Louisiana Logic (Not Really)

Louisiana, commenting on Digital Spy's "Should Kat and Alfie Stay Together" thread (or something of that ilk), displays the non-intellectual acumen for which the state from which she takes her name is famous, writes about Alfie and Kat:-

IMO they are both as bad as each other, in fact I would say Alfie is worse, what kind of man two times a woman with her own sister? Now when Kat gets it on with Spencer then we can say she is just as bad. 

I don't get comments about Kat having STDs. Since she got with Alfie in 2003 she has only slept with 5 other blokes, two of which were years ago. It doesn't say much for fidelity but there are other characters who are far more promiscuous and don't manage to catch anything - Jack Branning for one. 

It's like when Alfie accused Kat of carrying another man's baby in 2011. At that point she had only cheated on him with 3 men, two of which were years ago. Kat only cheats on Alfie when things aren't going well between the pair, when she isn't getting attention, Alfie knows that as well. Surely the fact they had been sleeping together would tell him Kat hadn't strayed in 2011 and that he was more than likely the father. But then this is the idiot who thought 'low fertility' meant he was infertile. 

Once you've finished ripping your eyeballs out from this convoluted apology for marital infidelity, let's discuss this in depth.

First of all, the blatant Katapologists, like Louisiana and vald 

 truly sicken me. These are women who'll raise their screechy voices to the rafters when a man cheats on a woman, but allow a woman free rein to do as she pleases. These people probably even justified Tanya's attempted murder of Max for cheating with Stacey, never considering anything Tanya did - either before or after - was cheating in any way.

The Alfie-and-Kat situation is actually worse than Max and Tanya. When Max and Tanya got together, one already had a reputation for being a serial cheat, the other rapidly became a homewrecker and built upon that reputation to the point where both are now cheaters. But Alfie has done nothing, whilst Kat has made a total mockery of her marital vows, whilst - at the same time - never ever accepting one iota of responsibility for her actions. She's always "the dirty girl" or she "isn't right in the head," both excuses being euphemisms for being awfully sorry she got caught.

Let's take apart Louisiana's levy of illogic.

IMO they are both as bad as each other, in fact I would say Alfie is worse, what kind of man two times a woman with her own sister? Now when Kat gets it on with Spencer then we can say she is just as bad.

Tanya and Max are as bad as one another. Both have cheated on partners and broken up marriages; but Kat is definitely worse than Alfie.

Louisiana asks rhetorically what kind of man twotimes a woman with her own sister? Probably Jack Branning, but not Alfie Moon. If she's referring to the ludicrous association between Alfie and Little Mo, she has to know this: Alfie had kicked Kat out. He had, effectively, finished with their marriage. Why? Because within one year, Kat had been unfaithful to Alfie TWICE. The first time, as we all remember, was with Andy Hunter, and that was down to Kat's arrogance and stupidity. There, I said it. Andy was pressing Alfie for the repayment of the loan he'd received from him, telling Kat on the side that her sleeping with him would repay the debt in full. Alfie told Kat, repeatedly, that he would sort the loan payment and was in contact with his cousin for help; but Kat refused to believe him and slept with Andy - unbeknownst that Alfie had already repaid the money. The second time was with the appropriately named Roger, a man she'd picked up in a bar.

Alfie was well within his rights to end the marriage at that point. She had been unfaithful, not once but twice. He kicked her out and she went on the game. He moved on with his life and subsequently became attracted to her sister. At no time did Alfie and Little Mo sleep together; in fact - and Little Mo's marriage had come apart because she was raped and chose to bear the child of her rapist - Alfie told Little Mo that he'd moved on and was going to seek a divorce from Kat; but Kat returned to the Square, determined to win Alfie back.

So, pray tell, how does a woman who slept with two different men, outside her marital vows, during the first year of her marriage rank not as bad as a man who - after ending his marriage due to his wife's infidelity - began an emotional attachment to her sister?

Alfie has he moral high ground here, even though he might be a man.

I don't get comments about Kat having STDs. Since she got with Alfie in 2003 she has only slept with 5 other blokes, two of which were years ago. It doesn't say much for fidelity but there are other characters who are far more promiscuous and don't manage to catch anything - Jack Branning for one. 

She's kidding, right? When you commit to a person through marriage, you don't sleep with anyone else. And, really, Kat could have contracted an STD off just one bloke, not to mention the fact that Kat's actually slept with a lot more than five blokes, because for the six months she and Alfie were separated in 2004-2005, she was on the game. She's a walking STD.

It's like when Alfie accused Kat of carrying another man's baby in 2011. At that point she had only cheated on him with 3 men, two of which were years ago. 

She shouldn't have cheated at all. That's the idea of marriage - you know, forsaking all others. In the first place, Alfie had been told he was infertile - disabuse yourself of the notion that he had a low sperm count, the fucking doctor in Spain told him he was infertile - so Kat getting pregnant would send alarm bells ringing in his head initially; secondly, Kat had form. Alfie was already raising a child she'd conceived with another man. If mud sticks, it's kinda hard to scrub it off; and as we've seen since, Kat was perfectly capable of fucking around and still spending every night in Alfie's bed.

