Kudos to all those people picking up on Colin Wyatt's imperfection and shoddy writing tonight, especially as concerns Sharon. Lorraine Newman may not want to hear it, and because of our singling these things out, she just may be chewing nails and pissing rust; but it's a sad indictment on her writing room and how substandard it is that these people don't even know, much less understand the icon and original character that is Sharon. Maybe it's time Simon Ashdown pulled his Branning-filled head from his arse and went to work on Sharon - with a little bit of daubing on Bianca as well. What Sharon's forgotten:-
That she and Peggy resolved their differences and parted on good terms:-
13th January 2006:-
(Executive Producer: Kate Harwood, Series Producer: Lorraine Newman)
That Dennis Rickman died on New Year's Eve, actually on the stroke of midnight:-
New Year's Eve 2005:-
(Executive Producer: Kate Harwood, Series Producer: Lorraine Newman)
Sharon has yet to mention her sister's name, Vicky, or the name of Vicky's mother, her best friend Michelle, both of whom live in Florida where, until "recently" Sharon lived.
According to the Daybreak interview shown below, Letitia Dean says Sharon's been back in the UK for four years, which would account for DamienDen's English accent; but when is this going to be revealed, and if is is, how many will realise that it's yet another retcon? Ian Beale visited Sharon for her fortieth birthday back in 2009, when he returned from Florida bragging about Sharon having a spread as big as Southfork. If she's been in the UK for four years, how could Ian have visited her in 2009?
If Newman, who's a veteran of 20 years with EastEnders is signing off on this cack,what hope is there for the show's credibility?
This time last year, we were preparing to say good-bye to Pat, in an episode which was taken over by Derek threatening her on her death bed, and Max and Tanya, one who hadn't spoken to Pat since December 2008 and one who'd never spoken to her in her life, making it all about Tanya's cancer cold. This time last year, Yusef had just died, but Afia was still around, Tamwar was in hospital suffering from burns, Jane was there, and Christian, and Ricky and Mandy. Bag o'Bones Beale was about to slither in. We'd never heard of Joey Branning or My Aaaa-aaassss. Janine still graced our screens. Heather was still alive and spending the holidays with Andrew. So much happened in the space of one year, but for every good episode that occurred, there were about ten shitty ones which wiped the good out, the way Andrex does excrement. Except in this instance, the exrement remained. I don't know where the seam that was Bryan Kirkwood, who took a show which had been consistently bleeding viewers for the better part of a decade, and sent it into freefall, seeking to create Hollyoaks BBC, ended and where Lorraine Newman's responsibility began, but I'm not seeing anything different in the quality of the thing - not in the acting and certainly not in the writing of the thing, especially as evidenced tonight in one glaring error that occurred and for which the glasses should be summarily smacked off Lorraine Newman's face for allowing this. More of that later. As the Christmas season ends, EastEnders can pride itself in winning the ratings' Christmas battle with Corrie, but can it win the war in months to come. It's easy to say that one programme is probably on par with the other, especially now that Corrie have confirmed that Weatherford's very own Princess Sarah Louise Platt (Tina O'Brien) is returning in 2013 - the prettiest 26 year-old mother of a teenaged daughter in soapdom. Short-term stopgaps for both EastEnders and Corrie are bringing back old characters (Bianca, Sharon, Leanne, Sarah) and sensationalist storylines (serial killers, tram wrecks, explosions and fires etc). They get bums on seats, but the aftermath kills all interest. Tonight we had what exemplified the entire year - a mediocre episode ending a truly mediocre year. For all those who'll come on here steaming about the gongs EastEnders has won, that's all about audience participation - and popularity. And that which is popular is not always that which is artistically the best. Let the games begin... New Year's Eve on the Square brought about some surprising observations ... The Party of the Century. It was the best of times and the worst of times for the Masoods in 2012. Zainab spent the better part of 2011 under the thumb and domination of Yusef, who preyed on her self-esteem, beat her and never let her forget that in his eyes and in the eyes of many, she was a fallen woman. She was traumatised to the point that she actually allowed her husband, Masood, to be disrespected in his own home, on the word of Yusef, and the pair got a divorce. After the Yusef debacle, we saw little of the Masoods for weeks, and when we did, it was as if Yusef never existed. It was back to the Goodness-Gracious-Me routine - Zainab dominating proceedings, being judgemental and hypocritical and playing it for the laughs. The only time Yusef was mentioned was when Zainab inherited his fortune, handed it over to Kim and Denise and then tried to dictate how the money should be spent. The Masoods' highlight of 2012 came with Chryed's wedding and the revelation of what a pusillanimous little prick Syed was and is, when Masood called out some well-needed home truths about Zainab and her constant favouritism towards Syed, ending with Masood kicking her arse out. But ... That fizzled out, when Zainab returned, forced her way back into the house, called an end to Bonfire Night celebrations and unsuccessfully tried to turn over a new leaf. It truly ended when Chryed left for pastures new, with Mas caving and forgiving Syed for being a prick. Tonight's debacle, dubbed "The Party of the Century", was yet another mad sitcom moment with the Masoods - Zainab and Ajay pretending to like each other, whilst Zainab thinks he's onside to steer Ayesha, the Geordie girl (another cast addition who could do with elocution lessons), in the direction of sullen Tamwar and whilst Ajay is intent on spiking the punch at the party after telling everyone it was fancy dress with a Star Wars/Star Trek theme. For those of you who think there will be an affair between Zainab and Ajay, dream on. Ain't gonna happen. Tonight's storyline was the same old same old - teetotal party, someone spikes the punch. Ian showing up as Mr Spock with Denise as Princess Leia was blatant foreshadowing of what is about to happen between this couple. I seem to recall the last time drinks were spiked at a Masood party was when Syed and Amira were about to hold a housewarming and Syed came out of the closet. This is a redundant theme - a Masood party means someone is about to spike the drinks. The highlight of the party was that there was no highlight - Mas announced that the registry office had just confirmed (in the middle of holiday season) that they could be married on Valentine's Day, 14th February, which is - as we all know now - one big, fat red herring, because Nina Wadia is leaving. In fact, Valentine's Day will probably be her last episode. Tears on his/her pillow ... A sad song for the Masoods ...
