Friday, August 31, 2012

WTF - Review 31.08.2012

If last night was about all that was bad about EastEnders, tonight was all about what was the worst - and one of the absolute worsts about the programme at the moment is its inability to be consistent.

It's one thing to be consistently good; quite another, to be consistently bad. At least with one or the other, you'd have the wherewithal to judge a programme on its merits or its shortcomings, and 'consistently bad' would mean a short shelf life for the programme in question.

It's just that when Eastenders is good, it's very, very good, and when it's bad, it's absolute rubbish. At its best, the programme consisted of very good episodes and the occasional mediocre one. Over the past decade, the show has deteriorated until we now have a gaggle of mediocre episodes, with one or two brief good scenes, the occasional outstanding episode, and then a string of episodes with can only be described as pukeworthingly dire. The problem is that many viewers who have only started watching within the past decade actually think "mediocre" is good, and they take offence when someone of longer viewing mentality criticises the quality.

Jesus, tonight fell into the "pukeworthingly dire" category. You never know what you're going to get when you tune in, especially after a run of genuinely good episodes.

Lorraine Newman's handling of the Ben reveal and the return of Sharon gave some of us a soupcon of hope, but now it's painfully obvious that the inconsistency of quality, writing and performance is all too prevalent still.

What should be done?

Suffice it to say that what was bad about the show that wasn't shown last night was certainly shown tonight.

Tonight could have been entitled "A Tale of Three Bitches ... and Zainab."

Bitch 1 - Kat

 Well, who else? I don't know any woman in fact or fiction who looks like Kat. She's not even a caricature of a prostitute, she is a prostitute of the worst order - an old whore. Easily, the best scene of the night was the brief incident where Shirley caught her sniffing the perfume Kat thought Shaggerman had bought her (later revealed to have been a gift from Alfie) and offered her a few unpleasant home truths.

Shirley was brilliant, and even moreso because, ironically, she didn't realise the type of nerve upon which she'd hit. She thought she was addressing Kat being soppily in love with Alfie, but in speaking of her disillusionment with Phil, she hit upon exactly what would happen to Kat with her Shaggerman: I Love You for these types are only words, and presents bribes to get a woman onside. Food for thought, but even moreso when you think that, the way Kat's going, Shirley is her destiny - a sad, lonely, old lag who seeks the bottle every time she allows herself to be drawn into some sort of relationship.

Shirley walks out on her kids. Kat dumps Tommy on unseen Jean whilst she narcissistically preens and suggestively flirts with a silly group of men who didn't give her the time of day for the better part of this year. She flaunts her tits and excessive make-up with a face like she's chewed a wasp. She's rude and disrespectful to her husband and hasn't a thought for anyone or anything but herself and her pleasure, to which she's entitled because her husband is running a business that keeps a roof over their head. She's entitled because she's a "dirty girl" who dresses like a slut because men smell slut on her. And it's all, all, all her husband's fault.

The only other minor scene of importance to come from this interlude was the brief scene between Mo and Shirley after Shirley's sacking, when Mo asked Shirley why she stuck around when she appears to have lost everything. Shirley cryptically replies that she "knows things." Of course she does, and that's why Phil wants her away from drink, away from the pub and under the same roof as he. Phil is an alkie, himself; and he knows Shirl has abinge drink dependency, especially when she is down or depressed and reaches for the bottle. It's then that she's the most dangerous. Phil's afraid that Shirley will get wasted and start telling all and sundry of his part in covering up Ben's murder of Heather.

People on various fora remark upon their hatred of Phil Mitchell. At the moment, Phil's at his lowest ebb, but the residents of Walford still drink at the pub he owns and get their cars serviced at his garage. And, he even owns a share of Max Branning's car dealership.

The rest of this football storyline was just shit, and the fight was embarrassing, with a lot of red herrings thrown in to confuse the numpties about the identity of Shaggerman. Max isn't in the pub, but ends up hurting his hand. (It's not Max). Michael exchanges lingering looks with Kat. (It's not Michael. Indeed, I'm at a loss to understand what the fuck all of this is about). Then there are the horny look exchanges between Kat and Jack the Male Slut. (It's not Jack).

