her, he'd have Shirl in a minute.

Mr Derek Branning ... He's my choice for the Shaggerman. He's not particular, and he has a bone to pick with Alfie, who scammed him and stood up to him. Derek lost face, and what better way to humiliate Alfie than by doing his missus? Hell, he may even be doing him a favour, and Derek would reckon that. Any outcome wouldn't phase him at all. If Alfie threw Kat to the gutter, which most people hope he does, Derek would step on her to avoid getting muck on his shoe.

Derek reckons he's Mr Cool, like Kat reckons she's the female equivalent. Thing is, the only person who does reckon Derek is cool, edgy and dangerous ... is Derek.

I hope he's the shagger. He and Kat deserve each other.

Derek's theme:-

Songs for the Shaggerman: Suspect Number 1

Here's a song for Ray Dixon, who I don't think is Mr Shaggerman. Ray's too much in love with himself and the idea of himself to love or commit to anyone else, which is why he's never married any of the women with whom he's had children. Ray not only loves his body, he loves his own mind, which is why his idea of parenting is lecturing about good nutrition (but failing to see Morgan only eats chicken nuggets and Sasha's always stuffing her cake hole with chips) and giving the kids treats or presents.

This song's for Ray, who always loves the one he's with, which is his right hand. (That explains why he was so upset when Kim cut the tip of his finger off).

A song for wankers everywhere:-

A rose in a fisted glove for you, Ray ... probably from Kim, considering the fist.

Shame Richie

The BBC is a corporation funded entirely via the licence fee paid by viewers. That is no less than a stealth tax, but it means that any and all personnel, from cleaners to international stars employed by the BBC are paid with money from our wallets. Quite simply, if we don't pay to have a television licence, we simply cannot watch television, and we can even be prosecuted and/or imprisoned if we don't comply.

If we pay money into a service, we are entitled to complain to the provider if the service is less than satisfactory and/or if the personnel are not performing adequately. This applies to he BBC. And it applies to the programmes they broadcast.

The cast of Eastenders is funded by us. Our licence fee monies pay for their expensive holidays, their big homes in posh neighbourhoods, their botox, their nail jobs, the school fees for their kids, the holiday homes and yachts moored in Spain and Florida, the expensive cars and the nannies.

Therefore, when we are less than satisfied with service rendered - as is the case with many who find Eastenders sub-standard at the moment - we are entitled to complain.

It's not just a matter of turning off or switching the channel. The licence fee continues to fund lifestyles of the rich and famous, who owe a lot of those lifestyles to us and who thinks this gives them the entitlement to behave badly and boorishly in public.

Now that it's been revealed that the BBC actually advised its stars to use offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes that the plebs who fund them have to pay, I think it's even more important that such people be revealed for the assholes that they are.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Shane Richie, who plays cheeky, chirpy, lovely jubbly and cuckholded landlord Alfie Moon - the man all Eastenders' fans are supporting against his bitch of a wife. When I posted a blog yesterday about not giving a shit about Lola's baby, in which I remarked that one of the reasons I didn't give a rat's arse was because the actress, herself, is pretty dire, I got a tweeted stream of abuse, whcih I include below:-

Click to enlarge, including the remarks from an American political commentator, a media professional who was less than impressed with the way Richie, another media professional, reacted to criticism from a viewer.

Someone's got an icon complex and pretty thin skin. And someone needs to be reminded of the people who put him where he is today - or maybe he's like to go back to the Daz Doorstep Challenge.

Let's Hope Roxy Puts the Mangy Old Kat Out

Roxy's attraction to Alfie always spurs all sorts of discussion. First, there are those people who are dead convinced that Roxy is nothing but a common slut (as opposed to Kat, who's the very embodiment of the Virgin Mary. Not). Then there are those people who are convinced that Roxy is still child-like in her immaturity, that she would never be attracted to Alfie, that their age difference is too great ... yadda yadda.

Let's put to bed a few myths that have evolved around Roxy and look at her for the positive character she always has been.

First of all, Roxy's emotional and intellectual development was stymied and stunted by her control freak of an older sister, Ronnie. (Even as I type, I can imagine the indignation of various souls at the Walford Web creche and the Digital Spy moral cowards banging their keyboards at someone even daring to criticise Saint Ronnie). It's not a criticism; it's a fact. Ronnie's excessive control over Roxy may, in part, have stemmed from Archie's removing her child from her, but Ronnie inherited a great deal of Archie's mannerisms and behaviour, as Roxy so often pointed out, and which Ronnie hated.