Observations: Ajay needs to comb his hair. And speaking of Ajay, when Zainab leaves, the household will consist of Ajay, Tamwar and Masood - a sort of The Odd Couple meets Two-and-a-Half Men. Ajay slobbingn about, Tamwar uptight and Masood playing Murray the Cop and mediating. Another bad sitcom, probably with endless epic fail storylines about how all three guys hope to score with the right girl and nothing comes of it. I can't see any of the three lasting a year after Zainab's departure, although I'll stick my neck out and say that I can see Mas probably getting something together with Ava down the line of the year, considering that his dream is to be a teacher and she would offer encouragement in that respect. Who knows? And is Ayesha supposed to be long-term? She needs to speak up. I know her character is supposed to be shy, but this is ridiculous. And, please, someone get Steve McFadden to do a masterclass in "How to Play Drunk" both for her and for Jacqueline Jossa. They are both bloody embarrassing. Lola the Dumbass Chav. Well, of course, the baby got an allergic reaction from having adult body cream smeared all over her forehead and cheeks. Some people on some fora couldn't see the harm in that, but listen up ... children, particularly babies, have tender skin. That's why they have special products for themselves. Adults can use baby products - e g, baby shampoo makes adult hair really soft; but babies and small children can't use products designed for adults. For the record, Lola smeared coconut oil creme on Lexie's face, the same cream Shirley was using in the Salon last week - when she remarked that it smelled so good, she didn't know whether to use it or eat it. Lola was working and should not have brought her child to the salon - various workplaces do not allow children of staff to be brought in - for health and safety reasons. I recall when Ian and Cindy Beale were running the cafe, and were reported to Health and Safety about having the infant twins on the premises because Cindy couldn't get child care - Kathy was being obstinate and refusing to help out, until Pauline read her the riot act. I wouldn't think a small child or an infant, the child of an employee, would be allowed inside the salon either. Lola got off easy with Phil's change of heart on this one, but she was stupid to have done that, and you would have thought that Mother-of-the-Year, Shirley, would have realised that at the time. Actually, Tanya could have suffered a lot worse. Phil could have sued her business for this, and she would have been in trouble big time. THE LAZIEST PIECE OF WRITING OR THE WORST RETCONNING OF THE MOMENT AND ONE FOR WHICH LORRAINE NEWMAN SHOULD BE SHOT. Peggy Mitchell, deemed to be Lexie's godmother and for whom Lexie is her first great-grandchild, refuses to come to the christening. Why? Because Sharon is involved. Sharon will be there. According to the show tonight, Peggy sent Phil a text wherein she succinctly points out why she objects to Sharon's participation. But ... if you've watched EastEnders since Shannis, you'd know that Sharon and Peggy reconciled and were close at the end of Sharon's last tenure. Sharon even spent her last weeks after Dennis's death, living at the Vic with Peggy and Phil and being cared for by Phil. In fact, just watch Sharon's last day on the Square, including her very last scene, and tell me if she and Peggy parted on bad terms ...
Now, guess who was Series Producer when that episode aired? Right. Lorraine Newman. And guess who was Executive Producer? Kate Harwood. There is absolutely no excuse for that lazy piece of shit writing that worked its way into the script tonight. Newman signed off on this. The writer was wrong. If Newman wants to continue Bryan Kirkwood's bad habit of retconning everything, then she needs to understand that long-term viewers and those of us with more than one braincell in our heads are going to call her out and criticize her on her inconsistency. She should know better, and if she doesn't, then she's obviously in the wrong job. The OBJECT Desired. This:-
Plus this:-
Equals:-
(That's Sharon when she's with Jack the Peg). She's at her cringeworthiest whenever she's in a scene with him. There is absolutely no chemistry, no concern, and her actions seem forced and false. Juxtaposed tonight were scenes she shared with Steve McFadden, and it was like watching a totally different actress, so relaxed and natural was she. I hate the little moues she does with her mouth - in an imitation of a hen's ass; the batting of the eyelashes, the husky sexy voice, as if she wants to make Jack cream his knickers right then and there. And yet, in the recent past, when her guard is down and Jack's true nature comes through, it's obvious that she dislikes him or the potential of what he could be. When Phil asked her, some weeks ago, how much she really knew about Jack, her face was a picture. She'll know and does know the sob story about James and the swap, but does she know that Jack's fathered three children on two sisters and their cousin - a cousin, who was once Sharon's sister-in-law? That's right. If Sharon marries Jack, she'll be a stepmother to Sam Mitchell's baby. Does she know that Jack has four children with four different women, only cared about one and that his idea of being a good father to the other three is to stuff cheques in the post for the mothers? Two things of note:-
Where, exactly, did Amy figure in Jack's Christmas this year? If I recall correctly, he had temporary custody of her last Christmas and made it difficult for Roxy to see her, resulting in Roxy showing Amy her Christmas present in the street outside the Brannings' window. Amy was in the Square this year, spending Christmas with her mother and the Moon ragtag contingent. But Jack has made no mention of Amy, not since he started playing babydaddy to DamienDen. Even Alfie and Kat, who aren't, understandably, on the best of terms under the circumstances, ensure that they both get to spend an equal amount of time with Tommy. And even though Roxy and Amy have been now ensconced in the Vic, Alfie's clear he isn't going to forget Tommy's existence. But Jack hasn't even mentioned Amy.
Bryan Kirkwood's ultimate coup - signing Daniella Westbrook for Hollyoaks. Sam's in Portugal, with her son Richard, living with Grant. The door was always open for Westbrook to return to Walford, and she's got every reason, having Jack's son. But now Westbrook can't return as Sam, because she's someone else on Hollyoaks. The only way Sam can now return to Walford with baby in tow is if Newman asked Kim Medcalf to reprise her version of Sam, which was as different from Westbrook's as chalk is from cheese.
So Phil's interested in Sharon now, just admitting to himself his feelings for her; and he wouldn't be wrong to feel that way, especially with Sharon offering herself up to him as part and parcel of his family - proof positive that, even though she married her pretty toyboy, the Mitchell in Sharon runs deep.
Phil's declaration of intent to Jack tonight at the end of the episode made one thing abundantly clear - that Jack views Sharon, not as someone with whom he's in love, but as an object of which another man, at another time, had a claim and wants to renew that claim, but which he, Jack, wants. Just like as a child, when Max had something Jack wanted, Jack had to have it, until he got it and then he lost interest.
I would say that Jack's interest in Sharon has peaked according to her association with Phil, which was why Jack resorted tonight to petty, tale-telling regarding Phil's outburst to poor pitiful Lola in the cafe. It really was none of Jack's business, and if he'd looked a bit closer at the culprits involved, he'd have realised and noticed the following:-
Billy Mitchell has, on occasion, willingly made his infant son and disabled daughter homeless, resulting in him robbing from a charity box that Peggy maintained and having to beg accommodation in the Vic.
Lola has not only allowed Lexie to be smeared with adult beauty cream, she's also smeared her foot with chemically enhanced paint and refused to take the child to the GP for nappy rash, instead stealing ointment off Janine.
If Jack were using his other braincell, he'd realise that Lexie's godfather, Jay, was the one who distracted Ben the night Ben was babysitting Jack's daughter, Amy. The boys went to ransack Jack's apartment, leaving Amy alone, and she almost drowned.
Cora the Bora, the drunken old man in drag lag, was left in charge of Oscar one time. She got drunk, and the kid fell down the stairs and ended up in Accident and Emergency.
What was singularly amusing was that this panel of losers were sitting in judgement on Phil's decision to take Lexie to the ER for this allergic reaction. Phil is fostering Lexie. Doesn't that silly bint chav Lola realise that some incident like that could not only result in her not getting Lexie, but Phil losing foster care of the child?
Cora needs to keep her drunken mouth shut.
Another observation: Why isn't Jay at the Brannings comforting his girlfriend Abi in her hour of grief for her uncle? Are we also to assume that Lauren the Lip, drunk girl of Walford, and Abi have been left on their own in the Branning house whilst Mummy Dearest and Daddy Max are off frolicking in Spain?