  Kat only cheats on Alfie when things aren't going well between the pair, when she isn't getting attention, Alfie knows that as well.

There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for infidelity in a marraige and to excuse Kat's regular infidelity as a natural occurrence "when things arent' going well," is just patently stupid. In point of fact, Kat strays only when she feels she isn't being properly worshipped and having constant attention paid her 24/7. If I recall correctly, the last time she returned to Shaggerman, after swearing him off, was because she was upset that Shenice, a child she largely ignored, had decided to stay in Spain with her real mother.

Rather than confront her husband with her unhappiness - if she is, indeed, unhappy - it's far too easy for her to go for a casual fuck and then blame Alfie. Either she loves him or she doesn't. My guess is that, .like most of the Slater sisters, she doesn't. She just has a safe, dependable bloke who's there to clean up the trail of shit and destruction she leaves behind. She is an abuser.

 Surely the fact they had been sleeping together would tell him Kat hadn't strayed in 2011 and that he was more than likely the father. But then this is the idiot who thought 'low fertility' meant he was infertile.  

The only idiot I see here is Louisiana. If she's been paying attention, she's seen Kat be blatantly unfaithful to Alfie without even spending a night away from him, bar one. She's fucked Shaggerman in the kitchen of the Vic and in the basement. Apart from the nights she had to spend apart from him because of the bedbug infestation she brought into the Vic and the night she wantonly spent with Shagger and then used Kim to lie for her, she's been with Alfie every night of her affair. She could easily have cheated at anytime,and she did.

Alfie isn't the idiot, and even Yusef went through with him the fact that either there was something lost in translation between Alfie and a Spanish doctor who either didn't speak English or didn't speak it well to the fact that his condition at the time may have been temporary.

Really, any woman who makes excuses for another woman's or anyone's infidelity seriously has  some problems with her own morals - either that or she's a cretin.

Before There Was Sharon ...

Sharon might be unique to EastEnders in being the original EastEnd princess and resident blonde lip-quiverer, but - believe me - she is a standard soap opera type.

Some 40 years ago in the United States, a major (and now defunct) daytime soap had their very own Sharon (who had her very own Phil).

Ladies and gents, I give you Alice from Another World. (Clock the Sharon similarities).

The Big Easy: Phil's Secret

From Phil to Sharon:-

OK, so we know that Phil and Sharon are going to get "engaged," and rumour has it that the fake "engagement" is going to turn out to be real. And we also know that Phil is harbouring a big secret from Sharon, which we all know is the "part he played" in Dennis's death.

Well, let's look at the part Phil played. For those of you who don't remember, here's Dennis Rickman's last day on the Square (and in life):-

Now ... didja watch all that? More important, did you listen to it?

First of all, the Sharon and Dennis scenes ... notice anything familiar about her dialogue and the way she spoke? Think ... Denny. That's right. Sharon spoke to Dennis in exactly the same tone of voice and using the same mannerisms with which she uses with Denny. Sharon's attitude toward Dennis was as maternal as Jane Beale's sometimes was to Ian, who played the recalcitrant teenager very well to her.

In the first clip, Phil Mitchell almost references the Oedipal nature of the Shannis relationship, referring to Dennis's time in care and his longing for a mother and family. Dennis was younger than Sharon and looked it. He was obsessed with her in a way that really wasn't loverlike and she mothered him.

What was patently obvious was that Sharon didn't trust Dennis, which was why she, ultimately, was so protective of him. Sharon had a run-in with Jonnie, who told her that if she didn't get Dennis to leave Walford by midnight, he'd be toast. Sharon suddenly acts like a headless chicken and scurries Dennis into returning to the US with her (not that Immigration and Naturalisation would have allowed him to emigrate, being a convicted felon, but this is EastEnders' alternative universe); however, she does tell someone what happened - Phil. Because she trusts Phil, and Phil - behind her back - tells Dennis.

But listen to the dialogue ... there is a reference in there where Phil reminds Dennis that Dennis is an adult and can do as he pleases. He also reminds Dennis that Jonnie killed Dennis's best mate, Andy Hunter. Phil doesn't tell Dennis to do over Jonnie Allen, but he plants the idea in his mind of Jonnie manhandling Sharon. The rest is down to Dennis.

Here's a prime example of Sharon not believing or trusting Dennis - at the twelve-minute mark. Sharon totally refuses to believe Dennis that Chrissie was the one responsible for Den's death:-

And here are some words of wisdom from the Square's matriarch, telling Dennis to grow up, and Dennis acting like a adolescent pillock when he sees the chemistry (as we did) between Sharon and Grant.

I could go on, but I won't. My argument is this: Yes, Phil has a major secret from Sharon. Of course, the viewers know what it is, and many are now creaming their knickers at reports that Sharon and Phil are to become an item again - not in anticipation of them as a couple, but in their hopeful anticipation that Phil's "crime" against the god that was Dennis Rickman (overgrown adolescent and first in a bevy of EastEnders' pretty boys) will be discovered.

