Just a Thought Past Midnight

As we're all digesting the news that that epitome of rat-faced, oikerish, stereotypical Cockney lad-ness, Danny Dyer, is to become the new landlord of the Vic, and that his wife is to portray the old stereotypical dimwit Essex girl who's the salt-of-the-earth - sorry, EARF - sort, here's where the betting starts?

How long before David Wicks fucks the wife? And how long before the Mitchells are back in the pub?

For the first, I'm thinking ... not long.

For the second, I'm thinking the 30th anniversary.

And a nice little message to the slacker fanboi spoiled brat on the Bullboi Emporium - yes, that's you, Shamelessness - you're rude. As you once said, SHUT THE FUCK UP AND STOP PATRONISING, YOU MISOGYNISTIC, LAZY-ARSED PIECE OF CACK.

Scott Maslen Was Right - Review: 30.09.2013

When it rains, it pours.

First, we have Scott Maslen, safe now that he's left the show and obviously burning his bridges, dissing EastEnders, actually saying that Coronation Street was better in the long run, and better because of the BBC budget cuts. Well, yes, that much is true. But it's also better because it's been doing things recently that EastEnders hasn't been doing - like telling stories.

Corrie's youth, such as they are, interact on a regular basis, with the older members of the cast. Rarely do you see that in EastEnders. And actually, Corrie's youth, such as they are, are as unlikeable as EastEnders' mob - if you think about Ches-neh, Ka-teh and the soon-to-depart Ryan. But at least you see Corrie's youth, such as they are, working.

Yes, the budget cuts mean we get ridiculous scenes like people going clubbing at around 5pm, when people don't usually hit the nightclubs before 10pm or so. Budget cuts also mean that we get a lot of emphasis on the youth of EastEnders, such as they are, because they're cheap, which is all we're getting surrounding the return of David Wicks.

Next on the agenda was the eerie clipof the "For Sale" sign on the Vic, creaking in the wind, hoisted on the EastEnders' website yesterday and re-tweeted by DTC, which got the world talking. The third thing to happen was the announcement of two castings tonight at midnight, who have a connection to someone in the Square.

Will they have something to do with the Vic? 

Well, let's look at who won't be buying the Vic. As Phil's selling, it's obvious he needs money. Before any of the shippers shout "Ronnie", she doesn't have a pot to piss in. Besides, if this were any of the Mitchells, there wouldn't be an advertised sale.

It could, conceivably, be a consortium of Janine and Sharon. Sharon could sell her share of the R and R and Janine could be a silent partner. There you'd have the two daughters of two Alpha male Vic landlords continuing the tradition.

However, the Midnight Special indicates new ownership. On the downside, a connection to the Square would mean another Branning - perhaps Gordon and wife? On the slightly less downside, one needs to remember that Dean Wicks was in Australia with a girlfriend and a bar, although how he could immigrate with a criminal record is another grand retcon. Australia ceased to be a convict colony years ago.

Anyway, the minutes are tickinb by.

The Same Old Song.

Carol is a fool. She can also be a right cow. And for once and for all, Carol and David aren't some cutesy cutesy love affair. They are definitely not this generation's Pat and Frank, and anyone - Kirkwood, Newman of Jesus Christ Treadwell-Collins - is retconning the situation if you think they are.

David and Carol were a teenaged attraction which ended up as a bunk-up behind the bike sheds at school and resulted in Bianca. David never ever canoodles Carol unless he's in need of comfort sex. In 1997, they had sex because David was being shunned by the entire Walford population, including his mother and his aunt, because he was instrumental in breaking up his brother's marriage. Carol responded only then because her husband Alan had been unfaithful. 

When David showed up the last time, that sexual encounter happened because he was grieving his mother. David doesn't do commitment, not even with Naomi. It's plausible that, had he succeeded in leaving with her, he'd have dumped her when she served her purpose.

As I've explained and shown three times, David's motto is It's what I do.

The only reason David's playing sweet with Carol now is simply because he has no place to go, no money, nothing. Once something better or someone more attractive comes along, he'll be off. 

What David said to Masood about Carol having the habit of falling in love with him isn't exactly true. What is true is that Carol has the habit of falling in love with most presentable men who show an interest, and for Carol - sorry to be so crude - that means spreading her legs. For what it's worth, Carol is one of the most promiscuous females in the Square.

Bryan Kirkwood would have us believe that David was the love of her life, but David's primary affairs of the heart when he was in Walford in the 1990s were with Sam Mitchell and Cindy Beale. He left a wife and a couple of kids along the way, but if he's been away from the Square for 16 years, you can rest assured that there's an ex-wife somewhere. David's a player, but he's also a runner, and if they settle him down to play grandad, they're doing the character as much a disservice as they've done Sharon.

Two months after David left the last time, Carol was screaming at Bianca for ruining her relationship with Dan Sullivan, who'd then become her ticket to ride. Carol is one who'll love the one she's with until David shows up with some shaggy dog story and gets what he wants until he runs away again.

For the record, David's types are Naomi or all points younger - Roxy, Kirsty Branning, Sadie ...

Time will tell, but neither Masood nor David fit in with Carol, and it's a pity they take Lindsey Coulson along this route. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if he copped off with Whitney.

One thing people should all consider is that David Beale Wicks is a coward, that he also has links with Ian Beale and Janine Butcher. He's a rogue but a loveable rogue and watchable.

The Old Guard.

It was good to see the interaction between Dot, Carol and Sharon. This is the Sharon most people who've watched prior to 2001 knew. At the end of the day, it really was six of one and half dozen of another. And Dot was right about something: originally, Dennis was a nice, little boy - an annoying stageschool kid, but he was presented as, basically, a nice kid. 

A lot of turmoil and uncertainty has happened in his life in the past year, so maybe a bit more delving into why he's like he is, and that needs to be addressed; but at least in this instance, Dot and Sharon met halfway, and it's nice to see them reconciled and reconciled by a character from their own heyday.

This writer got Sharon; I don't know why the others couldn't. Well, yes, I do. It's called laziness.

The Shit.

Notice how many of the characters who've received their P45s are dominating airtime? Ajay bonds with Kamil the day before Kamil returns to Pakistan. And who's accompanying the boy? He's only three.

Still, I suppose it gave Ajay more dialogue than he's had for a year. Kamil is really the cutest kid, and he handles dialogue better than children older than he.