Kirstie Branning, Woman of Mystery, and Michael Moon, Vampire. Arguably, the best scene of the night, when Michael offered to buy Kirstie a drink in the Vic, and Kirsty blew him off,
Kirsty (over her shoulder as she walks off): Haven't you heard? I'm married.
Michael (to himself): Funny thing. So am I.
As much as I love Janine and eagerly await her return, I like this dynamic that's forming, which leads me to wonder if Ms Brooks's return is solely for the purpose to collect her child, dump on the husband and disappear? Something in my water tells me Janine is not long for Walford after her return. I hope not, but Kirsty is certainly a welcome addition. Particularly poignant was Kierston Wareing, after that scene, when she walked alone into the foyer of the pub and her face fell.
Also, did I detect a naughty little double entendre in the Minute Mart scene between Kirsty and Michael about Kirsty's job of blowing all those balloons? Naughty Colin Wyatt.
Bianca Is Still Poor But She Is Obeying the Law and Michael Moon Is the Wolf at the Door.
(Cue Bianca's music).
Bianca is still poor. Yet, she and Carol live in a house that has all the modcons. There's even a wine cabinet in the kitchen, with various bottles of wine in residence. They are poor, but not too poor for Carol and Bianca to crack open a bottle for the new year. Liam has a SmartPhone. They aren't cheap. The kids have a laptop and internet access, yet there's seldom food in the house, and she had to send them out to beg for their dinner recently.
As someone pointed out, Bianca would be receiving child benefit for Liam, Tiffany and Morgan. She shouldn't be working for tips; that is against the law. Carol is working full-time, Tyler is working full-time; and if Whitney is still working gratis at the nursery, it's time she got off her lazy arse and found a job. All three of these adults, plus Bianca, could be and should be contributing to the family coffers. Liam, also, is working illegally at that fast-food joint. Liam has just turned fourteen, but is played by an actor who will shortly turn seventeen. I hope that the writers remember this.
Bianca called the bizzies about Liam fencing Derek's dodgy gear, which suddenly had disappeared, and, of which Liam knew nothing. Yeah sure.
We now know that Liam's partner in crime is Michael Moon, which makes him the natural successor to Derek in punching down. So we exchange one reptile for another. The Toad King is dead, long live the Lizard King.
Shortly, Michael will be wanting Phil Mitchell to launder some of the dirty money he's "inherited" from Derek. That's something you don't ask Phil Mitchell to do. Why do I think Janine will be on Phil's end of this, in order to exact revenge?
Kabuki Theatre: Where Roxy Morphs Into Vanessa. So Alfie seems to have Tommy now. No surprise there. Kat's holed up at Slater Arms, avoiding My Aaaa-aasss, and generally feeling sorry for herself. So poor Kat, the victim, shows up wanting to spend a few minutes with Tommy on his birthday, and leaves to hear Alfie inviting Roxy to move into the Vic, and to witness him give her a long smoochy kiss which is anything but just friendly.
Roxy looks like the cat (pun intended) who got the cream, and Kat looks like the cat about to puke a hairball. Well, that's her own fault. Did she really really really expect Alfie to come around, play the monk and eventually take her back? She's still not even apologised properly for treating him like shit. Oh, she's apologised for getting caught, but that means nothing.
Alfie's moved on too quickly with Roxy. And, like the Masood's non-existent wedding date of Valentine's Day, we know that most of 2013 will be the elaborate kabuki dance of Alfie flitting between Roxy and Kat, conflicted all the way, until his tenth wedding anniversary arrives, conveniently next Christmas, and he renews his vows to Kat.
And Roxy will morph into Vanessa, but without the bubbly's in the fridge moment.
I have a strong suspicion that a baby will further conflict the matters.
Same old same old.
Happy New Year, let's hope this one is better for EastEnders than the last. Update- for those poor souls on Digital Spy who still think Alfie is infertile: He's not. Kat miscarried Alfie's child in 2011, prior to her having shagged the deliveryman. Alfie then had his fertility tested by Yusef, who told him that fertility levels vary from time to time in men. He could have been under stress in Spain (like, the stress to get Kat pregnant) or he could have misunderstood what the clinic were saying or even the clinic could have been mistaken. Also, Alfie has a grown child floating about someplace, because prior to marrying Kat, he told her he got a girl pregnant when he was eighteen, which would make the kid near thirty now. If Kat is pregnant, considering she's been having sex with Alfie since he partially found out about the affair and it's dubious whether she'd slept with Derek since, then it's a fair bet the child will be Alfie's. But, hey ... Roxy could fall pregnant too. Maybe Alfie is this year's Jack.
The Walford Web Kindergartners, who seem to be mostly male, want another playmate to join their ranks. Liam Butcher now has his very own appreciation thread with various fanbois wanting more and more of Liam. Let's consider a few things about Liam. Firstly, Liam is played by James Forde, a plummy-voiced actor who's playing a kid who just turned fourteen, when Forde is three months shy of his seventeenth birthday. It shows. He's incredibly well-spoken. Kudos to him for not attempting a Cockney accent and ending up like the terminally inarticulate David Witts. Although he knows how to recite his lines well enough ... he's really not that outstanding a little actor. Liam, the character, is fourteen. He's even an immature fourteen. There is no way the sixteen year-old Abi or the sixteen-going-on-forty-year-old single mother Lola the Chav or street-suss Jay would countenance Liam hanging out with them. Liam is working illegally. He is fourteen, and would need a special work permit to work at McKlunkey's even if that is allowed; because he is a child and not allowed to work around machinery of that sort. Not that it matters, but Liam's mother shouldn't be working for tips as well. You work a job, even as an apprentice - unless it's specifically stated that the job is an unpaid internship, you are entitled to minimum wage. Bianca is Tanya's slave. I'm one of the vociferous contingent for getting rid of most of the 16-24 year-old contingent. Most of them are played by inexperienced and largely untalented actors, few of the characters offer any positive image as a person, and there are too many of them. We could do with just Jay and Abi. Personally, i think that Bianca and her largely unpleasant bunch of urchin children should bugger off never to return.
Honestly. They have their own ghost, whose raison d'etre is to defend the cancerous Branning family. berthesghost opines:-
The Brannings have been on the show since 1994 and the Slaters since 2000. Neither family ever "went". We all have our favorites, but why pretend two of the shows most prominent families are fly by night like the Karims or the Ferreiras?