It's DEREK. And anyone with a bit of nous would know this. Derek acted easy and natural, totally at ease in Kat's presence, giving nothing away. Derek is the seasoned scoundrel, con man and professional bad boy. A manipulator. For anyone thinking that Derek isn't the type to leave a romantic message written in lippy on a bandage, think again. Derek has been in prison fourteen years, his first romantic encounter upon release was with Rainie Cross, a woman who made Kat look like quality. He's not fussy, and he's probably, at heart, a romantic whose idea of beauty would end at someone as faux tart glamourous as Kat. He probably thinks he's hit pay dirt that she's receptive (and that she hasn't asked for payment in return).

Believe me ... Eastenders have a habit of revealing the culprit as the least likeliest of persons to have committed a deed. Think Darren Miller with Heather. Think Dirty Den and Michelle. Shaggerman is Derek.

And whoever thought up this stupid storyline should be taken out and slapped. (As well, whoever thinks this storyline or the football ones were "exciting," the words "pander" and "sad" were invented for you. And, yes, vald, I'm pointing at YOU).





The fight in the Vic and the banter before were just pathetic. Most of those characters, until recently, had never interacted with each other. They had no associative history and it showed. Was this storyline idea Kirkwood's or Newman's? It's obvious that it hasn't worked and is being ended sooner, rather than later; but I do wish that EastEnders would stop propagating this shit about Kat being the be-all and the end-all of competence at the Vic. She simply isn't.

She's just a slapper and a bitch.

Bitch 2 - Lucy


 If Kat is a selfish, narcissistic bitch, Lucy qualifies as just a stupid bitch. I'll say it again: Lucy didn't even realise that Ben wasn't a Beale. So anyone that stupid isn't going to recognise the fact that her father had a breakdown, and it's clear she's been filling Bobby's head with shit that wide-mouthed horny toad has been scamming her about fathers.

Bobby wants a relationship with his father, but Lucy's ensured that he's inclined to view Ian as unreliable and undependable. What's wrong with letting Bobby help Ian on the stall? It's almost as if Lucy's ashamed of the stall, which really was the beginning of the so-called Beale Empire. The look she gave Ian when she walked by to nab Bobby was one of pure hatred as well as a bad smell. She knows that Bobby responding to Ian would give Ian leverage and help with his mental improvement, which might mean the old Ian would emerge and her little power game would be at an end.

Oh, wasn't it Bag o'Bones Beale who smugly stated that "this generation" of Beales wasn't greedy? Her bony ass - speaking of which, I was hoping Ian would use his six tens to crunch the bones sticking out of the rear of her too-tight jeans.






I am waiting for someone to smack the shit out of her. At least, tonight, she kept her mouth shut.

Speaking of smacking ...

Bitch 3 - Tanya

If anything, tonight's episode shows how Sharon doesn't work with the newer characters on the show, the majority of whom are Brannings. That whole forced scene of Ian introducing Sharon to Tanya (again) was so contrived. Yeah, we get it: get a character who is one of the two remaining original characters on the show to introduce the other original character, just returned, to a leading member of the producers' newest, biggest and currently the most important family. Not the most popular family, mind you, but a benediction from Sharon, who is linked by marriage and friendship with OLD Walford would legitimise the Brannings.

It's also clear that TPTB are lining up a Sharon-Tanya friendship. A Tanya-Sharon friendship simply would never happen. Sharon wouldn't concern herself with someone so shallow and blatantly upwardly mobile, a social climber who's nothing more than scrubbed up white trash; and Tanya would, at worst, be intimidated by Sharon, at best, jealous of her.

The dialogue and Sharon's behaviour were so incongruent with the character in general. Actually, the truest and most believeable behaviour in that sequence was Tanya, and that was sincere. Only Tanya is bitch enough to make snide remarks about someone else's child. Remember she was the one who did so to Alice when she arrived.

Tanya is leaving. Lucy and Kat need to go as well - if not by their own volition, then by producer's action, if need be.

And Zainab

So now we know why there was so much animosity between AJ and his wife and Zainab. I never once imagined that AJ had made a mixed marriage, but I should have realised as he is a non-practicing Muslim. AJ assimilated and married an infidel, and Zainab looked down her nose at the union.

What was it Zainab said Alia called her? Zainab the Pure.