Then there's Alice, who annoys me to no end, especially with those veneers. She's interested in Tamwar, yet she's disappointed sexually, with her only comparison being Michael Moon. Poopy-La-Dim, another departing character who's getting more airtime than she's worth, might be shallow and stupid (loved that Dot told her to clear up her kitchen mess). but she certainly gets that Michael Moon is a psychopath, and that Alice is wrong to put all her hopes in him.

I know this is the beginning of the end of Alice (as well as Poopy) and that Tamwar and Fatboy, much to viewers' dismay, will be left on their own again, but it also emphasizes how shallow both Alice and Poopy are, and how deluded Alice becomes. 

The episode could have been a lot better, but for the teen-angst shit.

David's Motto

Found this on YouTube, which gives a very accurate history of David Beale Wicks and what his character is like. The only criticism I have of the piece is that they've neglected to mention that David is actually Pete Beale's son.

Two things to mention, however: around the 15:55 mark, Tina Baker pointedly remarks that David is in no way a pipe and slippers sort of character. Very true, and if EastEnders 2.0 settles him down with Carol, that's a total retcon.

Secondly, harken unto the clip where David takes Cindy and the boys to EuroStar and literally dumps her on the platform. She begs him to come with her, and he refuses, simply giving his reason as It's what I do.

As I said, he said the very thing to Lorraine, when he quit Walford the first time, and he mentioned the same thing in last night's episode.

It's what he does - loves women and leaves them, breaks up marriages and relationships without a backward glance. Let's see what the current crop can do to mess up his character.

It's What He Does - Review: 27.09.2013

Hello, It's Me.

Wow, something strange happened in that episode tonight. We had a bit of consistency.

David Beale returned. That's right. Beale. Because that's who he is. The name Wicks was acquired when his mother left his dad, pregnant with Brian Wicks's child - that would be Simon, not David.

David is all Beale, just like his daughter, just like his brother - all mouth and no trousers, arrogant, condescending, disdaining, able to turn on the charm and also just as able to weasel out of a situation when there is a need for it.

Ian Beale crying.

Bianca shouting, 'Ow'm ah gonna feed mah kids.

David turning to Carol for comfort sex.

Been there, done that. All Beale, and especially Pete's firstborn, right down to Pete's braying, bragging voice.

A couple of days ago, in anticipation of this most recent Second Coming, I watched David's initial exit from the Square back in 1996, in disgrace as usual. The numpties on Bullyboi Direct and Digital Spy who believe in Bryan Kirkwood's David need to know that most of that, and most of the love affair with Carol was retconned shit.

David Beale Wicks, tonight, was a continuation of the man who left the Square in the rain, in 1996, crying behind the wheel of his car with his schizophrenic teenaged son, Joe, crying after him in the wet. As David explained brilliantly to his ex-wife Lorraine in 1996, he can't commit. He's incapable of it. It's why he walked out on her, leaving her to bring up their two small children on her own. He didn't even know, when he arrived on the Square in 1993, that his daughter Karen had died.

He'd spent time in prison for tax fraud, so we know that, as a person, he's totally dishonest. It was that dishonesty - teaming up with Barry Evans to sell cut-and-shuts - which led to Pat meeting and subsequently marrying Roy.

Freed from Kirkwood's incessant retconning, David was true to his form tonight, full of home truths for Carol even right down to a contingency plan.

Here's the truth: Carol and David were never love's young dream. They were an adolescent fumble behind the bike sheds that led to Bianca. David conned 200 quid out of Pete Beale for Carol's abortion which she never had. The only times, subsequent to that, that he's sought sexual solace from Carol has been when he's been down on his luck. In 1996, this was a weekend after he'd been discovered to have been sleeping with his brother's wife, Cindy, and she'd absconded Walford with two of the three Beale children. He was, then, a virtual pariah. Even his mother and his Auntie Pauline avoided him like the plague.

Coincidentally, Carol was smarting, herself, from having discovered Alan had been unfaithful, so they got together - for one weekend only before they called it quits.

The next time they got together was right after Pat's death, when David was grieving. He abandoned her because her brothers called the right shot in apprising that he'd leave Walford and abandon Carol - much in the same way he would have probably abandoned Naomi.

As he said tonight and as he told Lorraine seventeen years ago, it's what he does.

He walked out on a wife and two young children because he couldn't cope with being a father and husband. When he left Walford in 1996, he trailed his brother's marriage, which he destroyed, in his wake, as well as a daughter who'd barely known him and a mentally challenged son. As he said tonight, he runs away. It's what he's done all his life and it was what he was doing tonight.

Both David and Ian like the trappings of success - the flash cars and lifestyle, the trophy women - but Ian grafts for the lot and David cuts corners. David runs away, and Ian - until now - has picked up the pieces. Both are weak men.

I was glad to see Ashdown, freed from Kirkwood, indulge in some consistency with David tonight - the memory of Pat being a less-than-perfect parent with David's recollection of thinking every mother smelled of brandy because Pat did, the nod about Carol's being honest only when it suits her. That's true as well, because we know that she lied to him about Bianca (as well as Bianca lying to Ricky about Tiffany). There was even a clever nod to Ashdown's retconning of the Brannings over the years with David's remark about Carol getting her "brothers" to beat him up, upon learning of Derek's "untimely demise."

When David first learned that Bianca was his daughter, Pat and Pauline called a conflab in the launderette to get to the bottom of the matter, closing up shop and summoning Carol and David to tell their respective sides of the story. David relayed the fact that Carol's three older brothers had beaten him up. 

As the years passed, we eventually arrived at the situation where Carol had one older brothers and two younger ones who'd have been little more than toddlers. Go figure. Even the ludicrous show-down in January 2012 between the Branning men and David, for no real reason whatsoever other than to reveal that Jack may or may not have aided Derek in disposing of a body (an interesting piece of information which was never followed up) was a cack-handed allusion to Derek beating up David whilst Max and Jack nipped his ankles.

There was another strange interlude tonight in David's scene with Tiffany, another unbearable child. I find it difficult to fathom that Bianca's children seem to be unaware that Ian Beale is their great-uncle or that, indeed, Bobby and Tiffany are cousins. It doesn't help facts that writers increasingly make Bianca refer to Ian as "Ian Beale" when even as recently as a couple of months ago, Ian openly acknowledged that Bianca was his niece to Carl and he pointedly reminded her that she was family. Yet Tiffany is not only unaware that she and Bobby are related, she's further unaware that her grandfather is Bobby's uncle.