OK, I feel compelled to comment here. The first "Branning" to arrive on the Square was Carol Jackson. No mention was made of a family at all. She was introduced as the common-law wife of Alan Jackson and the mother of Bianca, Robbie, Sonia and Billie - all of whom had different fathers. It was 1995 when the first Branning Branning arrived on the Square - April, Carol's sister. She stuck around about a year, during which time, she was mooted as the oldest Branning child, and in a storyline which lasted precisely one week, we met - away from Walford - Carol's racist dad, Jim; his wife, Reenie; her brother Derek, who - in 1995 - was 32, unmarried, living with the folks and racist (meaning he was younger than Carol and had never been married); Suzy, who was a dowdy, downtrodden young mum with two small children. Then there were the unspeaking "ghosts" (maybe berthesghost has run into them) Max and Jack, who were older, skin-headed, thuggy brothers of Carol. By the way, from the getgo in 1993, when Carol Jackson arrived on the Square, it was established that there were three Branning brothers, all of whom were older than Carol, and all of whom had beaten the shit out of David Wicks, when they found he'd impregnated Carol. As "retcon" has been a constant feature of the Branning family, you can see that between 1993 and 1995, they had significantly retconned the order of the siblings yet again. Carol was 34 in 1995; Derek was 32. Until the latest reincarnation of Derek Branning, April was always understood to be the oldest child. When Max arrived in 2006 and Jack in 2007, they were now known as Carol's younger brothers. All very confusing, but to say that the Brannings have been on the show since 1994 is wrong. Jim, Derek I and zombie Max and Jack were part of one week-long storyline. April left the show in 1996. Lindsey Coulsen quit in 1997, but returned in 1999 for Bianca's leaving line, a storyline which re-introduced Jim, now living in an old folks' home, with Reenie having died; and this set him up to move onto the Square in order that a schoolaged Sonia would be able to remain in Walford, also to provide a home for Robbie, and to squire and eventually marry Dot. Kate Harwood, in 2006, upped the ante with the Brannings, with the introduction, first, of Bradley and subsequently Max, Tanya and the girls. Dot had been given a famiily, but prior to that, although she'd been married to Jim, she was more closely aligned with the Beale/Fowlers, considering Sonia had married Martin and they had a child. With Wendy Richard, Natalie Cassidy and James Alexandriou leaving, the then-EP decided to push the Brannings to the fore. By 2006, the Slaters were already on the wane. John Yorke and Lorraine Newman introduced this lot in 2000, promising that they were going to be a family as long-lasting and as important as the Fowlers. Executive Producers had been trying to create a seminal family of their own since the Mitchells were created in the early 1990s. We had George and Annie Palmer. Fail. We had the Italian DiMarcos, who couldn't even pronounce their names. Epic fail. The Slaters were going to change all that. They had an entire episode devoted to their introduction, and they found jobs in every aspect of Square life - Lynne divided her time between the cafe and the launderette, her long-standing fiance Gary was a mechanic and conveniently fitted into the Arches dynamic; Kat got work as a barmaid in the Vic; Little Mo was a cleaner there; Zoe helped Mark Fowler on the fruit'n veg stall. Charlie was the neighbourhood cabbie, whose route never veered from Walford. They also featured, not only in every episode, but in major storylines. Big Mo helped deliver Sonia's surprise baby; Little Mo was the catalyst in Peggy finding out that Frank was cheating on her with Pat. Then there was, "You're not mah muvvah", which was a contingency plan pulled out of the hat by John Yorke, when - one year later - people were completely overdosed on the Slaters. The family that was to last forever started splitting up after an average of five years. Elaine Lourdan was an alcoholic, who was sacked as Lynne Slater because she kept showing up drunk. The death of Den Watts in 2005 also served as the leaving line for Michelle Ryan, so Zoe was gone. The added cousin, Stacey Slater, was introduced to beef up the numbers, but when Jessie Wallace left "by mutual consent" at the end of 2005, Kacey Ainsworth followed in 2006. That's when, shortly thereafter, we got a male Slater, Sean, played by Robert Kasinsky, who made it patently clear he was only sticking around for two years, which he did. That left us with creepy Jean, Stacey's and Sean's mother. Jean's like a bad penny - alternately annoying and endearing (but mostly, the former), there was an attempt by Bryan Kirkwood to get rid of her, but in the face of fan displeasure, he allowed her to stay on, instead, axing the character of Charlie Slater. The mighty Slater family is now reduced to Big Mo (who's a Harris, by the way) and that eternal background character who emerges, like the Greek chorus of old, to issue comments about various storylines and Jean, who is only a Slater by marriage and is also, more or less, a secondary character. In fact, TPTB don't know what to do with Jean, in the absence of Stacey. She's either a dippy, comedy figure whose actions border on creepy, a pejorative evil sprite possessed with an unnatural hatred of Janine or a tragic woman suffering from bi-polar syndrome. The only time Jean emerges in a storyline of her own is either to pursue an inappropriate man or to have something traumatic happen that produces a bi-polar episode and ends with Kat giving her a bath. Besides, the remnants of the Slater family have now been absorbed by the Moons. Kat refers to herself by her married name of Kat Moon. The Brannings, on the other hand, have insinuated themselves into practically every family and every storyline incumbent to the Square. Stacey Slater married Bradley Branning and slept with Max Branning. Her brother Sean, slept with Tanya Branning. Jack Branning has slept with Ronnie Mitchell, Roxy Mitchell and Sam Mitchell and fathered children on all three. The Brannings are involved with the Beales, by virtue of Bianca being Ian's niece on her father's side. Derek Branning's horny, mouth-breathing son has porked Ian's bony daughter; Jack has also slept with Chelsea Fox, so there's a connection there. Cora the Bora, who's about to be made homeless by the Wrath of Dot, will inevitably end up shacked up at the B and B, on Patrick's charity, helping him out in his hour of need, so there's an even stronger link to the the Fox-Truman element. Tyler Moon is living at the Butcher-Jacksons' shacked up with Whitney Dean, a Branning satellite. He's also boned skanky Lauren Branning. His brother was involved with MyAlice Branning, now known, pathetically as Aaaa-aaasss. Derek Branning has been shagging the Walford bike, Kat Moon for the past six months. As for storylines, Derek tried to involve himself in "influencing" Ben both before and after Ben's extermination of Heather. He picked Shirley up in the pub one night when she was steaming drunk. Pat Evans's last episode, the one of her death, was taken over by Derek, Max and Tanya Branning. It became a vehicle for Derek to make vague threats to a dying woman, and Max and Tanya turned it into a hyperventilation exercise in Tanya realising that she has a cancer cold, herself. The ensuing two weeks were all about the Brannings and their hatred of David Wicks. Tanya and Max aided Alfie in searching for Ian when he went missing. Since Sharon's returned, she's become a B-list character, worshipping at the Branning altar - sleeping with Jack her first night back in Walford, someone whom she hadn't known existed 24 hours before. Rather than finding a flat for herself and her son, now that she's got a job, she prostitutes herself to Jack Branning for a free roof over her head. She's been seen begging for crumbs from Queen Tanya's table in a pathetic attempt to have Tanya declare herself Sharon's BFF. In the meantime, we've yet to hear Sharon utter the names of either Michelle or Vicky, her real best friend and her sister. The Branning connection has been superimposed on the most important female friendship in the history of EastEnders. Now, the Brannings, having exhausted all contacts on the Square, are turning to inbreeding, with the spoiled, lazy, entitled oldest daughter of Max Branning, deciding after one bonk on the family sofa with her inarticulate, steroidically-enhanced, intellectually-challenged first cousin; and even the soon-to-arrive Afro-Carribbean Branning satellite, Dexter, is going to start the ball rolling by coming onto Cousin Abi. The only good thing going for this parasitic family of leeches is the introduction of Kirstie Branning, Max's lawfully wedded wife, whose purpose, I think, is to contribute to the decline and fall of this cancerous, inbred, white trash family. Derek has snuffed it. Kirstie will be responsible for white trash Tanya to scurry from Walford in a haze of dirty knickers. Let's hope someone has the balls to realise that Aaa-aaass is insipid and Joey is played by an actor who seriously needs to see a speech therapist. Lauren is hated by most viewers with any common sense, and is only wanked over by sad, teenaged boys. Until she arrived on the sceen, most EastEnders' ingenues had positive ambitiions, drive and wanted to move forward and better themselves. She offers nothing of that. As far as her talent goes, she shouts, her mouth hangs open and she gurns. She also uses exaggerated arm and facial expressions. This is not the stage. Someone also needs to take a power saw to that plank of wood known as Jack. If Jack is kept on, use him in storylines concerning his siblings. As a romantic lead, he sucks the life out of anyone playing opposite him. The Slaters are a spent force and have been, really, since 2005. Stacey's storyline arc was intrinsically involved with the Brannings for the most part, and when she left Walford, she was still Stacey Branning. Kat is now a Moon. But TPTB have allowed themselves to be guided by a lazy head writer who seems only wanting to dwell on the creation of more and more Brannings. Yes, the Slaters dominated episodes and storylines from time to time. So did the Mitchells. And the Watts and the Beales. But there have been times when we have seen weeks' worth of episodes featuring only the Brannings, and there is not one episode during the past two years where we have not at least seen one. The axe needs to fall and berthesghost needs to do some research.