I ask ... HOW?

First of all, let's look at who knew that Phil had - well, not actually told, but insinuated that Dennis really owed Jonnie something malignely special.

Peggy knew. Phil told her. In fact, in the wake of Dennis's death (and Dennis would have lived had he not been merciful and thrown his mobile phone at Jonnie), Phil wanted to tell Sharon what he did. Peggy advised against it, saying Sharon had suffered enough.

Peggy's gone now.

Grant knew. Phil told him. Well, Grant is in Portugal, so Grant's gone.

Jonnie knew. So did Danny Moon. They're dead. Jake Moon knew and he may be dead as well.

So everyone who knew the secret has either gone or is dead. Of course, Peggy could return for a guest stint and let this slip. Grant could certainly show up and make Sharon's life difficult, especially if he still loved her.

But, barring that, who's going to tell Sharon? Phil? Maybe. Maybe this is part of his redemptive arc; but I don't think he told Shirley. In fact, I think there are very few secrets from his past which he told Shirley, simply because he doesn't trust her.

I think the "secret" will be a Sword of Damocles which hangs over Phil's and Sharon's relationship for a long time before being revealed, maybe even years, maybe not until Denny, who'll probably bond with Phil as a father-figure, becomes old enough to understand what Phil did and how his father reacted.

So, don't hold your breath ... unless the retcon machine comes into play again, which will suck the situation mightily.

Just Who Exactly Is in Charge of This Mess?

Jay Lee, one of the best commentators on any EastEnders' fora and a self-described seasoned viewer of the programme, says it best:-

I may be biased because I'm a seasoned EastEnders viewer but I know that EastEnders can do so much better. A non-event of an episode on a late September night is not a good sign, especially given that we were promised an "exciting" autumn.

There were toe-curlingly bad moments last night. I hated the way Joey hovered into view like a Dalek each time Derek and Tyler were chatting, for instance. Jean and Fatboy were portrayed as idiots around Phil. Time was that all characters had depth and conviction in the way that they were written; now EastEnders is content with comedy cliches of the "village idiot" variety.

Enough has been said about it above but Lola's line about her, Jay and Abi being the "future of Albert Square" sounded like a soundbite from an interview on EastEnders Revealed. How these awful self-referential lines made it past the script editors is beyond me - and a tell-tale sign that the writing team is not up-to-scratch at the moment.

Too right, a "meh" episode like Friday's, occurring late in September is never good. We should be getting the inklings now of the lead-in to the Christmas storylines. Things should be hotting up. Storylines left over to simmer from the summer should be coming to a head. Instead, what do we have?

Chryed leaving after Syed's exposed as a weak-willed fraud. (Didn't we already know that?)

Toad Jr and Lauren the Upper Lip-Licker indulging in a little incest and joyriding, with no harm done, really. (Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)

And nothing much else.

I do agree with Jay Lee's character assessment as well, especially concerning Fatboy and Jean. The "village idiot" has been a stock character on EastEnders since Louise Berridge paired Billy with Little Mo and, subsequently, when Honey became Billy's second wife.

I'll never forget that butt-clinchingly embarrassing episode during Berridge's tenure when Billy and Little Mo entered the Vic doing a bad impersonation of reverse Frank Spencer married to an even bigger retard. Hyuck-hyuck ... not.

Fatboy's poor man's Ali G was irrelevant five years ago. It's hardly going to matter now. And Jean is not funny at all. They were totally embarrassing with Phil. The real Phil Mitchell would have turfed them out on their arses, and can someone please keep Jean away from make-up and mini-skirts.

I want to know who the hell is signing off on these scripts, because if it's Lorraine Newman, then  she's totally in over her head. The obvious example is the totally and completely embarrassing line of dialogue given to Jay, Abi and 21 year-old Danielle Harold attempting to portray a sixteen year-old about this trio being "the future of the Square." If that's the truth, then the show should end now, rather than later. This next generation of "yoof" is in danger of becoming just as entitled and just as believing of their own publicity as the talentless lot gone before them. Apart from Abi, the other two lack enough intellectual depth to make an observation like that, and Abi's interest appears to be only whether or not Jay likes her sufficiently. She certainly doesn't seem to be overly concerned with her new coursework or further education. But then, EastEnders doesn't promote that sort of thing.

EastEnders always used to be a consistently good programme, with the odd bad episode here and there and the occasional bad patch; but it always managed to recoup and recover. However, the programme's been on a downward trend now for the past decade, and beginning to go into serious freefall for the past year at most. As the Digital Spy forum commentator Filiman observed recently, the show's been badly written since 2006 and poorly written since 2002 - that would mean the downward spiral began under Louise Berridge's watch; but we really have to blame John Yorke.