Go figure that one.

Still, yet more consistency reigned here. When Tiffany opined that Ian Beale wasn't nice and asked David if he agreed, David disagreed. Harken back, once again, to David's departure in 1996, when he went to try to make peace with Ian, in light of him having destroyed Ian's marriage. Ian handed him his arse, reminding him that because of what David had done, he'd lost Cindy and two of his children. David was chastened. Far be it for him to acknowledge Ian was a bad man when David was part and parcel of the way Ian is today. A big part of Ian's problem with Bianca is that she is David's daughter.

It's going to be interesting to see David within the dynamic of the Beale clan now that the twins are grown and Cindy's other daughter is on the Square. Another interesting connection for him is his step-sister Janine. (I keep reiterating this, but people need to realise that Janine is also Phil Mitchell's step-sister too).

This is why the element of consistency is important in continuing drama: history. Unfortunately, this has been lost through Kirkwood's and Newman's incessant pandering to the millenial element, embodied fully in the dire Digital Spy contributor Zack06, for whom no character's history is relevant to the present. This, more than anything, has been the programme's major problem in recent years.

Keeping this in mind, David's scenes with Carol played out in Pat's old bedroom, where she died and where he romped the beds with Carol (and where she hoped to romp the beds with Masood), was totally in character with David as the dodgy, insincere player that he is.

He doesn't love Carol, and he didn't come back for her. The letters he wrote were, most likely written when he was at a low point. He stopped by to give Bianca money and to leg it, with the leggy blonde. He was toying with Carol, raising her doubts about her relationship with Masood, and - once again - playing mind games. David has a thing about women in other relationships - it's what attracted him to Cindy, it's what attracted him to Simon's wife, it's what attracted him to Naomi and now that Carol's in another relationship, he's got an urge to bust that one too.

As for this relationship with Masood, interesting that Masood wouldn't touch alcohol because his faith proscribed it. Well, his faith also proscribes intimacy with infidel women, which is exactly what Carol is - and David is right. For anything serious, Carol would have to convert; because Masood's sleeping with her defiles him. Does Carol or do any of the writers, Ashdown included, know this?

That, and the Beale malarkey were the only weak spots in this episode. I actually liked the character of Naomi, and I hope the actress gets her wish and returns. In fact, I liked the character of Don, her husband. Now that's the sort of opposition to the Mitchells that's needed in Walford.

A good welcome back for David, as long as he's not Grandadded down and settled with Carol. As harsh as it seems, Naomi was right. She's a frump, and as for her being David's ex, there's been a lot of bulls crossed those cattle guards since that time. It's a sad thing to say, but Carol's one of the more promiscuous women characters on the Square, and she's old enough to know better.

David has to remain a player and not be weighed down under the confines of a cardigan, slippers and reading the grandchildren bedtime stories.

Let's see what happens.

Ronnie and James

It's obvious that some of the idiots defending Ronnie on Digital Spy don't understand why Broken Arrow (who is not I, I hasten to add) has said that Ronnie didn't look after James properly.

Having had a few kids, myself, let me explain.

First of all, newborn anythings - puppies, kittens, lambs, elephants - are born without their body's heating mechanism intact at first. This is why pups, kittens etc nestle next to their mums and it's why, in hospital, newborns are given incubated beds and wear heating caps to keep their body temperatures up. Coming from the womb to the outside world is a shock to the system and it takes a few days to acclimate.

Secondly, it's rare that hospitals allow first-time mothers home within a day of giving birth. Please don't throw that shit at me about Princess Diana or Kate Middleton. This is my point: Diana went home to a bevy or nursemaids and nannies. Middleton went to her mother's house. The point is that, in both cases, the new mother would have had a strong network of physical and emotional support. In case you don't realise it, giving birth is pretty hard work, and the first inclination, after the first feed, is to sleep. Labour isn't called "labour" for nothing.

Hospitals are concerned, especially with first-time mums - and that's essentially what Ronnie was, despite Danielle - that they have good support at home for the first few days or weeks: a dad on paternity leave or family close by to be on hand to help with the baby so the new mother can rest, because that's what she needs as well.

Jack was away when James was born. Ronnie returned to the flat with Roxy, who offered to cancel her New Year's arrangements with Christian and stay with her sister. Ronnie refused. Glenda had made herself scarce. When the Brannings visited later in the day, Carol offered her help, and you couldn't have asked for better help than Carol, who's had four babies. Again, Ronnie refused.

Almost immediately she came home, she was seen parading the baby in his pram around the Square. This is a one day-old infant, who should have been wrapped warmly in his bed in his heated home. Remember his bodily heat mechanism hasn't kicked in yet. And his mother is squiring him about Walford on a cold December day.

As for the falling asleep in another room, that was unforgiveable. A newborn would have needed a couple of feeds and nappy changes during that afternoon, and most mothers make extra certain their newborns are in the same room with them all of the time. Ronnie was also tired from giving birth. No one's forbidding her rest time, but there should have been another person watching over and checking on James from time to time, to see if he were sleeping, needed changing, needed a feed, was breathing. Instead, Ronnie went to sleep in the afternoon in the lounge of the flat and woke up near midnight. The heat had gone off, because she shivered as she woke.

Of course, no one can explain cot death, but you have to question what would have happened if someone like Carol or Roxy had made regular checks on the child whilst Ronnie slept, waking her for a feed or even discovering his apnia. Ronnie was too caught up in the idea of having a child to replace the one she "lost" than to actually think about the heavy work involved in dealing with a child.

Words of Wisdom from Nurse Ratchit

I normally don't agree with this poster on the Bully Emporium, but I do respect a lot of her views, because they do make sense.

Nurse Ratchit (Mrs B) writes:-

Whether or not Dot has been bigoted or ignorant in her life is neither here not there; Sharon behaved in a wholly thoughtless and selfish manner. Regardless of her work pressures, she should be putting proper child care into place, not dumping her son on an old woman and taking advantage of her good nature. Denny is displaying appalling behaviour, mainly due to the fact that he is lost and alone, his mother just drags him from one home to another, nearly marries two men, so no wonder he is kicking back albeit in a hideous way. The child instinctively knows that his mum is blind to his behaviour, by stirring the pot he gets full attention from her. Phil made the point an ep or two ago when he suggested to Sharon that she sold her share in R & R and concentrate on being a mother to her son. I know that she is a single mum, but is working nights in a club the only option for her? And before I get a whole shed load of abuse about criticising a single parent set up, I grew up in one and I know full well the pressures involved.