Anyway, Ronnie used Roxy as a surrogate child. She indulged and encouraged her irresponsible and immature behaviour and made sure she was always there to clean up whatever mess Roxy made. She also laid the mother of all guilt trips on Roxy by reminding her incessantly that this is what she, Ronnie, did - clean up Roxy's mess, pick up the broken pieces.

The result of all of that was that Roxy was encouraged to act far younger than her years until well into her thirties, which she did. When Roxy arrived on the Square, she was a 29 year-old child woman, under the thumb of her older and more manipulative sister. She dressed like a poor man's WAG, but she had a terrific sense of humour and delivered some cracking one-liners. Then her impulsive behaviour got her into trouble and she ended up sleeping, on the spur of the moment, with Jack Branning, the Sperminator, who, at the time, was not involved with Ronnie, although even if he weren't involved with her, Ronnie thought that he should have been behaving in full purity of thought with her in mind.

As a result of this entanglement, Roxy got pregnant, complicated by the fact that she was also sleeping with Sean Slater as well. So she really didn't know who her baby's father was.

As far as sluttery goes, Roxy simply isn't one. In the five years she's lived on the Square, she's slept with Jack Branning twice, had a relationship and married Sean Slater, slept with Jase Dyer once, had a relationship with Al Jenkins, which ended when he left the Square, and had the weirdest sort of relationship with Michael Moon. That's roughly one man per year. Hardly promiscuous.


For those people crying foul at her having slept with Jack - the common cry is that he was "her sister's man" - well, he wasn't. Their first encounter occurred when Ronnie and Jack were definitely in their early off periods of coupledom. If I recall correctly, Roxy had informed Ronnie that she saw Jack rogering his ex-wife across the desk in the office of R and R, which put paid to Ronnie's relationship with Jack. The second time occurred when Jack had only just received his divorce papers from Ronnie. As Rita Simons stated, herself, Roxy would never sleep with Jack while he was Ronnie's husband. Both instances occurred when Jack and Roxy were single.

Some folk cry out that Roxy deceived Sean. She didn't, really. I actually think that Roxy didn't know whether Amy's father were Sean or Jack. She'd slept with Jack once; she was having a no-strings-sex-only romp with Sean at regular intervals. She'd be forgiven for thinking Amy's dad was Sean. And as her feelings grew for Sean, she hoped and believed he was the father of her child - until Jack bullied her into sneaking a DNA test, which Archie and Suzy Branning revealed.

In fact, Suzy's home truths moment was a classic one, wasn't it? Shall we relive it?

Other criticisms of Roxy from various people include her perceived thickness, with everyone pointing out how Phil managed to steal £20k from her. Actually, he gave it back surreptitiously. He planted the money in Glenda's room, making it look as though Glenda had taken it all along and thus further alienating Roxy from Glenda and isolating Roxy.

But almost from the moment Alfie and Kat arrived back in Walford, there's been a chemistry between Alfie and Roxy. Now it appears that that chemistry is blossoming into love. For those of you who may have forgotten, Alfie and Kat were the closest of friends for the longest time before they fell in love. That was back when Kat was likeable and had a great heart. Now she's simply unlikeable and in possession of a great, insatiable twat.

And since Ronnie's departure, Roxy's grown up a great deal. Before anyone points me in the direction of Amy's accident, let me refresh your memories. For anyone with a small child, being with that child 24/7 without the stimulus of adult conversation can be stultifying. Roxy had no support unit with her child. She was living apart from Phil and Shirley, who were indifferent to her; and she got precious little support from the Brannings. Once when she needed a babysitter, she actually had to remind Carol that Carol was Amy's aunt.

On the night of Amy's accident, Roxy literally had to beg Jack to look after Amy. Jack, you'll recall, forgot all of the various other children he'd dropped about the place, to mourn for James. Jack was sulking and reluctantly agreed. He was late and she left Ben in charge of Amy until Jack returned. Even when Jack did return, he didn't dash upstairs for his daughter. Instead, he went into his flat to play loud, juvenile music.

During the custody battle with Jack for Amy, Roxy endured all sorts of bullying from various Brannings, from anger-management queen Bianca to Derek. For everyone slamming her for flirting with Max in the wake of that, Roxy was lonely. She was lonely, vulnerable and not really thinking straight after her ordeal in the courts. Part of her come-on to Max was a revenge motif; part of it was wanting a bit of fun. The fact that Max was even remotely tempted and flirted with her by text speaks far more volumes for Max, who was supposedly in a committed relationship then, than it does for Roxy, who - when he knocked her back - stopped the pursuit.

In one of the most remarkable scenes of late in Eastenders, when Incorrigible Cora the hypocrite called out Max for his part in the flirtation, Roxy stepped up to the plate and assumed total responsibilty. Now that's something you seldom see in Eastenders these days- a woman who isn't a victim and who assumes responsibility for her actions.