Yorke, with his introduction of the Slaters as "the next big family" on the Square, devoted an entire episode to their introduction only. Then he planted a Slater family member in every functioning part of Square life - Big Mo was Pat's sister-in-law and nemesis; Lynne worked in the launderette and caff; Little Mo cleaned the Vic; Kat was a barmaid there; Zoe helped Mark Fowler on the veg stall; Garry worked at the Arches. If that wasn't enough, they were immediately plopped right in the middle of the most important storylines - Big Mo delivered Sonia's surprise baby; Little Mo found Frank's "good-bye" letter to Peggy which opened the floodgate that was Patgate. Then, they had storylines of their own - Trevor and "You're not mah muvvah!"

Yet within five years of their introduction, the Slaters were a spent force. And Yorke was responsible for all subsequent EP appointments:- Berridge and the Ferreira kidneygate and Zombie Den rising from the grave; Hutchison and the death of Den; Harwood and the introduction of the cancer that became the Brannings as well as marrying off and killing off Pauline Fowler; Santer and his sensationalism and his turning the programme into The Stacey and Ronnie Show. Kirkwood with his obsession for teenaged tits and arse, his wanton destruction of Kat and Bianca and his turning the show into The Branning Half-Hour.

Now Newman seems to be doing much of the same - all very well and good to axe such legends as Anthony Moon, Andrew Cotton and the iconic Shenice, but why hasn't she tackled the deadwood prevalent amongst the A-List of characters?

This show is in crisis, and anyone who says it isn't is in serious danger of expiring from terminal headuparseitis - and that applies to both production people and plebs.

Leave It to Beaver, er Brannings - Review 21.09.2012

I'm thinking of possible alternative titles for EastEnders as it continues to morph into The Branning Show. It seems more and more like a cross between a forced bad American daytime soap and the twinset and pearls, cutesy-cutesy sitcoms the US had in the 1950s, like Leave It to Beaver , whose theme song went like this ...

OK, we make it Leave It to the Brannings, and we can make it cheesy, because down those steps used to come the stars of the show, announced in voiceover, so imagine (and remember they all have to march down the stairs, smiling) ...

- It's Leave It to the Brannings! Starring ...

Jake Wood as Max

Jo Joyner as Tanya

Jacqueline Jossa as Lauren

Lorna Fitzgerald as Abi

Some Gurning Kid as Oscar

Scott Maslen as Jack

Jasmyn Banks as Alice

David Witts as Joey

Lindsey Coulson as Carol

Ann Mitchell as Cora

And Jamie Foreman as the Toad Derek

Now, doesn't that seem all nice and cosy and normal? Because they're not. They're all portraying jumped-up white trash.

And the show was hard at it tonight, and this is what is so frustrating about EastEnders at the moment - its sheer, utter inconsistency - not just from one episode to the next, but within the damned frame of the episodes as well.

The first two episodes this week were complete shite, but yesterday's shown like a beacon in the Northern sky. Like the proverbial Waterloo Sunset; but tonight it was all for nought. Sharon, who was absolutely brilliant and everything she always was yesterday with Phil and Ian, was back to Shallow Sharon today, pouting, batting the eyelashes, playing the coy-concealed-bitchery-cum-gossipy game with Queen Bitch Tanya, who's benevolently bestowed the accolade of "good friend" in less than three weeks upon Sharon, just - I imagine - so she could find out all the dirty details (which didn't happen) on Sharon's date with Jack.

I hate Sharon when she's around these people. She's like a pantomime from a bad episode of Dynasty - cue music ...

(On an aside, watching that, I just realised how much Michael Moon looks like Dex Dexter).

Her voice, her  mannerisms are all exaggerated in the worst way. Describing Jack: (Breathless)  Welllll ... he was very nice.

Come on! And thank dog, Little Lord Fauntleroy was asleep. He probably was playing possum in order to avoid her. Please, keep this woman away from these cancerous, carniverous people. Tanya wants "a couple of drinks." So they're onto their second bottle of wine. "A couple of drinks" for Tanya means a couple of gallons of wine from a box.

And why is Sharon so nasty to Denise? She called Denise out for bitching about the Mitchells, but in all honesty, Denise is just the sort of person Sharon would seek out as a friend. She has that down-to-earth, good common sense quality that Michelle Fowler had and which Sharon needs around her just now. And, speaking of Michelle, I want a mention of Michelle, especially in light of Sharon's drug addiction, about which we're soon to be apprised. And, if I'm not mistaken, Sharon hasn't once mentioned Dot since her return. WTF?

Still, Denise got the line of the night when she accidentally on-purpose remarked that it wasn't too long ago that Tanya was all over Jack like a bad rash (and probably gave Jack a bad rash as a result, since she'd been fucking around with Max - who'd been fucking around with Stacey Slater - and also with Sean Slater and goodness knows where he had been). I'm surprised Sharon washed that. Seriously.

The other highlight of a mediocre episode was Tyler knocking the shit out of Joey the Turd. In fact, let's see it again ...

Such inimitable acting styles ... Discipline's pure smell-the-fart, and I'm beginning to wonder if David Witts could put his lips together and close his mouth if offered a sufficient amount of money. Is he defective? Because there's nothing more unattractive than a mouth-breather. And did you understand even a smidgeon of that dialogue? Me neither. I did understand that Tyler called Tadpole "bruv" sarcastically and told him he was trying to earn a living, and Joey said something about "Annannee" being a mug, which prompted the smack in the face.