This is actually the crux of the problem with Denny. Most children aren't inherently bad, and most behave badly for a reason. Denny is all alone. He's bonded quickly in the past year, both with Jack and with Phil, both men with whom his mother had history and relationships. He probably bonded quickly with John as well.

Letitia Dean wasn't wrong in her interview back in 2012 when she described Sharon as a lost soul. This is a woman who, not only is a single mother, she's totally without any adoptive or blood family to offer emotional and psychological support. She was a widow who had a posthumous child. Her adoptive parents are dead, her adoptive sister is with her own mother and family, her biological family rejected her years ago.

Sharon only has Denny, and he only has her. But she has to provide for him and often this means what appears to him to be neglect.

Should she have organised child care? Of course, but then, Alfie and Roxy shouldn't be downstairs in the pub and have Amy and Tommy upstairs on their own, now that Jean has departed. Even then, we had scenes of an evening with Jean in the pub as well, and you wondered who was minding the kids. Remember what  happened to Amy when Ben and Jay were "just downstairs."

As for her options of working nights, I don't imagine she worked every night. Surely, there were times when Janine would have been on duty at the club, and certainly Phil. Last night wasn't there something about RoNostril buggering off with Jack at the last minute and Joey being unable to cope? I don't imagine she works every night.

But yes, Denny is acting out for a reason, and if other people in the Square - people like Ian, Dot and Phil - can't see that Sharon is struggling and without any sort of emotional back-up,then they should think again - above all, Phil, whose actions seven years ago resulted in Sharon's isolation. 

Just a Wee Word about Racism

In respect of this thread going haywire on Digital Spy, anyone who excuses casual racism as ignorance is as ignorant as the so-called casual racist and is actually a racist, him- or herself.

For the record, Britain in the 1980s was struggling to come to terms with its ethnic minorities. Google the Toxteth riots. Google the BNP's jackbooted "Paki" bashing from the 1970s.

When EastEnders depicted such racism in the 1980s, they were doing it for a purpose: to show that it was wrong. Somewhere along the line, they lost their nerve.

So Dot's "ignorance" and the fact Jim Branning locked his son in a coffin overnight as punishment for having a black friend (when that son was originally written a decade before as having racist tendencies, himself) isn't forgiven by the fact that within the past decade, both these characters have been written as lovely, curmudgeonly pensioners.

They were originally racists.

Since the two commentators on Digital Spy and the twentysomething whose screen name is Nevermindme on the Bullyboi Emporium, excusing racism as "ignorance" are most likely white and/or Celtic to the core, I'd suggest they leave their white privillege as well as their arrogant millenial attitude that anything that happened before they were born or can remember is irrelevant at the door.

The Return of the Native - Review: 26.09.2013

With apologies to Thomas Hardy:-

And thus the Beales grow in number, for make no mistake, David Wicks is David Beale, brother of Ian, son of Pete and Pat.

An interesting return, if done properly and not retconned as Bryan Kirkwood did. For there is no such endless love as Carol and David. No. They are not this generation's Pat and Frank, and I'll be sorely disappointed if they've returned David Wicks just to settle him down with a cardigan and slippers, playing paterfamilias and Grandad to Carol's Granny.

David Wicks is a dodgy businessman, imprisoned for tax fraud, a player like Max Branning. David only turns to Carol for comfort sex - in the 90s, he sought her out after being caught fucking his brother's wife, Cindy Beale, when he was being shunned by his mother and aunt and waiting for his step-father, Roy Evans, to organise his exile from Walford (he later went onto screw his other brother's wife in New Zealand). When he returned in 2012, his comfort sex came at the expense of his mother's death.

He is also a commitment-phobe. He is the darker Beale brother, and where Ian has his demons, so does David, but of a different sort. Now he's back, his brother's there, not only with Cindy's two grown twins, but also with Cindy's hirsute other child, Cindy the Greek.

Here's some of Boy David's types of women, like Sam Mitchell, for instance:-

Or the big bang that David caused when he banged his sister-in-law, Cindy:-

You know, Sharon wasn't the first to bang two brothers. Cindy had her beaten by a country mile. She banged two brothers and a step-brother. 

Then there was this little mistake:-

In fact, as a treat to all those numpties who think EastEnders began with John Yorke, or the 2.0 brigade who think the good stuff started when the retconned Branning brothers and the equally retconned Mitchell sisters ruled the Square, here's a slice from 1996, when David Wicks left the Square the first time. Harken, ye, unto the quality of the show then - and this was when the show was going through a bad phase.

Now do you get what David is? And in the world of EastEnders, leopards don't change their spots.

At the end of that episode, I actually found myself glad to see him back, but I'm sure they'll Grandad him down to the point where he's as unrecogniseable as Sharon - after all, both he and she are from the hinterlands of EastEnders' glory days, and David Wicks is that unspeakable object of derision at the moment on the show - a man.

NicNac Paddywhack Give the Dog a Bone ...

Most of the filler storylines tonight, leading up to the return of the prodigal son of Walford, concerned characters who have been axed, which probably means that their departure is imminent.

Ajay was given the closest thing to a storyline when the bloke who left his wife because she wanted children bonds with Kamil (easily the cutest kid on the show) and has an epiphany moment, realising that he really does want to be a father after all. 

My guess is that he'll leave to try to reconcile with his wife, after spending a year filling up the ethnic quota on a politically correct show, never having had any proper character development or nary a soupcon of a storyline. He spent most of his time stumbling about, half hungover and dragging an earphone from his ear. Who created this guy?

The other filler concerned Poopy-La-Dim and Alice, both of whom are for the chop. Fatboy really should be as well, but chance would be a fine thing, since DTC created him. He's another stereotype, which really doesn't exist in the real world. I almost beat the television screen in tonight, so annoyed was I at his incessant cackling.

(Fatboy laughing)

l know some of the segaioli fanbois love her, but the passive-aggressive bully known as Poopy-La-Dim is an awful character. Shallow, insipid, insincere and maddeningly irritating, I hate the way her only way is Essex and in love. The stupid made-up card game, only to properly unite Tamwar and Alice got far too much airtime.