And what is AJ but another selfish, self-victimising bad boy, shirking all responsibilities and kicking out of a marriage because his wife wanted a family, and he was happiest without children. He's a selfish putz, a manchild after his own pleasures. Watchable, nonetheless, but probably infuriating.

More than ever, this means he'll be paired with Denise. Moreover, he'll probably get her up the duff.

Bad end to the week. As next week centres around Shaggerman De Luxe, I don't hold out much hope.







We're Only Making Plans for Derek ...

Well, Nigel, really, according to his song, but we all know Nigel left with a happy ending. Anyway, keep the song in mind, but with "Derek's" name in place ...



Two discussions raging now on Digital Spy and Walford Web Kindergarten are arguing just that - with a nod and a wink to yet another "whodunnit" centering around Derek's death at Christmastime.

OK, let me make myself clear. It's by no means official that Derek is even leaving, much less being killed off, either at Christmas or any other time; but ... the signs are clear that he may be departing.

Consider that :-


  • Derek is the smart money to be Shaggerman
  • Derek has something to do whatever Max got up to in Manchester
  • Derek used Jack to help bury a body when Jack was a copper
  • Derek has issues with Joey and both are seeking to control Alice
  • Derek bullied Lollygag Lucy
  • As Derek is involved in everything, he'll probably either find out that Lexie is Phil's granddaughter or that Phil was in on the cover-up of Heather's murder from the getgo.
I hope this isn't another "whodunnit," although the Official Self-Appointed EastEnders Cheerleader The Queen Vic, for whom nothing about EastEnders is any less than EX-cellent ("a-huh-a-huh-a-huh-oops-I-think-I-just-wet-myself-from-excitement"), is going more than a bit overboard by listing suspects for a killing that might not even happen, which include more than half the bloody cast. In fact, The Queen Vic guarantees that we're all going to be gripping the edges of our seats for another whodunnit (because we all love these, right?) at Christmastime.

I guarantee we're heading for a 'Who Killed Derek?'

After tonight's episode I am so convinced it's heading for that - he's ruining everybody's lives!

And I reckon he will be the one shagging Kat, so her and Alfie will be exposed into the mix...

And the suspects are:

Max
Jack
Carol
Whitney
Tyler
Kat
Alfie
Alice
Joey
Lucy
Anthony (return)
Tanya
Lauren

All right, here's what we know for sure:-

1. Derek has been involved in practically everything and with everybody since he surfaced last year.

2. The Brannings are going to have a big Christmas storyline (again).

3. Shane Richie says that Alfie and Kat are going to have a big Christmas storyline.

4. Perry Fenwick says that Billy and Lola are going to have a big Christmas storyline.

Best guess is that there's going to be a helluva big Christmas storyline and somehow it will concern all of the above - the Brannings, Alfie and Kat, Billy and Lola (and by extension, the Mitchells). It may even result in Derek leaving, but one thing for certain: I don't think EastEnders will be having Anthony Moon, as dynamic as he was, return for whatever purpose, so The Queen Vic can just peel those creamed knickers down from the ceiling right now.

Consider the fact that we had Yusef consumed by fire last Christmas, Pat die on New Year's Day, Heather murdered and now Shaggerman is about to be revealed, I think EastEnders' audience have been, variously, overkilled on sensationalism, the Brannings and boredom throughout the year.

Derek will go, and he'll most likely leave at Christmas; but let's have him just leave, or else get caught handling stolen goods and return to prison, as he's out on licence. 

Apart from annoying 95% of the viewers, he's also managed to annoy just about everyone else in Walford, bar Sharon, and she has yet to meet him. Thus far, he's managed to piss off the following people: Tanya, Max, Roxie, Alfie, Lucy, Whitney, Tyler, Michael, Patrick, Phil, Shirley, Masood and AJ (and that was when AJ was only visiting). Have I missed anyone? Kat? Well, I daresay, he'll piss her off when she's left with a good case of the clap or something else. And, of course, there's Joey.

Joey is just another version of Derek. Joey is Derek before he became Derek, but he's really just as bad - scurvy, manipulative, pouting, unintelligible, brutal, ignorant, narcissistic, obsessed with a sibling - as well as being a far, far worse actor than Jamie Foreman would ever hope to be.