Witts can't do a Cockney accent, so he went from whispering his lines to growling them loudly and inarticulately. I truly didn't think there could be a worse actor in EastEnders than Tony Discipline until David Witts arrived, but seeing them in scenes together makes me want to rip my eyeballs out. I'll give Discipline his due for being an iota better, and that smack tonight was surely his finest hour (apart from lying comatose in the hospital bed a year ago). Joey didn't "let" Tyler hit him; he truly didn't see that punch coming.

Widdle Joey was having a tantwum because he was jealous that Daddy Deweck was showing some attention to widdle Tywer. Derek's using Tyler and he's screw him to the wall the way he did Annannee. Gee, Annannee is getting almost as many mentions as Saint Stacey Slater. So now Derek's using Tyler as an unwitting fence to flog his stolen goods, and he's probably cutting Lister in on a bit of the profit.

Muscleboys must go.

Fatboy and Jean are not only idiots, they're bloody annoying. Does Phil even know that Jean embezzled money from the Vic? And she doesn't seem particularly worried about family loyalty to Alfie and Kat - although, I don't see how Phil can simply take over the pub. Yes, he owns it; but it's Alfie and Kat who have their names on the licence bar. Phil couldn't get a pub licence if he tried, so does that mean that the pub is running illegally? Who knows.

I have absolutely no sympathy for Lola, and personally, I think ASBO Granny was pretty nauseaus tonight as well. For whatever hypocritical reason, Max and Tanya have forbidden Abi from seeing  Jay - and all Tanya seems to worry about is what kind of boy Abi will attract or be attracted to. Abi is sixteen and has made the decision to do A Levels and aspire to university to become a vet; but we know that will never happen. Not in EastEnders' Branningland and not with Yummy Mummy pounding boyfriends into her brain. And more undermining by Granny Goodwitch. Yes, Cora, I imagine your parents didn't approve of some of the boys you knocked about with either.

In all of that, it's significant to know that Billy thought to ask Patrick to look after Lola instead of anyone else - not Phil, and certainly not Cora. She's a right little madam, and is stupid as shit. And jealous as sin of Abi. You watch, however, she will bring Abi down to her callous level in no time. And doesn't Abi go to sixth form college or has that been forgotten as well? Lola is one of the chavs at the top of my long list of unpleasant and unlikeable characters I just want to leave.

Ah, the Masoods and the comedy wedding of the year - Tintin to Milou. More inconsistencies. Listen, I know postmen deliver now anytime from seven in the morning until noon. For two episodes this week, we've seen Masood doing the postal rounds. Today, he's off on a teachers' meeting. WTF? He's a full-time teaching assistant, which means his hours are congruent to those of the teaching staff - at school before the kids arrive (often at 7:30am) and leaving after the kids have left - usually around 4:30pm. That doesn't leave any time to do a postal round. Don't the writers and storyliners liaise with one another?

I could care less about Syed's money problems or his wedding, simply because we know both characters are leaving; and it's totally almost psychedelic to listen to Zainab witter on blissfully about Syed's impeding nuptial to Christian, when a couple of years back, she'd condemned both of them to hell eternal.

As for AJ, he's cute, but he's annoying; and it looks as if he's another character whom TPTB have hired for charm and cuteness, but for whom they haven't bothered to create a character arc. It's obvious they are bigging him up to be the eternal party animal manchild in an effort to attempt to couple him with Roxy to see if that potential relationship wiorks.

Poor Roxy, who showed so much promise with Alfie, now relegated to snogging AJ on an experimental basis or being hunkered after by Michael Moon.

Bad episode. Very bad episode.

Update: More lack of continuity .. has Abi forgotten that Dot is her step-grandmother? Before both Abi and Dot disappeared, Dot was always "Grandma" to Abi. In fact, at the time of Billie's death, Max blessed Lauren out for referring to Dot by her name and not as "Grandma." And there she was sneering at Dot's mannerisms tonight when Lola made a snide remark about a member of Abi's family.

Troll of the Week

For the second time and for consistently being a narrow-minded, judgemental bitch who insists that the past isn't relevant to anything and that women are entitled to judge other women on their looks etc because "it's what girls do (giggle giggle)".

Also for being consistently negative about characters in EastEnders about whom she knows nothing.

This week's Troll of the Week needs no introduction, but I'll give you a clue to her identity:-

That's right folks, it's ...

(Apologies to the sweet cat - he doesn't deserve to be associated with such a troll).

catsmeow

So, let's hear it for the girl ... (because girls can do that ... teeheehee).

Deluded Person of the Week - Moaning Lisa

Wanna know the single biggest shock in last night's EastEnders' episode?

Phil has deleted Shirley's number from his mobile.

Shock! Horror! Major catastrophe!