Several people seem to have trouble with the potential of a Roxy/Alfie association. They cite age difference. Roxy is 34; Alfie is 48. That's one year less than the difference in ages between Grant and Tiffany Mitchell. Billy Mitchell was more than 20 years older than both of his wives. Garry Hobbs was forty when he left with 25 year-old Dawn Swann.

People refer to the fact that Roxy calls Alfie "Granddad". It's an affectionate term with nothing to do with age. In fact, Kathy regularly called Phil Mitchell "Granddad" as a term of endearment, and she was eleven years his senior.

Others say Alfie isn't Roxy's "type." Roxy had a "type" when she was a party girl, and in point of fact, she's been maturing as an individual ever since she had the relationship with Al Jenkins. The very fact that Roxy approached Alfie and voiced her feelings rather than going the seduction and sex route first says a lot. Roxy was a girl who slept with a guy first and got to know him later. She was totally honest with Alfie, and he was brutally honest, in a kind way, with her. In effect, he basically let her know that he was a married man, and that leaving Kat meant leaving his family, the kids and the business, so it wasn't that simple. Roxy accepted that and backed off.

Her crowning moment came when she handed Kat her ass in proving to her that in all the time she stayed in the Vic, she never slept with Alfie, nor did he try to do so with her.

This is what's spooking Kat. She knows that Alfie doesn't do casual sex, that he learns to love and appreciate a woman through friendship first, the way he did with her; but she demands worship at her altar. She needs to stop and think what she's done to Alfie, to make him concentrate so fully on a mingy football team as an outlet for his feelings for Roxy, which he knows are wrong and to which he hasn't succumbed.

In the end, I hope it's Roxy who triumphs and that Kat gets kicked back to the gutter where she belong, but not after being told a few choice home truths. Speaking of which, here's another home truth moment, this time with Auntie Sal:-

The Babymamma Saga Part II: 23.07.2012

The absolute best part of this episode was Billy's actual run. To watch him run around the Square and see him being saluted by all the major characters in the Square, was really quite inspiring.

I'll be the first to admit that I like Billy Mitchell. I know he's not liked by a lot of fans and many question having him remain in the show, but as a choral character who can cope with background characterisations and the occasional major storyline, Perry Fenwick is in his element. Fenwick is actually a good actor, and it's more than screwing up his face. He was instrumental in dealing with Jay in the aftermath of Heather's death, and although Billy lives for being accepted as a real Mitchell, he knows exactly what Phil Mitchell is and of what he's capable of doing.

Like Ricky Butcher, whom we'll never see on our screens again (if you believe that), Billy is a good everyman figure. He has a good friendship with Alfie and also with Janine. And since tonight's episode was heavy on the foreshadowing element, I'd say he will have something stronger in the future with Jean. Jean was actually quite good tonight. I'm glad she left the Vic early in a rush and left that sour-faced Kat to stew in her own foul juices.

She was the downside of the episode. And once again, she took a moral high ground to which she wasn't entitled in subtly berating Alfie for allowing Roxy to help in the Torch extravaganza, when she wasn't around. Why? Because she rushed off to Shaggerman's flat. And how totally unbelieveable that all five of the presumed suspects would stand across the street and all stare at her. Who is attracted to a woman who dresses as a whore? A woman who dumps her child on anyone just to run off for a quick fuck. "Big Mistake" in lipstick, simply because some man isn't paying total and 100% attention to her sorry,botoxed, narcissistic ass. Everyone in possession of a dick has to pay homage to Saint Kat, patron saint of sluts.

The banter as well by the football team about Kat wearing the trousers in the Moon household is down to Bryan Kirkwood and him alone. Alfie was never like that, and all of them have room to talk - Max, who can't abide living apart from Tanya; Jack, who's a male slut; Michael, who's dependent upon a wealthy woman who doesn't trust him; Ray, whose best lover is his right hand. That leaves Derek, who was the first to leer across the street at Katshite. They deserve each other.

Make no mistake: Kat has to suffer in all of this. She has to be humiliated, thrown out and shunned. She has to lose everything and leave Walford - but whether this EP has the balls to do that remains to be seen.

More foreshadowing with Cora, who's now a midwife, of all things, coaxing Lola the Unlikeable through labour - still no sympathy for the little chav slapper with the bloody doll. Anyone could have screamed and shouted through that; but we had a foreshadowing of the fact that Cora gave up a baby for adoption ... and NO, THAT BABY WAS NOT SHARON.

Lucy and Tanya ... meh. Billy was the star.