The only interesting thing to come from this charade was Tamwar actually admitting what was putting him off getting more serious with Alice, and what probably did him in with Afia. He's self-conscious about his scars from the fire.

This was the story which never was. Remember Kirkwood's PR blurb about Tamwar being horrifically burned in the fire, in the face, and having to face plastic surgery? Well, for "face" read "back" and that storyline never got off the ground. So are we to believe, via the last uneasy bedroom scene between Alice and Tamwar that she's actually that shallow as to be repulsed by his scars? She's hardly sexually experienced, herself, having only bedded creepy Michael once, and she's only just started drinking, it seems.

Gosh, I actually remember when Tamwar was full of droll wit and zingy one-liners. Come to think of it, Roxy was like that once as well.

Sharon's Biggest Problem ...

Is Dennis.

OK, time for a history lesson now for all the Shannis-shippers on Digital Spy wailing about how Sharon wanted to be a mother for years. Bullshit.

The whole ethos of Sharon, juxtaposed to Michelle, is that she didn't  want to be a mother. One of the earliest difficulties she had with Grant, after marrying him, was that he wanted to start a family immediately and she wanted to focus on the Vic. She pretended to go along with his wishes, whilst taking the Pill on the side. (You surely didn't think the Bradley-Stacey situation was original, did you?)

When Grant found out, he smashed up the Vic.

When she left Walford in 1996, she was pregnant by Grant, and as a means to sever her ties with him, she aborted the baby, which led to the ludicrous infertility storyline (which could have netted Sharon several million bucks from suing the abortion clinic that supposedly botched her termination). Actually, that was a stupid storyline. The only way something like that could have happened would have been if Sharon had had a late-term abortion. Let's not even go there.

The Shannis Miracle Baby was a retcon, which - had Tony Jordan had his way - would have been the secret son of Grant Mitchell.

Still, the kid is bringing her down. Why?

Because we never saw Sharon through her pregnancy, the way we did Tiffany Mitchell or Kathy with Ben, or Bianca with Liam or Cindy with the twins or even Lola with Lexi, for those of the more recent hue. We never saw her as the mother of an infant or a toddler, the way we saw Tanya or Zainab. In short, Sharon returned with a six year-old child in a role most long-term viewers didn't recognise.

Dennis is the pretty child of a pretty man. And consider this: Sharon's adoptive parents are dead. Her biological mother rejected her, and she doesn't know her two biological brothers or her biological sister. She never found her birth father. She has no one in the world as blood kin, really, but this child; and she's the only relative he's got. He's had no male role model. She, herself, was a spoiled and feted child. She's bringing up this kid the only way she knows how - by being over-protective and deluded.

However, Dot is one to talk, considering she brought Nick up under almost identical circumstances - without any emotional or psychological support and a husband who was off getting her sister up the duff.

It was wrong of Sharon to impose upon Dot, who could have said no to her last-minute request. But it was also wrong of Dot to continue drinking in front of the kid and to assume she could smoke in front of the child. Yes, that's her home, but you can also bet your bottom dollar that her Branning relations - Jack and Tanya, for example - stipulated that she smoke outside, whenever she babysat Amy or Oscar.

The kid, however, is obnoxious. He was obnoxious from the get-go. Yet another self-conscious stageschool kid, and I'm almost certain they've lightened his hair. This slow-burning storyline has to be leading someway, and I think it's going down the route of wanting a father-figure in his life. That's got to be it.

I did think the scene between the kid and Dot was contrived and badly written. I'm not a believer, myself, but hearing Dennis proclaim that he didn't believe in God or Jesus was quite jarring - inasmuch as this was a replay of the obnoxious Simon Barlow's remarks almost word for word in the wake of Sunita's death to Adi Alahan. His questions were too peart, and Dot was half lit by sherry she was drinking because she knows she's out of her depth with this church warden crap.

The writers aren't taking Sharon down the bitch route as "character development". It's simply that this crop of millenials and Hollyoaks rejects don't get the character. It's also that the child is also bringing her down. I know that TPTB will never have the balls to kill the kid off, but at least, let's dispense with the awful Harry Hickles via recast and have a new Dennis who's seen little and heard even less.

Masood Goes Chav.

I'm sorry. I don't buy Carol and Masood anymore than I buy Carol and David as Love's Young Dream.

There's absolutely no way Masood, a practicing Muslim, would consider any sort of relationship with Carol, who's one of the most venal (albeit likeable) characters on the Square. Masood presiding over a household where Whitney the Walford Mattress brings back a bevy of young bucks to bed in succession? Where Tiffany's mouth rules? I thought the scene where she and Morgan spat their garlic olives back into the bowl was disgusting.

Nope, Masood and Carol are Newman's tip to the fact that, like Ian and Denise, they're two unattached characters who are roughly the same age dynamic and, therefore, were spliced together to make up for the couples that Kirkwood destroyed.

And then Grandad returns.

David BEALE deserved better. Still, Michael French looked good.

Final Observation: This is for the Sharon-Haters band, currently led by EastEnders 2.0 reprobates Zack06, Joe-Zel and the boi who's right hand is his best friend, klendathu.

First of all, it's fine in a debate to bring up Dot's hypocritical parenting in the past, because she was just as bad in defending Nick as Sharon is with Dennis. She defended Nick when he murdered Eddie Royle, an innocent man. In fact, Dot went out to buy heroin to feed Nick's addiction the night he escaped his home and killed Eddie. 

Not once, but twice has Nick returned and tried to kill Dot, the last time in a storyline created by Jesus Christ, himself, DTC, when Nick returned with Dottie and, inconceivably,Dottie plotted to kill Dot. Dot forced Peggy into throwing a fundraiser for a wheelchair-bound Nick when Nick wasn't crippled at all.

We can also take situations further - like Bianca's refusing to discipline Tiffany and Morgan when they sabotaged and vandalised Zainab's property, instead laughing at her; or Ian Beale disregarding his wife and allowing Lucy to lie to the police about who shot Jane, then letting his demented son who perpetrated that crime into the Beale home. Or how about the ultimate, the Mitchells, encouraging Sam to escape the country instead of serving time in prison for being an accessory to the murder of Den Watts? Or King Phil covering up Ben's killing of Heather? Or Max knobbling Lucy Beale to get her to drop charges of assault and criminal damage against his precious Lauren?