No, it's not. First of all, it totally emphasizes the overall irrelvance of Shirley to Phil. Shirley was a convenience for Phil. A warm body. A friend with benefits. A doormat willing to cook, clean and raise his warped son and the waif and stray he'd taken in during the day, and minister to his sexual needs during the evening - you know, when it's dark and Phil can fantasize about doing Sharon whilst he humps Shirley.

I've no doubt Phil was fond of Shirley. He certainly didn't hate her, but he didn't love her enough to commit to her. In fact, when she caught him at it with Auntie Glenda, he couldn't even promise her that he wouldn't be unfaithful again because, you know, that's "the way he was."

Shirley first got Phil into her bed when he was drunk, and she kept him drunk and drank with him in order to keep him dependent and acquiescent. She got him to live with her by fronting to the Social that they were a couple so he could get custody of his daughter, Louise. For some odd reason, Ben bonded with her, and in order to keep Ben happy, Phil obliged on that front also.

Sure, he was fond of Shirley and felt guilty about Heather. And he was grateful to her. But love her? Nah.

As far as the post-Ben-reveal relationship between Phil and Shirley, it's safe to say that the only reason Phil was hankering after her was for fear of her grassing him up. If he got Shirl back under his roof, he could at least control her. That's why all the declarations of love came from him at that point - telling Shirley what she wanted to hear.

As for Shirley, she was the worst sort of friend Heather could have. She spent months on end screaming for justice for her dead friend, only to lie through her teeth about Phil's part in the cover-up. Shirley's rage now is against herself - because more than anyone, she's betrayed Heather. She won't grass up Phil, because, even after all of this, she still loves him. The worst she can do to him is keep him in a perpetual state of fear that she will grass him up.

However, Phil, wise old fox that he is, knows better. And if he can't sacrifice his own happiness to control Shirley from close quarters, then he wants her out of sight and out of mind. Having her focus on her daughter and grandson was a stroke of genius - because Shirley should have been focusing on her children from Day One, not off partying down and playing mummy, first, to Heather and then to Phil and co.

Secondly, the whole situation is made amazingly funny in watching the antics of the infamous monalisa on Digital Spy forum, the head girl and Shirley cheerleader of them all. Moana reckons Phil has deleted Shirley's number, but calls Sharon because he really wants to call Shirley. She grasps at straws to explain how last night, Phil's longing and the source of his unhappiness was all about Shirley, when it was only ever and always about Ben. Shirl was just part of the fixtures and fittings - you know, like a doormat.

I can guarantee this: If that had been Shirley talking Phil out of the doldrums last night, there would have been lots of shouting, a shove or two and then both retreating to their respective corners to drink themselves silly.

Last night, we saw the real Phil Mitchell, the way Phil was in the Nineties, before Grant left and when Sharon was a significant influence in his life. Shirley always brought out his bad side, the side which Phil, himself, never liked much.

So now, I'm awarding Moana the Deluded Person of the Week award and I'm going to sit back and tazer all the vicious, vindictive little trolls (all of whom are she) and various flying monkeys she sends my way ...

Ladies and gentlmen, I give you ... Moana and the Monkeys ...

Bully of the Week

Walford Web kindergarten has always been a bastion of bullying, and they've come up trumps yet again in winning this award.

In the time-honoured tradition of Walford Web's ooh-matron-and-Don-Draper-dolly followed by Jark the Jerk, I give you this week's winner ... Shadow Hold.

Shadow Hold is a vicious,  rude and bitchy bully who targets one poster in particular. 

Florence Serene is a gentle soul, who just happen to think the sun shines out of the posterior portion of Tony Discipline. Now, Discipline isn't everyone's cup of tea, and I wouldn't weep copious tears were he to get the axe tomorrow, but everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions on characters. I have to say, Florence Serene is nothing but politeness, itself, even when he rebukes other commenters for being less-than-polite to him.

This week, Shadow Hold was particularly and unnecessarily rude and condescending.

But that doesn't surprise me due to the company Shadow Hold keeps.

Here's his award, considering he says he's located in Margate (such class):-

John Swallow really needs to "get a grip" on the bullying on his site.

Sharon, Ian and Phil. The Brannings Take a Back Seat - Review 20.09.2012

This was a good episode, mostly; but first, I want to get a peeve off my chest. Here is one of the things I hate about EastEnders, especially under this particular regiime:

Several weeks ago, we had a protracted series of hand-wringing concerning Masood and his desire to be a teaching assistant. We heard all of his protracted backstory about how he really wanted to go to uni and become a teacher, but couldn't because - well, because he was married to Zainab. We saw him surreptitiously telling Syed about how he'd applied to become a teaching assistant and was wary of telling Zainab that they would have to tighten their belts because his salary would be lower.

We had Zainab's reaction - pejorative at first, but then accepting. We had all of that, including the OTT first day of school scene where Zainab was preparing Mas for his new career, sending him off with an apple.

And now we see Masood traipsing about the streets, yet again, as what? The postman he was before. It seems that his career as a teaching assistant lasted a grand total of one day. It's certainly not been mentioned since. It's as if the whole kerfuffle never happened, and, you know, I'm sure that's exactly what TPTB want their viewers to believe. 