Joey's on just as wobbly a ground as his old man at the moment. After the tweenies initially got over his steroidically-enhanced underwear model's physique and imagining that he could be even as fey and nice as Dennis Rickman, they're just beginning to realise that Joey is quite the smug, little bastard. The fact that he's honing in on Walford royalty by his misguided mistreatment of Ian Beale significantly shortens his shelf-life.

Then there's yet another temptation to administer death-by-whodunnit-at-Christmas, considering the number of people who are going to be taking panto leave during January and February. Suffice it to say, if Derek dies and it's a whodunnit, a helluva lot of Walford residents are going to be on the run. The panto list runs as follows:- Ian (Adam Woodyatt), Phil (Steve McFadden), Alfie (Shane Richie), Christian (John Partridge) and Jean (Gillian Wright). 

Well, Ian, Phil and Alfie would certainly have motive for topping DelBoy, and I suppose Christian could always catch him raping Syed. Jean could inadvertantly poison him with her Sausage Surprise.

Or maybe TPTB will mellow Derek out even further. Now that he's won the lock-up emporium where the Moons were squatting for business purposes, he could turn it into a realy Trotteresque operation, with Derek as a slightly more brutal DelBoy and Joey as the Rodney figure. Rodney's speech patterns would certainly suit Joey's over-sized tongue ... "Wha'we thannan thoo nahhhh, Dewek?"

Look, I buy that Derek shagged Kat, but he wasn't entirely to blame here. She consented. And I buy that Derek knows Max's dirty little secret (most likely, that he's married some Russian prozzie to save her from being deported). I buy that Derek will somehow discover that Lola's sprog is Ben's child, which will surely rile Phil, and that he'll probably get Shirley drunk and find out that Phil covered up Ben as Heather's murderer and that Jay knew about it too. And Michael and Tyler Moon will find out how he ran AntKnee out of Walford.

But, please, please ... let's not have a whodunnit. Not again. If we have to have him die, let's see him killed and let's see his killer. And let his killer be known, reported, arrested and confess to his crime. And let the killer leave for a prison sentence.

Easiest solution?

Joey and Derek argue. Joey kills Derek, witnessed by Alice. Alice, being Alice, calls the police. They come, arrest Joey, he confesses and he's led away. Derek's toast, Joey's gone. Two down from the deadwood list.

Simples.

Our Del is many things - a bully, an arrogant narcissist, violent, family-oriented, but most of all a little man with big ideas about himself (which sums up the Branning clan in its entirety, especially most of the males). It's also a fair bet to say he's Kat's shagger, because why not? The more you peel away the others' involvements elsewhere coupled with the fact that none of the other four suspects would touch touch such a clownish cartooned version of a prostitute as Kat, save Derek, who's also touched Rainie Cross.

But there are also many things of which and whom Derek is not, and there are many things for which he is not responsible. For example, he didn't rape Tanya. He never fathered Lauren. He never had an affair with Cora, which means he's neither the father of Tanya nor Rainie nor even Ava. He never had an incestuous relationship with Carol.

One thing, however, on which most viewers can agree: with Derek and with Joey, we got two Brannings too many, and those are the ones who'll have to be first out the door.


Thursday, August 30, 2012

All the Rotten Eggs in One Basket - Review 30.08.2012

And we all thought the show was doing so well ... that is, until tonight.

Tonight, we saw the understated departure of the vastly overrated Anthony or AntKnee or (in Derekese Annannee) Moon. The Moon Goons were foisted upon us by Bryan Kirkwood for no other reason than he fancied them. They had no character arc, no purpose other than an injection of testosterone which - Kirkwood said - would rival the Mitchell Brothers.

Remember the pitch? "Forget about the Mitchell Bruvs ... The Moon boys are in Walford."

As someone who's watched the programme from its inception, I know that every time an Executive Producer goes looking for testosterone, it's an epic  FAIL.

The DiMarco brothers? Failure.

The Ferreiras? Bombed.

The Moons? Fuggeddaboutit.

And Anthony was supposed to be the smart one.

Forget what I said in my previous review. Tonight's programme illustrated precisely why Matt Lapinskas was released from his contract. The term "in over his head" springs instantly to mind; but Tyler still remains, and one has to ask the question ... Why?

Tonight's episode was a gaggle of characters whom the show would be better served if Lorraine Newman summoned the spiritual balls to ditch.