Let's see ... has Sharon done anything like that?

Shut up.

Well, He's Not the Messiah Then - Review: 24.09.2013

Here's a song to welcome Dominic Treadwell-Collins into the fold - don't get any ideas from the song, Dom!-

Well, he's not the Messiah. Nor is he a very naughty boy. Because we know now from the spoilers that Poopy-La-Dim is leaving next week or so, which means that Newman was probably responsible for her demise as a character. These actors have to get and give reasonable notice - like about six months or so. It's in the nature of the show's plans and in their ability to organise their own professional lives. It's also in tandem with the Kirkwood-Newman regime of not advising who was leaving until they'd actually finished filming - like Zainab and Jean, remember?

So, it's probably safe to say that Rachel Bright has known for sometime that her contract wouldn't be renewed. In fact, it was about - yep - six months ago when she took the blurb about EastEnders down from her Twitter description. Chucky Venn did the same thing, as did Matt Lapinskas - months before their departures were announced. That's the sure-fire way of finding out if a character is leaving.

Equally, I'd also say Jasmyn Banks has known a long time about her departure as well. At least, probably since Steve John Shepherd announced his departure. And since Ajay is featuring more and more, you can probably bet Newman handed him his P45 as well. Daniel Coonan, late of the RSC, was probably on a six-month contract, and for weeks now, Kierston Wareing has been hinting she's not for the long-haul. With a budding indie film career on the rise, this stint was only ever going to last a year.

So that probably means that DTC's real axings were Clare Perkins and Cornell S John, and that - being true to form in EastEnders 2.0 - he opted to keep the "yoof" factor and go with the stereotypical urban black yoof (with no ethnic friends) in that singular non-talent that is Khali Best. Hey, the young viewers have to keep the seats warm for all those deserting long-term viewers who've jumped ship.

Let's just hope that Mr Treadwell-Collins remembers that EastEnders did not begin with John Yorke and that Archie Mitchell and his daughters were DTC's one retcon he's allowed. More importantly, that since he's gone on record as saying that Sharon is his favourite character, that he remembers that, were it not for Sharon, he'd never have been able to create RoNostril Mitchell.

Digest those thoughts. In the meantime, this episode was absolutey piss poor.

Fathers and Sons.

The storyline isn't worthy of the song, because ... really ... Ava, Sam and Dexter, who cares?

This was cheesy, especially the contrived bonding moment in the Vic kitchen between Dexter and Sam, complete with an attempt at what was supposed to be a poignant conversation between a son and his long-lost daddio. Instead, it was cliche'-ridden and maudlin, even including symbolic language ...

And there was light.

That butt-clinchgingly embarrassing line symbolised Dexter's supposed epiphany being shot down by his noble savage father, who wanted to save his son suffering. (Cue Cornell S West's bad impersonation of Billy Dee Williams) ...

West can't act to save his arse, and one wonders why he is being allowed to stay on whilst his equally embarrassing parents are leaving. I suppose Ava's confrontation with Sharon was too much for her delicate constitution, because - according to Sam - the Magic Negro wasn't working that day, but here's some neat pieces of retcon which didn't really answer the story of Ava's background.

Sam told Dexter that he left him and Ava because he (Sam) was too weak to be a father and a husband. OK, does that mean Sam and Ava were married? Ava was also 28 when Dexter was born, which meant she would have been teaching some six years. So, based on what Sam said, he and Ava were married and in their late twenties when Dexter was born. Ava was a teacher; Sam was a builder. Sounds pretty much middle-class and affluent to me, some twenty-one years ago.

So what was all this shit about living in a squat in Croydon when Dexter was born?

Please, EastEnders, stop, stop, stop pandering to low-brows and the xTonix's of this world - the people who need to keep a dictionary to hand when watching this show to the extent that they think "matriarch" and "patriarch" are made-up words, much less actual concepts.

Next, we have the irony of the best scene in the programme being the one which made the least sense - the garage scene between Jay and Dexter.

Succinctly put, that was the biggest load of codswollop ever turned out by a young male character on the programme. It serves to reinforce the fact that Jay is both not very bright and extremely narrow-minded, but we've known that since his scene during Teen Week with Abi the Dough-Faced Girl. The cafe scene was pretty naff as well, bringing the Anodyne Gang into theh situation concerning Dexter's dilemma. Once again, that only served to make Jay's ignorance glaringly obvious.

Jay doesn't think someone can live with only one kidney? Well, we know he's wrong. But his speech to Dexture was an amorphous mixture of ignorance, arrogance and cowardice. What? Don't get to close to your parents because they'll die? Why not approach it from a parent's angle as well - don't get too close to your children because they might die as well? Think how well that attitude would sit with people like Max Branning, Carol Jackson or Patrick Trueman.

Only a few months ago, Jay was castigating Dexter for his rejection of Sam, reminding him that he, himself, would give his right arm for five minutes with Jase Dyer, and now he's saying that if Jase needed a life-saving kidney transplant and Jay were a match, he wouldn't step up to the plate, because that would bond him too close to Jay, who was only going to die someday anyway, so why waste the emotion?

Look, people die - sometimes before their time, but they do. That's no reason for anyone associated with these people to step back from getting involved emotionally. That's life. That's the risk you take. Anyway, the bond, the love between a parent and a child is supposed to be unconditional. Jase wouldn't have hesitated to donate an organ for Jay. He must be turning in his grave to know his son is such an ignorant little ingrate.

Maybe it's time Jay took a walk away from Walford.

Alice Magdalene.

Can't you just hear Alice singing this?

Obviously, this is the beginning of the end of Michael Moon, and so he's setting the snare for Alice as his unwitting accomplice.

Now this is bizarre.

Because, as I said previously, Alice went to bed with a hangover and woke up to be fully "groomed" by Michael Moon. Not several weeks ago, she was pushing for a relationship with Tamwar, of all people, and now she's jumping to Michael's beat - ignoring Tamwar, treating him like shit, just on the say-so of this psychopath.

She really is mentally unstable. But then she's supposed to be.

The always watchable Charlie Brooks (didn't she look fabulous?) nailed it when she accused Michael of "grooming" Alice. Janine is no fool this second time around, and I wanted to smack Alice's smug face when Janine warned her, in no uncertain terms, about what it's like to be sucked into Michael's dark side. No one will be a winner there, much less this silly girl.