The plain truth is that they thought it would be cool and would work to have Masood go into the educational field, and then, after one episode showing that, decided it didn't work; so without further adieu, they returned him to his former life as a postman, thinking that most of the viewing public are so pig-shit thick and ignorant, they wouldn't mind that blip of a school episode. After all, these are the sort of viewers who say that a bit of retconning doesn't matter at all to the occasional (or to the regular, but stupid) viewer. These are the sort of viewers who thought nothing of wiping away an entire backstory and previous storyline of an iconic character just to make Sharon Cora's daughter. As one sage soul said (and, yes, vaslav37, I'm looking at you), if the writers want to do it, they'll do it.

Well, that's exactly what they've done. Given us some memorable scenes of a man wanting to better his position in life with a profession, and then slipped him inobtrusively back from whence he came, trodding the streets of East London as the local postman. The rest of those scenes were a dream, like Bobby Ewing in the shower.

And now for something completely different.

Tonight's episode was singular and good, for the most part - simply because it unified the only surviving elements of "Old Walford," and showed the pretenders how good they are together.

Sharon was Sharon again. Just look at the difference between her scenes with Tanya and those with Phil.

Rob Gittens wrote this episode tonight, and he's a writer who's been on the show a long time. If nothing else, this episode consigned the Brannings to the backseat where they firmly belong.

Phil Mitchell is back. Sharon inspired him, and Phil, inspired by Sharon, inspired Ian. And the Brannings were tossed to the curb, almost literally; and we were shown how really insignificant they truly are.

I realised when I saw the congruent scenes of Sharon with Tanya followed by Sharon with Phil that whoever is writing for her accommodates her to the Brannings and their cheap, overt and gurning style. Tanya and Sharon's friendship is so false and phony - as far as false and phony friendships are concerned, they rival Kat and Kim. Nosy Tanya wanting the sucky, syrupy details of Sharon's "date" with Jack - of course, assuming that it was all about sex, because Jack was divulging nothing; but then, sex is all Tanya thinks about when it comes to relationships, because sex is the basis of her relationship with Max.

Cheap, tawdry and hypocritical moment.

And Sharon showed exactly how important Jack was in her general scheme of things when she quickly begged off Tanya to run to Phil's phantom phonecall ... and that's when we saw real Sharon come alive.

The chemistry between Steve McFadden and Letitia Dean is electric. Their two characters share over twenty years of association as friends, lovers and - most of all - as equals; because, apart from Peggy, Sharon is the only woman whom Phil considers his equal and whom he respects. Their conversation was open, honest and forthright, and it was brilliantly written.

Phil's appeal to Sharon as a parent, asking what she would do if something happened to Dennis, which was down to her actions - a topic which led directly to a reference to Den and how when he thought he'd lost everything, he sought to hang onto the Vic, which is what Phil had to do, as something of a legacy for Ben.

The line of the night was clearly "get a grip." Sharon to Phil and Phil to Ian ... how long before we hear Phil returning the favour for Sharon? 

Another thing, consider how these scenes would have played out between Phil and Shirley? There would have been lots of shouting, Shirley being overbearing and berating Phil, before both retreated to their respective corners to drink themselves stupid. Sharon made Phil see reason, and she didn't retreat when he sought to shut her out. She stood her ground.

Also, did anyone notice that Shirley's name has been removed from Phil's phonebook on his mobile? That's how much he cared about Shirley - out of sight, out of mind. Please, don't refer to Phil's reminiscing over the random photos found at the Arches (where AJ will clearly be recruited to work). That scene was all about Phil missing Ben. Shirley just happened to be part of the fixtures and fitting. Sorry, moaning lisa, but Shirley is totally insignificant. Sharon and Phil matter. That showed tonight, especially in the final scene where Phil took charge at the Vic. 

Stood beside Jackshit as Phil took over the bar, Sharon's face showed exactly what she felt for Phil, and you could see her heart in her eyes. Jack should be so lucky to get a look like that from her. All he gets is shallow Sharon the flirt. Not the Sharon that mattered.

This Phil was the Phil pre-Grant leaving as well, the Phil taking interest in Ian's attempt to sell his stall in order to help Lucy out financially (see below). Phil realised that the Beale stall had been in the family for three generations. Selling that stall would be the end of a piece of Walford history. Good, too, that Phil clocked the part that Joey the Turd was playing in "influencing" the sale of the stall. Phil's warning to that steroid-chomping, tongue-lolling, mouth-breathing piece of wood that if he gave him any lip, he'd be spitting out teeth. Joey's reaction was typical of a coward and typical of him - duuuuuhh, his mouth opened wider.

Joey before the Green Room

The Phil who bolstered Ian's flagging spirits and reminded him of Pete and Albert Beale's legacy was the Phil with whom Sharon fell in love.

Throughout all of this, the Brannings kept, literally stepping in dog shit. Jack should just stand by helplessly, whilst Tanya got the situation totally wrong when she saw Phil sat on the bench with two bottles of whiskey close at hand. She beat a hasty retreat once Sharon took the situation back and knew exactly what Phil was all about.