Anthony, Derek, Joey, Lucy, Katshit ... all featured heavily, and all stank. At least it was Anthony's farewell. The question remains: When will we be seeing the backsides of them all leaving Walford for good - as well as Whitney, Tyler, Lauren, Jack, Bianca and her awful children?

Batshit

Anthony or AntKnee or Annannee was originally billed as the clever Moon brother, the one whom Tyler was, variously, supposed to admire. Instead, TPTB tried to twist him into everything bad that was a combination of Bradley, Jamie Mitchell and - shock, horror - Callum Monks.

He reminded me of this:-




                                                   A Deer in the Headlights AKA AntKnee Moon

His whole exit was rushed and ridiculous. Like Andrew Cotton, he should have simply been allowed to disappear quietly, with no one noticing until months down the line when someone would suddenly enquire, "Where's AntKnee?" As if they'd suddenly realised he wasn't about.

No one noticed him but Alice, and I could never understand why a 26 year-old man cavorted around 18 year-olds who were just a hop, skip and a jump away from being jailbait themselves. He acted like a spotty, self-conscious adolescent. Bradley could carry that naivete with panache. Even Dean Wicks could. But both of them were genuinely eighteen.

Lapinskas was an inexperienced actor hired for the big time who didn't measure up. I understand, as Scrabbler from Digital Spy explains, that the reason behind the hiring of so many inexperienced and very young actors on the programme is down to budgeting limitations - in other words, they come cheap; but I'd rather have a few quality actors in more scenes than a gaggle of untalented, inexperienced and unlikeable youths hogging screentime.

I won't miss him, and quite honestly, his crying scenes were embarrassing. Even now, the actor loses no opportunity to push the buttons of communication whining about how disappointed he is to leave and how he is courting a return. As fucking if. Goodbye and good luck. Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.

Mouthbreathing Denotes Low Intelligence

Get rid of one talentless piece of beefcake, replace him with another. Lather, rinse, recycle, repeat ... e voila' ... Joey Gaaaaaaaa-Lol-lol-lol Branning.




Please, PLEASE ... EastEnders, work with this asshole and tell him to SHUT HIS MOUTH. Honestly, it hangs open ALL the time. And it appears as though his tongue is too big for it. Someone's told him about his voice, however, because now, instead of doing a Steve Owen purrrrrr, he's trying a cross between a Derek growl and Tyler Moon incoherence.

Snippets of his dialogue tonight ...

AntKnee: 'Ello, Joey.

Joey: Gerra-gorra-geera-poker-gurra-garra.

His diction is as bad, if not worse than Tony Discipline's. I know that neither of these manchildren have trained to act - in fact all they did was pose in tight-fitting undies; so all the money the Beeb is saving on higher wages could be directed into a good diction coach for these two worthy dick-shun candidates.

Joey was rancid from the getgo - and the message tonight was: Hey, suckers, we get rid of one asshole, and leave a worse one in his place.

If anyone fails to see that Joey and Derek are one and the same, then you aren't looking. Who remembers how Derek stirred, especially upon his arrival and especially during Jack's custody trial for Amy - winding Roxy up, then winding Jack up ... lying to one and the to the other. Joey is as much a control freak as his old man. Alice is Carol to Joey's Derek. How long before he smacks her across the face?

His aim is to get her to hate his father  as much as he does, but I'm waiting for a tragic epiphany to occur when he realises he is Derek, albeit a younger version, and we'll be treated to an even more embarrassing display of non-talent comparable to the one we saw with AntKnee tonight.

And, please, EastEnders, get it right. If you're going to imply that Joey runs regularly in order to enhance his steroid intake, at least show a bit of sweat as well as grubby trainers. For fuck's sake, he was running on a rainy day, and they weren't even damp. At least Ronnie used to break sweat when she ran around the Square.

It's good to see his control freakery being revealed to Lucy as well, but she's too damned dumb to notice. Where the hell does that toerag get off issuing orders about in the Beale house as well? Thinking Ian should work to pay for his lazy grub-fueled ass.

If Tyler Moon wants to redeem himself in any way as a character, he should deck this beanhead. Or at least smack his mouth shut.