I'm having fits of laughter at some of the assumptions being made on two well-known Eastenders' fora about Mystic Mo's Cryptic Spoilers for 2013 posted on the BBC's EastEnders' website. I'm not saying I'm right, and I'll probably be wrong about many of them, but here are my interpretations and how I reached them. Let's see how many are correct:-
Mother knows best, except for this one; a wayward mother with a wayward son.
Dexter and Ava. We know the latest addition to the teen population is a right littlecock with attitude. Also, we know very little about Ava. She seemed nice, but then, so did Stella, May, Lucas and Yusef. Maybe she's not as nice or upright as she seems. Watch this space. As much as others might want it, this is not Bianca and Liam.
There'll be tears before bedtime, as another gets hurt. This longstanding couple switch on the waterworks.
Zainab and Mas. Without a doubt. TPTB have indicated that their parting will be very emotional.
Baby makes three, but which three does that mean? They'll have a fight on their hands to keep on the scene.
This is intriguing, because the possibilities are various. I don't think the Sharon-Jack association is viable, believeable or lasting. She loves Phil. At some point in Shack's engagement, Sharon will sleep with Phil. Then she'll discover she's pregnant. Another "who's-the-daddy", I know, but it will be a Mitchell baby, ultimately ...
or ... Alfie is involved with Roxy and Kat finds out she's pregnant. Not with Delboy's sprog, but by Alfie. This will, of course, conflict Alfie. or ... Roxy gets pregnant, just as Alfie is getting closer to Kat. This will also conflict Alfie. or ... It will be discovered that Tommy is really Alfie's son. This will also conflict Alfie. or ... Michael begins to get close to someone on the Square and he and she bond as a unit with Scarlett, and Janine returns. Limitless possibilities. One thing it won't be is Lauren getting pregnant by the Toadboy to produce a mouth-breathing gurner of a child. If this happens, Lorraine Newman should be taken out and publically slapped.
They say only fools and horses work for their keep. Well which one is this, selling tat on the street?
Cora the Bora. Forget Tyler, forget Bianca begging on the street. This is the old drunken lag. Dot returns with a vengeance and kicks her out of her house. She loses her job in the launderette and is reduced to selling tat on Tyler's stall to pay for her keep, probably at the charity abode known as the Jackson-Butcher's.
Like weary boxers, they go head to head. He's pushed him too far and left him for dead.
Ray and Patrick. We know something major is going to happen to Patrick. We know that Ray will split with Kim, be attracted to Denise, and that he's got a major secret from his military past. I think something sparks between him and Patrick, possibly about Denise or Kim,he pushes Patrick too far and leaves him for dead. This could be Chucky Venn's leaving line, because I don't anticipate him staying around - more's the pity, because I like Ray.
Home is where the heart is, or so they say. But what if that heart gets taken away?
Again, a myriad of possibilities - Tanya leaving the girls and Max is one possibility. Phil losing Lexie is another. But I'm going with the kabuki dance that is Roxy-Alfie-Kat. I keep remembering Michael Moon's line to Alfie, first about Kat being in Alfie's heart, and if he rejected her, he'd have a big hole there; also, Michael's remark about Alfie and Kat being the heart of the Vic. My guess here is that Alfie begins to realise that as much as he likes Roxy, she's not Kat. As Ms Newman intended. Roxy becomes Vanessa 2013.
A storm is coming, a blast from the past. Things are different now, but how long will it last?
Grant. Yes, that's right. Grant Mitchell. People are guessing Peter Beale and Anthony Truman, and - I'm sorry - but thoseguesses are risible. Even David Wicks is risible. Think about it - who could come in like a storm and cause a blast? Grant. Why? Maybe for Phil and Sharon's wedding. Maybe there's still a frisson of attraction for Sharon? Maybe a Sharongate in reverse? Just remember this:- Grant Mitchell is one of three people alive who knows about the part Phil played in Dennis Rickman's death.
The wedding bells ring, it's someone's big day - but will they go through with it, or just run away?
Sharon dumps Jack at the altar for Phil. The girl's got form.
The girls get their claws out; who will back down? How far will they go to run the others from town?
Tanya fights with Kirstie over Max. Tanya loses. Tanya leaves.
Opposites attract, I think you'll agree. Especially when these two are on your TV.
Denise and Ian. Easy peasy.
And then there's new faces and fun to be had. They seem like a nice lot, but what about dad?
Try this on for size: Lorraine Newman hinted that Sharon's extended family would be involvedthis time around. Now, shut up about the abysmal Vicki and Mark WhateverhissurnameisitsnotFowler. Sharon has three biological brothers and a sister. Carol Hanley is their mother. The boys would all be in their mid-to-late twenties now. The girl would be about twenty. "Dad" could be Carol's husband, who is not Sharon's biological father and wasn't that nice to her previously. I'm not saying any of these are right, but it will be interesting to see how many are.
So the Digital Spy Forum bods are discussing the unrealistic portrayal of Bianca's continuous poverty in 21st Century Britain, when one commenter, who happens to work in a Benefits' Office gives us the low-down of stuff to which Bianca is entitled as a single mum with children.
The commentator reveals this:-
i work in a benefit office and this storyline makes me she would get plenty of tax credits to top up her wages and would have more dispsable income than many esp those paying morgages etc
wish she would just be a normal working mum. theres no need for all the poverty stuff, its so unrealistic
also, ricky and ray are not types who would not pay for their kids!!!
Straight from the horse's mouth of reality.
However, as soon as she's said that, up pops the little PR fairy, someone who peeps from the confines of some leafy, well-off middle-class suburb and who has a background in public relations, to squeak out the approved and highly miffed message of just what it is the boys and gels in the writing room at Elstree are trying to get across about Bianca and the poor and destitute of Britain ...
EastEnders' very own Tinkerbell warbles:-
Yes, because no one is struggling with money at the moment...