I decided, when I watched this episode that I was really glad to see Jasmyn Banks go, if only to be shot of those awfully ill-fitting veneers, which look more like a set of dentures. They make her character look sillier than she is supposed to be, but maybe that's the idea.

I feel sorry for Himesh Patel, with the hatchet job they've done on Tamwar's character. Is he emotionally insecure and socially gauche? Yes, but they've taken this to extremes, especially with Mas's flippant observation - by no means literal - that women mean the opposite of what they say. Bad advice, Mas. Advice like that, taken ver batim, could lead to a rape accusation. Still, I was glad SillyKnickers found that Michael had been "screening" her phone calls and messages. He's obsessing over and manipulating Alice now, because he needs her to get the other "object" he wants - Scarlett.

I'm glad the show is ridding itself of one of its two resident psychopaths. I just hope it rids itself of the female of the species.

Seen and Not Heard.

This is for that awful pair of stageschool kids, Bobby and Tiffany.

OMIGOD, I just realised he reminded me of Harry Hickles in ten years in that video!

Denny, Bobby, Tiffany, whoever ... the less seen of any of them, the better.  Tonight's garbage was a contrived scene to have Carol swoon over Masood's paternal wisdom to theh awful Tiffany, who appears to be on the cusp of puberty at ten, when the actress is really twelve.

Of course, all this is a subtle heralding of David's return and the retcon Kirkwood created of their undying eternal love story that wasn't.

Just get Sam Mitchell back and sniffing around David and we'll see how much he wants to be with Granny Carol.

Same shit, different day.

Witches, Bitches and Psychopaths Abounding - Review:23.09.2013

The AxeMan cometh. DTC has begun to wield. First, we had the news that Kirsty, Carl, Ajay and Poopy-La-Dim were for the chop, then we got told that The Magic Negro and Sam the Sham will be on their merry way.

Two-thirds of Treadwell-Collins's terminations are valid - Ajay was simply a casting to fill up an ethnic quota, Poopy was a ridiculous blend of caricature and passive-aggressive bullying, and Ava and Sam are characters without thought, history or direction.

But I'm a bit suspect about Kirsty and Carl, and I'm wondering if this is more of the actors, themselves, deciding to call it a day, rather than the fey Mr Treadwell-Collins calling time for them.

Keirston Wareing had and has a budding indie film career on the rise, and recently she has openly expressed a desire not to be a long-term commodity within a soap opera. Daniel Coonan is RSC;once again, he might want to return to his stage roots rather than risk becoming a staple in a "continuing drama." Still, I'll be sorry to see both go.

Kirsty was an interesting character, in whom the Executive Producer somehow lost interest along the way. The false pregnancy storyline, where there wasn't an episode for about four weeks where we didn't see Kirsty writhe around in bed was the death knell for the character. Carl was the most nuanced male character introduced into the soap since Max Branning. Add the fact that we met his mother and brother - both of whom were interesting (especially the mum) and we had the making of Phil's successor.

The rest, I could care less about. As for Alice, I think the actress has known for awhile that she was leaving. She became redundant the moment Michael Moon showed an interest, and that was after we knew Steve John Shepherd was leaving. Any viewer with a soupcon of nous could have figured out that Alice would figure in Michael's departure/demise and leave thereafter.

What amazes me is that the likes of David Witts still remains.

As for the face-saving lie EastEnders is promoting about Ava being hired expressly for this kidneygate reprise and Cornell S John being a "guest" character ... please, stop insulting our intelligence. Newman waxed lyrical about offering Claire Perkins a permanent position when the actress was only supposed to be a five-episode character, and Sam was brought in for one reason only - the Hartman-James contingent was really the much-lamented "new family."

I'm just amazed they've decided to keep that worthess piece of flesh known as DexTAAAAA on. I suppose now DTC will lunk him, Fatboy, the hapless Tamwar and Jay into some sort of Home for Unwed Men digs.

Move along. Plenty more he could have axed (especially in the young contingent), but I guess they're just too pretty.

The Mitchell Bitch.

I know it's fashionable for all the numpties on Digital Spy and that old irrelevant trout, vald, to pile on the Sharon hatred, but I've got some news for them: EastEnders didn't begin when John Yorke became EP, and Sharon was never the tragedy queen Berridge and the Shannis-shippers made her to be.

The problem with Sharon this time around comes from the writing and the fact that most long-term viewers are unfamiliar with seeing her as a mother.

For the record, Sharon never "longed" for motherhood. Like Peggy, her baby was the Vic. When Grant "decided" they'd have a family, Sharon balked, even took birth control pills on the sly, and when Grant found out, he ripped the Vic apart. (You surely didn't think Bradders and Stacey were the original of that storyline, did you?) She later aborted Grant's baby. She refused even to adopt a child with Phil, and never once mentioned regret at her "infertility" with Dennis.

The unrealistic pregnancy was a sop to Shannis-shippers as an apology for killing their idol off.

Unlike Bianca, Zainab and Kat, we never saw Sharon pregnant, never saw her give birth or nurture a small child, so to have her suddenly sprung on us as a mother is an uncertain sight.

RoNostril, on the other hand, is someone who thinks she is entitled to be a mother, but who really isn't capable, emotionally or common sensically. I mean, who the hell takes a day-old baby out in the cold of December and swans around with him? The kid still had his incubation cap on his little head. Or who puts a day-old infant down in one room, then falls asleep in another room all afternoon, waking to find him dead?

And here's another revelation: RoNostril owns jack shit. The fact that Phil asked her to "look after" the club doesn't mean she's "entitled" to his majority share. She owns nothing of that business. She sold her share of the club to Jack in 2009, who sold this onto Phil the following year. Roxy sold her interest to Janine, and Phil gifted 19% of his share to Sharon.

Sharon was in the right to upbraid that plastic-faced bitch and remind her that she was a share-holder. If anything, BotoxWoman should have been helping out with the cleaning. Sharon and Janine have managed that club for the most part, and Janine should really have been there, throwing her weight around the Ice Queen.

RoNostril is exactly what Michael Moon described her as being - a functioning psychopath. She derides Sharon because Sharon dared to become engaged to Jack. She was doing shit to run that club besides having a personal phonecall with Jack about their dinner plans when she should have been helping with the cleaning. She is there as long as Phil says she's there, and then she's gone. Her words to Sharon were out of order, and her giggling bitchy remark about Sharon to Kirsty showed her to be just as manipulative a bitch as she was shown to be with Roxy later.