Miss Skeletor

I am sorry to harp on about this, but the actress who plays Lucy Beale is seriously anorexic. There is thin and there is emaciated, and she's the latter. She is a tall girl, as is Jacqueline Jossa; but Jossa is thin and looks healthy, because she has muscle which is toned. Bywater has absolutely no muscle tone at all. The sleeveless tops, the knobby shoulders which look like bad shoulder pants and stick-thin thighs and hips in tight jeans look shocking. This isn't weight jealousy, this is concern. Witts looks as though he could snap her in two.

Anyway, Lucy is still a stupid little bitch, who can't think for herself. She shoves a pork session off with Joey because she "has to work." But now, according to Joey, her empire is taking up too much of her time and she needs to get a life and let Ian slave for them. So she sucks up his idea. She's another mouth-breather too.


  

 As well as ...




 Not pretty, and she doesn't have a pretty attitude either. I'm not surprised at her wanting to sell the stall, but I can't fathom how that's going to give her more of a "life." She wouldn't work the stall anyway - far too beneath her; and besides, before his breakdown, Ian had hired help working there. One can only assume she wanted Ian to work his guts out between the cafe and the chippy, with the stall unimportant. But remember, this is the dipshit who thought Ben was a Beale, and come to think of it, she's not mentioned Ben's predicament at all, which is strange, since her head was so far up his ass recently.

I'm glad Sharon had some words with her, although I was hoping that she'd smack the shit out of the ungrateful, little bitch. In fact, I'd love to see a resounding smack with Lucy's oversized head wobbling from side to side. 

And Lollygag, love, no, you're not the only person in Walford to be put upon by a father who did a disappearing act. If Sharon, who lived with a missing dad for fourteen years, can't convince you, why not have a chat with Janine, who could equally clue you in on what she suffered ... and I can assure you, both Den Watts and Frank Butcher were far, far worse as fathers than Ian Beale could ever hope to be.

I hope she leaves. She can piss off and all.

The Shagger and the Shagger's Slut

Derek ... and Katshit.

Of course, Derek's Shaggerman. He appears from nowhere today, flush with money, and carries on being Derek.

Katshit, on the other hand, is a pure slut. Her treatment of Roxy was uncalled for- snidely alluding to the fact that she's had more homes than the littlest hobo. Kat's the guttersnipe bitch. More than that, she's the alley cat who'd couple with any old Tom. And she's a selfish slut to raid the till just so she can buy an ueber-expensive pair of shoes. All because Shirley puked on her other pair.

Take note, darlin', If Derek is Joey, then Shirley is you in ten years' time.

I so hope Jamie Foreman's contract isn't renewed, and maybe Jessie Wallace can leave with him because she certainly isn't working this time around.

The Plus Sides

Loads of people remark on Sharon's understated presence. Her writing tonight was the best part of the episode. The ex-Emmerdale writer who did this piece got most of the episode wrong, but he got Sharon right. The more she's around Steve McFadden and Adam Woodyatt, the better she is, and I can see her, in time and over the years, growing into the Pat-type of matriarch. At least, thank goodness, Lorraine Newman isn't foisting Cora down our throats.

Sharon doesn't work, however, with Jack Branning.

The Masoods, as well, were a nice interlude. I like AJ, but I can see where too much of his cheeky, chappy manner might begin to grate, considering that we have several such characters hanging around already. As he's a mechanic, we know where he'll end up ... The Arches. (Not the Archers, who are on Radio 4).

And finally, Poppy and Alice. I'd go so far to say that - bar Abi and Jay - the whole damned shabang of youth could be dropped off one of the White Cliffs, but leave Poppy and Alice intact. They have jobs, they have ambition, and they're likeable. Breaths of fresh air away from the scurvy, entitled, spoiled and lazy-arsed Lauren, Lucy and Whitney.

Awful episode. Hopefully, however, it will reveal to Ms Newman exactly who needs to be axed.
 

 





Walford Web Kindergarten's Bianca Barney

The kids are barneying down at the creche - not the one at the Walford Community Centre, but Walford Web kindergarten. 

All about Bianca, it is. The Other Slater Cousin, one of the few posters on that forum who knows what's what, is talking sense to the deceptively sweet *Betty*, who's a bit of a numptie and a passive-aggressive bully-boy, and who really has to learn to broaden the mind a bit and be accepting of divergent ideas if he's really going to endure university life. Otherwise, he may as well stamp NUMPTY on his forehead as a forewarning to everyone at uni.