I'm not saying that the story is like a documentry on poverty in modern Britain, but it's suggestive of current economic problems, especially for those with children. I'm glad they've kept it an ongoing storyline. Yes, it's got plot holes the size of the channel, but poverty isn't an especially sexy storyline or one that necessarily garners a lot of sympathy.
I'm quite confused about all those suggesting that she would be raking in benefits. Yes she absolutely would be entitled to benefits, and maybe she isn't getting all she is allowed, but even with full allowance she would still struggle week to week.
I may be on my own with this one, but it's something I feel strongly about.
What is it this person does not understand about Bianca's circumstance that's fishy? Bianca works in a hair salon "for tips" - not a wage, for tips. In Britain that's against the law. It's blooming slave labour, and Tanya could be shut down for that. She should at least be getting a minimum wage. When she's offered work for a wage, she turns it down. She is entitled to all of the benefits mentioned above by the commentator who's a WPA employee. She also has three adults living in the house - Carol, who draws a wage from the cafe, Tyler, who's employed on a market stall, and Whitney, who - if she's still doing unpaid work at the nursery, should get up off her fat arse and find some sort of employment - and doesn't Michael pay her for minding Scarlett? As well, Ray and Ricky pay for their kids. That's a given. Like I said, there's a stench rising from this person's continuous comments which take on the tone of a hippy-dippy schoolmarm, but which always, always ship EastEnders as something we all should be viewing in a positive way. I smell a plant - specifically a stinkweed.
The general consensus of opinion is that Sharon's most recent return has been one epic fail. Not only do we have an iconic original cast member returning, but the doted daughter of Den Watts and the ex-missus of Grant Mitchell. Forget Dennis Rickman. Yes, I said it ... forget the pretty boy contrived plot device. He was small fry to Dirty Den and Grant in Sharon's affections. The problem with Sharon is simple to identify and even simpler to solve:- Since her return, she's been captured and held hostage in BranningVille on orders of the Lord High Branningista Simon Ashdown. Many people pointed out that precious few people remain in Walford who knew Sharon the last time she was there - but Phil, her former lover and continuous friend remains, as does Ian, who's been relegated to babysitter. Sharon would never associate with the likes of the Brannings. Having her sleep with Jack Branning on the night she returned, having her prostitute herself in order for Jack to provide her and her son with accommodation was even more out of character. The old Sharon was a stand-alone strong woman. At the time she moved out of the B and B, she was working for a decent wage, managing the R and R for Phil Mitchell. Instead of renting a flat for herself and her child, she chose to move in and conduct a sexual relationship with a man she hardly knew, expecting him to play daddy with her son, when he won't even look at the various children he's dropped on as many women the world over. She confides in him about her painkiller addiction, he takes the pills from her and seeks to ply her with wine. WTF? And nothing has been more cringeworthy than watching Sharon beg for the crumbs of friendship from the table of Queen Tanya. The worst bit was watching her swan into the Brannings' front room on Christmas Eve, singing "Going to the Chapel" to Tanya. This is another instantaneous friendship that is patently unbelieveable. Since her return, Sharon's been used as nothing but a vehicle by which the Brannings are validated and confirmed as a family worthy of Sharon's association. The impending Jack engagement is going to be a joke, and frankly, it's insulting seeing her in constant association with scum like the Brannings. If she gravitates toward Phil Mitchell, it's only because she's in her comfort zone with him. She used to be a Mitchell, the Mitchells rescued her legacy for her the last time she was hear, and it's Phil she trusts. If the people in charge, like BranningMan Simon Ashdown and weak willie Lorraine Newman, who's been with the product for 20 years and needs some serious slapping into shape, cannot see the damage they've done thus far - not only to Sharon, but also to other iconic female characters like Kat and Bianca, then perhaps there need to be new people at the helm at EastEnders. Bring back Tony Flipping Jordan.
A frequent commenter on Digital Spy Soaps' Forum continuously asks:-
why why why is Tony Discipline still in the show?
Well, if he'd bothered to have read a similar thread asking much the same question some weeks ago, another Forum Member answered his question - because TPTB sure as hell won't, and they think the viewing public is stupid or unworthy of explanation as to why their licence fee money is being used to fund the lifestyles of pretty people with no talent.
Here's the reason the show still retains Discipline: He's the current squeeze of that eminent thespian Jennifer Lawrence Jacqueline Jossa, the girl who seeks to look like Jennifer Lawrence with none of her talent. EastEnders is pushing Jossa as the go-to ingenue in a way they've never pushed their talented young women before.
In case you haven't noticed, there's nary an episode where Lauren Branning doesn't make an appearance. The way Phil Redmond crafted later Brookside, for some reason, around the dubious talents of Claire Sweeney, Simon Ashdown (who, face it, calls the shots at Elstree) is making EastEnders a vehicle for Jossa, whose acting talent extends to believing her own hype, providing photo opportunites for Tony Discipline and gurning.
This time last year, Discipline was being touted as one half of the Principal Juvenile Couple, thrust down our throats along with Shona McGarty at every opportunity, and the public were being asked to love him. We didn't, and now he's been relegated to the occasional appearance, lurking in the background of other people's plots. Like Big Mo, he will never be given a big storyline, becas he can't handle them.
Once, however, Love's Young Dream reaches an end with Jossa, Discipline will be given his marching orders.
The Masoods' party aside, which is New Year's Eve, it's nice to see a bit of continuity on the part of EastEnders.- meaning that they've ended the year the way they started the damned thing: mediocrity abounds. Simon and Garfunkel wrote a song about that. EastEnders: Homeward Bound ...