And speaking of Roxy, how fucking unhealthy a co-dependency does she have with RoNostril? It's almost as if they were lovers instead of sisters. Once again ... Alfie never denied her seeing her sister, just not at the pub. Now we have her lying to the man she's supposed to love and whom she intends to marry. What does she expect? That he'll come around and be nice to RoNostril once they're married? 

All of a sudden, RoNostril's crime is something trivial. She not only took a child and kept him for four months, she left a dead child in his place. There are two cases in the US at the moment, where children who were kidnapped from their parents for several years have been found with their kidnappers - both women who wanted children. Guess what? These women are going to prison for a long time.  Line of the night actually goes to RoNostril:

You know, I shouldn't even be in Walford.

No, bitch, you shouldn't. Nor would you be allowed to be. Where is your probation officer? That person would certainly have made an appearance by now to see where she was living and if she were adhering to the terms of her licence; because make no mistake: RoNostril hasn't "done her time." She's out on licence. Just like Derek. Just like Carl. Just like Bianca.

Indeed, she only came back to Walford for Roxy (and, maybe, Jack). Of course, she did. She never wanted to see Jack until she found out he was getting married; and she certainly psychologically scotched that, didn't she? And, finding Roxy in what is probably her first adult relationship, she's setting about undermining that as well. Roxy can never have a relationship with RoNostril about. You think she'd realise that, but RoNostril's presence reduces Roxy to the emotional state of a 35 year-old child, incapable of making her own decisions. Remember how RoNostril wanted to "raise" Amy with Roxy? Creepy.

Making RoNostril chief Mitchell is like making Michael Moon the ideal husband.

My Sharona and Phil.

After reading various accounts from the ever-reliable Digital Spy numpties, I was pleasantly surprised at the scene between Sharon and Phil. I took it as a positive, and Phil - I thought - was actually showing concern for Sharon and her plight. But defending RoNostril as "family" was a joke, even patronising Sharon to the point of assuming that managing the club would put her under undue stress and bring about her addiction issues again. Worse, was him suggesting that she sell her shares of the club, sit back on her profit and "be a better mum" to Dennis - says the man who raised a killer, wouldn't accept his son's sexuality and then covered his crime, willing to see innocent people be punished for that.

The Mitchell hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me. Had the tables been turned and had it been Kat Moon who'd taken a Mitchell-Branning baby, there'd be no end of recriminations, and Kat would have been run out of town. But on this occasion, Ronnie's "done her time." Oh, so that's all right then.

The Ignorance of Youth.

Well, specifically Jay.

A couple of months back, and Jay was handing DexTAAA his arse about his attitude toward Sam, urging him to get to know and give his dad a chance. Now, when DexTAAAA wants to do something positive and, in effect, life-saving, for his father, Jay's all for DexTAAAA dropping him lie the proverbial hot potato - as well as exhibiting what a dumbass he was.

Fact: DexTAAAA will do quite well with one less kidney, thank you very much, as long as he doesn't do contact sports. The operation won't kill him at all, but Sam will have to live on anti-rejection drugs for the rest of his life. Jay's "read books" about kidney operations. As if.

That lie was borne out when he tried to get Abi to Google kidney horror stories to prove a point he was incapable of making. And the point? That Jay's mates aren't allowed to lay their lives on the line for their parents because Jay doesn't have any parents, himself? You know if that were Jase needing a kidney, Jay would be first in line to donate.

The rest of the youth brigade was boring as usual - poor pitiful Lauren's redemption as the Vic cleaner continues, exacerbated by Roxy's contempt at the fact that Alfie would even hire the kid whose father attempted to kill King Phil; but then, Roxy should realise this about the man she loves: he has compassion for people, something she should show more of. Still, the Gurning Girl was out in force tonight in her blow-off of Joey, so how long before the Vic has a new chef named Jake Stone? As well as a new love triangle (yawn).

FatAbi, well, the less said, the better.

The Newman Negroes: Kidneygate and Sharona.

Who cares? Really? All three are unlikeable. The most surprising thing about this episode was the fact that Ava the Rava was shown at work. A Deputy Head who teaches or did she get a demotion?

The scene with Sharon showed both of them as being as bad as the other. Sam visits Ava at her place of work, which he shouldn't do, on a personal manner, when she's awaiting a parent visit. They're enjoying a snog, when Sharon shows up early. Ava shows her annoyance - unprofessional.

Is Sharon delusional about Denny? Well, no more delusional than Dot was about Nick. She's a single parent, whose husband died violently before their son was born. She's been rejected by her birth family and literally all of her adoptive family are dead. Unlike other mothers of Walford terrors, she has no emotional support or no network of familial support. Sharon has Dennis and he has Sharon. Is the kid likeable? Nope.

Maybe a re-cast is on the cards, but a re-cast Denny should be seen sparingly. Sharon was unbearable in the scene with Ava, but Ava was equally unprofessional. Ava should know Dennis's background - living in a B and B, moving around, no male role model in his life, a peripatetic existence - all have an adverse affect on such a child, but Ava is only concerned with telling Sharon how much of a negative influence her child is on the class - something a teacher never does with a parent; nor do you admit you're having a bad day. Actually, if Ava were so upset about Sam, she should have cancelled the meeting.

Tales of the Unexpected.

Tamwar doesn't know how to ride a bike, yet he spent all of five minutes talking with the Walford Bike, Kat Moon. Actually, one of the better scenes in Monday's episode, was the interaction between Kat and Kirsty. I've always liked that potential friendship, more than the heckling and cacklefest with Bianca; but there's precious little scope for that now that Wareing is leaving.

But what's happened to Alice?

She goes to bed with a hangover and wakes up totally under the influence of Michael Moon. Tam described it as a cult-like dependence - all of a sudden? WTF? Moon speaks and she obeys. Like all of a sudden? One minute she's desperate for her and Tam to be an "item" and the next, she's Michael Moon's automaton.

I suppose that this is a cack-handed intimation that Alice really isn't all there. I'm predicting that she kills Michael with the sharp end of a comb and then goes catatonic, speechless and is sectioned immediately. Shame, her brother's staying.

Not a brilliant episode, but not as dire as some have been.