*Betty*'s making a lot of assumptions in his blind defence of Patsy Palmer. (Really, what's with the asterisks? Pretentious.) In point of fact, TOSC is right. Palmer does take liberties, and she doesn't take her role seriously. She wants a part-time job, at a full-time wage, in order to allow her to spend more time with her young children, but at the same time, maintain the comfortable lifestyle, the au pairs, the private school educations and everything else in the style which a continuing role in EastEnders affords her.

For *Betty*'s information, here are the facts surrounding Patsy Palmer's employment:-

  • Yes, she was forced to begin her maternity leave early at the end of 2010, when she unexpectedly went into labour early. At that point, she was on maternity leave, which - by law - is expected to last (with pay) six months.
  • She realised, during maternity leave, that her contract would be up for renewal. When she realised this, she immediately contacted TPTB (i e Bryan Kirkwood) and informed them that she didn't want to renew the contract - i.e, she would not be returning. Patsy Palmer, in a statement released by her agent amidst all the panic-stricken and various stories promulgated by Kirkwood, confirmed this. Short story: She was gone. She was not coming back for the foreseeable future. In fact, she statement read that when she was ready to return to EastEnders and if they still wanted her, she'd be back. Deliberately vague and with the posit that, by burning her bridges, she may not be afforded a way back. Fair enough.
  • The fact that Palmer never seriously intended to return was evidenced by two things: - in February 2011, she stated publically that she didn't miss Eastenders at all and wasn't fussed about coming back. (Palmer has a reputation for dissing the programme, remember.) And ... she fell pregnant again later that year. Regrettably, she miscarried; but had that pregnancy remained viable, there would be no way we would have seen Bianca return, except in a brief piece, swathed in a puffa jacket, surrounding Pat's death.
  • Instead, Palmer bagged the real deal ... a so-called "working mother's contract" which allowed her to film for six months, and then to have six months - coincidentally, incorporating the school holidays - off.
This is the pisstake to which TOSC alludes: such a schedule renders Bianca's character almost unworkable. *Betty* should begin to understand the meaning of analogies (this will come in handy at uni in the critical thinking department) by remembering Eddie Moon. David Essex negotiated a six-month contract with EastEnders. Characters with such a limited screentime and such character prominence, have to be featured at the forefront; and Bianca's heralded return, under Kirkwood, ear-marked her as the loudest of chavs and, more importantly, someone whom the Italians would identify only as a deficiente - a simple-minded chav, who didn't know how or wasn't bothered to discipline her children, someone who encouraged their bad behaviour, someone who didn't have the nous to apply for benefits, who worsened her own situation by driving her husband away. Someone who was manipulated egregiously by a bitter mother, who dismissed Bianca's former blatant infidelity as a "youthful indiscretion" as opposed to her husband's moment of capitulation in a moment of crisis. She was someone who, when given a spare ten quid, bought frivolities rather than real food for her children, someone who entered into dodgy credit agreements in order to buy the latest HD telly instead of new shoes for her children. More importantly, she was finally established as a blatant thief and a thief who robbed from local people. The East End code says you don't rob from your own.

The most common word used in describing Bianca was "vile."

*Betty* is, however, right when she says that Ricky didn't work without Bianca; but she cannot assume that Bianca will work on her own. To what is she returning? She's burned her bridges with her extended family - Ian and Janine - in employment terms. None of her Branning uncles offered her anything, and when they did, it was dodgy - like Derek's illegal electric key. More screaming, more anger issues? In actual fact, during the brief few episodes earlier in the summer, Ricky actually did work without Bianca. It would be far more interesting to watch him perservere as a single dad, rather than watching Bianca misbehave as the immature thirtysomething daughter of Carol Jackson, who acts more like a parent to Bianca's children.

Palmer blindsided Kirkwood to get the contract she wanted, which is pretty unworkable, when you think that writers are going to be taxed with figuring out how to write Bianca out of the programme for six months annually. Also, *Betty* is letting his presumptive ego get the better of him in assuming that other actresses who are mothers of small children may have similar agreements written into their contracts. He particularly cites Jo Joyner and Diane Parrish. I don't think they do. Joyner, in fact, is leaving - actually not renewing her contract - in order to allow her domesticated husband to return to employment and so she can spend more time as a mum to her twins. I've not heard of Parrish having any sort of time off - she's worked pretty consistently since her last child was born.