Start as you mean to finish, they say, and boy, did they ever! We had a few episodes of decent quality, better writing and adequate acting, and then a return - and with the end of the week, hour-long episode - to that oh-so-familiar shade of mediocrity. Another filler. Not just one filler, but two, cobbled together to make an hour-long episode, which was nothing special in the least. We did, however, get to see the Mitchells, briefly, with their storyline relegated to the Second Division of importance in the face of the almighty Brannings, who get more unlikeable with every episode. OK, question time ... who likes the Brannings? Hands up? I mean, apart from Max and Carol, what and who's there to like? Tanya? Yummy mummy arch hypocrite of the Square? Lauren the LipGirl - lazy, entitled, spoiled, shallow, self-obsessed and totally unlikeable? Joey, the master of inarticulace, full of mouth-breathing charm? Gormless Alice and her wee-wee? Bianca and her mouthy urchins? Jack the Peg with his famous impregnating third leg? Seriously. They are the epitome of jumped-up white trash, who hide their guttersnipe upbringing behind fancy suits and middle-class Middle England twinsets and hope they aren't involved in an accident because their dirty knickers will be shown. As I said, this was mostly filler stuff and uninteresting, but it did have its moments, which are:- Team Kirsty. That's me all the way. The more I see of Kierston Wareing's character, the more I like her - and it didn't take her long to snare that job behind the bar at the Vic. Apart from strongly resembling Roxy, from a distance, she looks as though she belongs there. I am looking forward to her systematically tearing Tanya's perfect little hypocritical faux middle class world apart. Because - make no mistake - Kirsty is the victim here. Not Tanya. And everything Kirsty told Tanya tonight rang true, which is why Tanya turned heels and got Max the hell out of Walford for - where?- Spain. Jog your memories any? Let me explain. Tanya can divorce Max and marry Greg, after living with Greg for the better part of a year. OK, she's entitled to do that. But she then started cheating on Greg with Max, which imploded the moral high ground she held over him. Max, remember, is single at this time. When she found out she had cancer, she kept it a big secret from everyone, but mainly from Max and the girls. However, she allowed her affair with Max to be found out. Greg kicked her out, and she implied to the girls that Max seduced her, that he coerced her into the affair, which prompted Tanya, backed by bigshot Lauren the LipGirl, to order Max away from Walford. Into exile. So Max is a single man, alone in the world. He meets Kirsty and falls in love. Is this a rebound romance? You bet, but sometimes, these things work, and it's obvious that Max and Kirsty haven't based their relationship on sex and secrets - well, not entirely. They have, at least, talked. Max was called back to Walford in November 2011, having been gone since August. He must have been married to Kirsty long enough for her to be pregnant, but once he'd sussed Tanya's illness, he called Kirsty to tell her the marriage was over. She doesn't see or hear from him in over a year, only to receive a wodge of money and divorce papers for her to sign pushed through the door of her house. Max abandoned Kirsty. And as long as he didn't have to see her, come in contact with her et al, he was fine with Tanya. Never forget what moral cowards the Brannings are. Everything Kirsty levelled at Tanya tonight was true. Doubly true. Tanya is the other woman. Again. Kirsty could never be that, because Tanya had effectively written Max off when she exiled him from Walford. He was a free agent and could do as he pleased. Does some of the blame lie with Max for not telling Tanya about his situation? Yes, but then, as Max stated, when he first returned home, Tanya was so ill and refusing treatment, that was not the time to tell her of his marriage. Max's mistake was entrusting Derek to sort out the divorce arrangements. But Tanya is the other woman. Yet again. But she is so obtuse and has her head up her arse so damned far that she still cannot see that she was ever the other woman when it came to splitting Max and Rachel up. She was too arrogant to see the karma in Stacey doing to her what she did to Rachel, and now, she hates having it pointed out to her by Kirsty, that it's actually Tanya trying to snake another woman's husband. I love it when home truths are told to Tanya. It's one of the few things I like about Cora the Bora - how Tanya gets on her high horse and runs home wittering about what was said. Kirsty is not Stacey. She's got fifteen years and a world of experience on Stacey, and I'll bet she knows more about Max Branning in the couple of months she spent with him than Tanya knows in 18 years. She knows because she spooked Tanya. Tanya knows that Max is in a quandry about Kirsty. He was in a quandry about Bradley when Tanya forced him to break with Rachel and marry her. Max had to leave the area and not see his son at all in order to live with himself and Tanya. Now Kirsty's put herself back into the picture, now that she's stood before Max and told him about the child she aborted, Max is having a major guilt trip, which is why he's conflicted whenever he has to speak alone to Kirsty or why he chooses to see her in the company of his siblings. The ironic thing about all of the Tanya-Max-Kirsty situation is that when Kirsty wouldn't rise to Tanya's threats to run her out of town - and who the hell does Tanya think she is? - when Kirsty told her she was going nowhere, what does Tanya do? The same thing Max did when Stacey gave him 30 minutes to tell Tanya they were through with a couple and live with Stacey - Max scarpered to Spain. And that's what Tanya does - packs a bag and - hey presto - she's on good terms with Max again. Get him out of Walford and away from the bimbo, and maybe when she returns, Kirsty will be gone. As if. The moment she said she had bar experience, I knew she'd land a job at the Vic, the very place - aside from their front room - that Max and Tanya frequent the most. Kirsty is going no place, but Tanya is. Good riddance to white trash rubbish. And I hope she takes her skanky daughter Lauren with her. Once again tonight, after being royally put in her place by the inarticulate mouth-breather known as Joey, Lauren's still trying to ring him, but he isn't answering. What is it she didn't understand about Joey's father having just died when she tried to assure him that after two weeks, they could just be fucking away as normal? OK, maybe she didn't understand a word he said, but the fact that he stormed off and left her sitting on the pavement, the fact that he's not taking any of her annoying phone calls today must tell her something. Probably not, as her head is stuck even further up her arse than her mother's is. You know that somehow she believes, yet again, that this is Max's fault. Can someone please sit her down and tell her the tale of her mother's pedigree? She needs to know that Tanya is a moral vacuum as much as she is. Along with her alcoholic gene, this is where she gets her shallowness from. Team Roxy. I understand perfectly what Mo and Jean said to Roxy yesterday and that it was not said in a mean way. Alfie is their family, and he's still raw from Kat's betrayal. They were warning her about his vulnerability, for her own sake as well as his own. Poor Roxy's confused now too. She desperately loves Alfie, and Alfie knows this. She's worried about being the rebound love affair and is also worried from what Michael said tonight - about people considering Alfie and Kat to be the Vic. What is he saying yet again? Maybe I'm obtuse, but I got confused by the signals he was sending out last week to Alfie, about how he had to just accept Kat for what she was, literally let her shag it about, because she still loved him, that's the way she was and he'd miss her if she weren't in his life. WTF? I'd like to see him accept a wife like that. And there he was tonight, literally implying that Roxy didn't belong behind the bar and Alfie and Kat were the fixtures there. Sorry, Michael, with your own warped sense of morality - and were I Alfie, the relative who shagged and impregnated my wife would be the last person to whose word I would give any credence - but Kat lost her moral high ground when she slept with and got pregnant by you. She lost it further when she had the knee-shaker in the alleyway with the creepy deliveryman and she sank into the shit and mire when she spread her legs for Derek in the Vic's kitchen, during working hours, when she met up in the alleyway again and once again in the cellar, whilst her husband and child were upstairs. Don't even mention the bedbug bedsit and all that entailed. Grant chucked his cheating wife out of the Vic, and she was no less than Den Watts's Princess. The pub survived. Peggy chucked her husband, Frank Butcher out for sleeping with her best friend, Pat Evans. The pub survived. The Vic will be that much better for not having a jumped-up piece of mutton dressed as lamb, looking like a classic prostitute and spray-tanned within an inch of her life, hiking down her bra and hiking up her skirts behind the bar. Actually, Michael Moon would be better off tending to his own affairs and looking after his daughter - or finding his wife. That said, I'm wondering if Michael is involved in fencing Liam - who speaks like a public schoolboy - out selling Derek's dodgy knock-off gear? The look on his face when Bianca was talking to Jack at the fight club - and really, what 36 year-old woman calls her 40 year-old uncle, "UNCLE" Jack? Patrick the Patriarch. Forget about this matriarch hoo-hah. Cora the Bora is a drunk, a bully and more white trash. Patrick is the sort of loving and understanding father figure the Square needs. He was brilliant with Jay tonight - slipping the lad a free breakfast and twenty quid with which to treat Abi. Then providing counsel for Denise. He's providing the same function to all and sundry that Pat previously provided, and I'd be more than happy to see a patriarch on the Square for the foreseeable future than some battle-axe drunk. The Brannings As Cowardly Lions.