Team Mitchell is back. Bugger off, Brannings.

They really stank rankly tonight, as well as viewers having to be forced to endure - yet again - Tony Discipline's smell-the-fart acting technique. Also, viewers were given the added treat of a scene shared by two people who are arguably the worst actors ever to appear in EastEnders:- Discipline and David Witts. They make the characters of Danny Mitchell and Callum Monks look positively appetising.

You know, in the iconic American sitcom from the 1950s, I Love Lucy, there was an episode where Lucy wrote a novel which was so bad you could smell it for miles, but a publisher bought it, and Lucy thought she had the last laugh - until the publisher told her they were buying the book to use the first chapter in a text book about how not to be a bad writer. Well, that scene in the cafe tonight between Tyler and Joey could be used as a masterclass in bad acting.

Notice, also, how both lads are being made to wear short-sleeved shirts which are a size too small to emphasize their bulging bits? This is what comes when you hire for looks and no talent or experience. Both need to work on their diction, however, especially Witts, who is bloody unintelligible and growls his lines. Discipline mumbles his. Good lord, this is why we pay a licence fee?

Of course, Tyler (who isn't brain of Britain) is going to be used as a pawn by Derek to prey on Joey's jealousy. I just want to know how the hell Derek can offer Joey a stall on the market, when Derek isn't the market inspector. And Joey showed just how much of a clueless, spoiled and entitled brat he is by using the Emporium as a party place and trashing it. I can't wait for Tyler to smack his smug face next episode. I want Phil to smack him too - because I reckon Joey, like his old man, is a coward and a pussy who punches down.

Oh, the Masoods ... if this is the best lead-in to a storyline for Chryed, it was embarrassing. Zainab was in Goodness Gracious Me, Masood's obviously forgotten he's supposed to be a teaching assistant now (or the writers have), and Tamwar sits there so fucking miserable at that table, I just wanted Zainab to rub vindaloo deep into his face. I don't think Tamwar is long for the show after Chryed leaves, and I think you'll find Zainab doing what she's always wanted to do - run the restaurant.

I could care less now about Chryed. Syed is a bore and a sneak, and Christian looks like Tintin.

Lola and Lucy. Lucy and Lola. First Lola. I don't like her, and I hate how TPTB are pushing this "good mother" shit, when all she's interested in is getting Jay onside as her babydaddy. She's even going to corrupt Abi as we see her and Abi stealing cleaning accessories in the next few weeks. She reckons she's got good business ideas, but all she wants to do is earn cash in hand so she can spend it. Ne'mind paying income tax or National Insurance. Other mugs can do that for her, as Lola wants to live high off the hog, and Billy is still left caring for the baby.

I'm Team Social Worker in this one. I've never liked this silly little chav, who has no money for baby bum cream, but all sorts for a fancy phone and expensive make-up. Her eye make-up, alone, must cost a week's worth of bum cream. Yet she steals off Janine and Billy condones it. Billy and Lola really need a wake-up call, and I hope it comes soon (and that she leaves). The baby will be sought by Grandad Phil, once it's made obvious that she's Ben's sprog. Watch this space.

Lucy's mouth-breathing was all over the place tonight. Another gurner with poor diction who garbles her lines.

Lucy Imitating a Venus Fly-Trap

I want to see an episode where she swallows a fly. And, please, EastEnders ... no more full body shots of Hetty Bywater in tight jeans. I am sorry, but she looks like an inmate recently released from Treblinka. She is simply too thin. She really looks emaciated in those jeans.

As for Lucy owing Michael (i.e Janine) £1500 (with interest), that is not a vast sum of money, considering that the cafe is a 24/7 operation and appears to be thriving, She also has the chippie, another business, who opens from about noontime until late at night, and then there's the stall.

I'm no businessperson, but I understand about staff wages etc, but - fuck me - she ought to be able to scrape together fifteen hundred quid from all three businesses in a day to pay off Michael Moon. She found it for a solicitor to handle the sale of that property, didn't she? Michael  is right - deals do fall through. It;'s the way of the business world. She needs to grow up and, yes, get a grip.

Janine has Michael in a vice, and she's one step ahead of him. Good thinking that he used money from her account to buy that flash car, he was trying to sell to get money for himself and Scarlett. I want to know what he earns from the boxing club, which always seems packed out to the gills ... not.

Decent episode. Phil's back, and the Brannings are toast.

This song is from Sharon to Jack about Phil:-

Suck it up, Jack.

Update: Just a final thought about Tanya's sneering "concern" at what she thought was Phil contemplating the depths of alcoholism on the basis that he had two bottles of whiskey with him on a park bench ... Tanya needs to look closer to home and look in the mirror before she passes out judgement like that ... because Tanya's actually passed out from her drink addiction as well. She certainly has an alcohol dependency, as has her mother and as has her skank-in-training daughter. That reaction, to me, was the height of hypocricisy and the ethos of Tanya, who thinks her shit doesn't smell.