I'd say that was Jack the Peg upping the ante in that song. The Brannings are moral cowards. Max and Derek were intrinsically old-fashioned. Max genuninely believed that when a bloke got a woman up the duff, he married her. Rachel was pregnant when he married her, and he dumped her to marry a pregnant Tanya. When Max emotionally connects with a woman, he finds it difficult to break the connection. That doesn't mean he's emotionally connected to Tanya, except for the fact that they have three children together. Max got burned when he left Rachel. She refused him access to Bradley, and Tanya is no better than to do the same thing. Max is with Tanya for stability and for the children's sake. Tanya knows his pedigree as well, and knows that, eventually, he'll stray again - whether she realises or not that she no longer holds the moral high ground or the stick with which to beat him is debatable. Derek lived for respect and believed that respect didn't have to be earned, it became incumbent with age and family position. When it became obvious that Derek wasn't receiving the respect he felt was due him, that's when he began to crumble psychologically. Respect, also for Derek, had an awful lot to do with control. Jack is just one moral vaccum, dropping kids all over the Continent and telling himself he's a good dad because the cheque is in the post once a month. He's content playing Daddy to Sharon's fey son, when he hasn't seen Richard - whose mother is Sharon's ex-sister-in-law since he was born.Jack is the biggest slut in Walford, and Sharon should be tested for chlamydia. But there they all were, sauntering into the Vic this evening and picking a fight with gormless Ajay because of an innocuous remark he made about Derek. And the eyeballing they gave Alfie. What the hell did they expect - a soliloquy of respect about Derek's death? This was the man who broke up Alfie Moon's marriage, FFS? And what did Aaa-aaass say about Joey? He'd "left Walford to visit a friend?" Another act of cowardice. I found it unusual that Alice was remaining in the Slater house, sleeping on the couch and wailing about a father whom, this time last year, she didn't know, whilst Kat, presumably, was ensconced with Tommy someplace upstairs. Where's St Kat the Compassionate, who might try to comfort the girl? She has lost her father. And Alice is whining about not having a home ... she has a living mother, who was always begging her to come home after becoming so enamoured of Daddy Dearest, who didn't even know she existed. Aaa-aaasss has a place with her mother. She should just go there. Bianca is Still Poor and the Writing for Her Family Is Embarrassing. Bianca's Theme:-
In the true spirit of an English Christmas, EastEnders gives their own version of Charles Dickens characters - the Butcher-Jackson tribe, with newly added member, Tyler Moon. The Butchers are left instructions by Granny Jackson to have a fun day, but the problem is that they have no money. They decide to fix a slap-up lunch of ribs and chips for Carol as a surprise and to bake a cake. But they have no food and no money with which to buy food. If they have no food, why is Morgan so fat? So Bianca sends her urchins out to pick a pocket or two to be industrious, to sing for money or foodstuffs and to sell Derek's Christmas knock-off gear on Tyler's redundant stall. This is straight from Oliver Twist:
This was the closest thing to begging I've ever seen on EastEnders, and the kids weren't even cute. Please stop promoting Tiffany. She's rude, gobby and annoying. And she's past the cute tyke stage and is turning into - sorry to say it - a very plain pre-adolescent. Liam sounds as though he's been educated in a public school. And the storyline about him selling Derek's dodgy gear is Rodney Trotter Meets Fagin. You knew the Butchers would epically fail in their cooking attempts and revert to Liam's staff discount at McKlunkey's, where he's working illegally. If Patsy Palmer's still on her "working mum's" contract, then their next excuse for her six-month hiatus will be Liam being carted off to YOP for fencing stolen goods or working illegally. Palmer is phoning in her role at the moment, just the way she was when she was there this time last year. It's patently obvious that the actress isn't interested in investing any effort into her role. It's just something the salary of which pays her au pairs, her kids' school fees and finances her luxurious holidays. All on our tick, by the way. The Butchers are poor. Poor they are and poor they'll remain. I miss Ricky's presence. He doesn't even get a mention nor does he get to spend a holiday with his children. I'd like to see this lot go. Poor Pitiful Lola and the Mitchell Heir. And Shirley. Lola is learning. Like what a christening entails and what godparents are. Good that she's learning young. I recall when a fortysomething Heather was arranging George's christening, she thought it was a big party where you could play George Michael music. Lola at least understands that a christening has something to do with the church - what, she doesn't know, but she learns about godparents from Abi, who's angling for the opportunity to be a godmother. She's angling even more when Lola appoints Jay Lexie's godfather - Abi is gagging to be standing at the altar by Jay's side, but no ... Lola appoints Cora the Bora, with a classic line levelled in the direction of the Brannings "even though your family isn't setting a great example at the present time." (Proof, if nothing else that Cora the Bora is part and parcel of the Mitchell dynamic). Lola is also learning about habeas corpus and Phil. That's a Latin legal term which means, literally "we have the body" or possession is 9/10ths of the law. Phil's got Lexie, and Lola will do as he says, so he's arranged for Grant and Peggy to be godparents. As if. (And just wait until you hear the retconned reason for Peggy not showing up.) Anyway, Sharon's on Phil duty today. We know that because she's acting normal and isn't doing that awful impression of a Miss Piggy-Marilyn Monroe lovechild she does around Jack the Peg. She negotiates three hours unsupervised for Lola to have Lexie, when Lola is offered an afternoon's work at the salon for real money. And therein she show's how irresponsible she is. Three hours come and go and Phil cannot get in contact with her. She won't answer the phone. She walzes into the salon, followed by Shirley, who helps herself to various hand cremes and even watches Lola smear some cream on the baby's forehead and cheek. When Phil spots that, he goes ballistic. Listen, adult body creams and lotions are not made for children. They have chemical combinations and fragrances that are too harsh for the skin of infants and small children. If you've any doubt about this, remember the episode where Dawn put fake tan on Summer, and Lola was warned about this when she put red paint on Lexie's foot. So Phil was right about his concern. I still find it difficult to sympathise with poor, pitiful Lola. I'm Team Phil in putting her in her place, and the way she calls Billy "pops" is nothing but annoying. The Masoods' Sitcom. Unfunny. They are so unfunny when Zainab goes into Goodness Gracious Me mode, and the longer Ajay hangs around, the more I find him an irritating male version of Roxy circa 2007 or 2008, without the charm. Everything about the family today was contrived - from Ajay's return to frighten Ayesha, from the snickering and bickering between him and Zainab, to the awful scene at the garage and back to the plan to hook up Ayesha (way-hey-mon) to miserable Tamwar. I'm glad Ajay was perspicacious enough to remember that Tamwar was still married, and I'm surprised that Zainab's Muslim morals are now lax enough to consider that a mere hindrance and also to consider herself Masood's wife ... which she isn't. Another thing that is becoming more obvious and that is that the remaining Masoods are toast without Zainab. I don't know if this Ayesha is staying - I see her as short-term, considering what's going to happen - but I can't see Ajay or Tamwar lasting. Or Masood for that matter, but I thinkTPTB plan on linking him later in the year with the mystery known as Ava. Filler episode in a week where nothing should be made to fill up space and time. If this is still what we have to look forward to in 2013, then this show is in serious trouble.