Palmer simply isn't bothered whether she's on Eastenders or not. She'll return in October or whenever she begins filming after her holiday in Ibiza (which followed a holiday in the Caribbean), be rammed down our throats for six months and bow out in April again. She did, however, say when she broke this past spring that she realises that sooner, rather than later, TPTB may call time on Bianca. Well, good. Let's hope they do. 

I've not missed Bianca, and Kirkwood's last characterisation of her clearly showed she'd outstayed her welcome. As for her children, we've got Stage-School Denny now to compete with I-Know-the-Camera-Loves-Me Tiffany. And that might just be too much to bear.

Good observations, TOSC!

*Betty* ... go to the Numpty Corner ...




Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Troll of the Week

This week's award is a BOGOF - buy one troll and you get one free. This troll is like the two-faced Roman god of drama, because (s)he is really one person masquerading as two - (s)he has a masculine side and a feminine side, neither of whom appear on the same forum at the same time.

This troll, I suspect, is a woman, and she's already managed to shut one EastEnders' forum down. What she doesn't achieve in confrontational commentary on the forum, itself, she achieves by sending vicious, spiteful and highly judgemental personal messages to various members.

The person in question and the alter ego possess a high sense of mid-Twentieth Century morality - with their ideal of women being sweet, motherly and strong in a slightly old-fashioned sense of the word. And history doesn't matter. Thus, a homewrecking hypocrite like Tanya becomes a saint. (Don't ever attack Tanya, the Mother Superior of all that is good). Most other female characters - from Roxy to Sharon - are wanton sluts.

And don't ever disagree with this troll. If Mr Troll is about, he'll call you out in the rudest and most outspoken way. If Little Mrs Troll is about, she'll play the sweet passive-aggressive; but they always agree with each other, sometimes exclusively.

I'm actually surprised John Swallow's allowed this troll residence in the Walford kindergarten, especially since she's a previously banned member from five years ago, back now and practicing multiple identities.

Formerly known on the old Alternative Eastenders' forum as variously Big Gray and Sally and know known in WalfordWebLand as Biffo or Blossom, I give you a double dose of Troll of the week.

Sey, my friend, take note - this is one piss-artist too many.

                                                                      Biffo and Blossom



Please Grow UP ... Why It's Derek

Shaggergate is, without a doubt, one of the worst storylines ever manufactured in Eastenders' history. Seriously, it rivals Kidneygate, starring those charismatic Ferreiras.

Even though I puked at the thought of this whodunnit, because it seemed to want the audience to root for a smelly, old trollop to cheat on her faithful husband, in connivance with this anti-male version of EastEnders, what I enjoy about whodunnits is the exposure it gives to viewers who wouldn't recognise critical thinking it the concept slapped them in the face with a rotten wet fish.

Derek is the shagger.

It was alway only ever going to be Derek.

Think logically.

Affair storylines are usually used as a means by which one character departs a series. A couple splits and one leaves - otherwise, you have the interminable kabuki theatre of a will-they-won't-they return. Until Diederick Santer unwisely broke the mould of splitting couples so one could leave with Stax, this was the norm.

Common sense and long years of watching soaps would tell me that Shaggergate would mean the ultimate humiliation and departure of Kat. The character hasn't worked at all since her return - due, primarily, to pisspoor writing, but also to the fact that the actress hasn't quite got enough of a grip this time on a character she invented, and her excessive use of botox didn't aid in her performance.

However, since EastEnders made Kat, and EastEnders destroyed her for no real reason other than the then-producer's whim, I think TPTB are going to give it one last go at repairing her character; and since Shane Richie has repeatedly said that Kat was meant to be with Alfie or with no one, I think it's safe to surmise that somehow they intend, at least, to try to repair the damage to the couple.

I have always believed that this storyline was only ever meant to implode upon as few characters as possible - namely, Alfie and Kat. Four of the five suspects are either involved in other relationships or are such a character type as to not even consider touching, let alone sleeping with, an old trout like Kat. Yet, in keeping with the fish analogy, I can see why a few were logical red herrings. However, were the secret shagger anyone other than Derek, the lives of several characters would be affected.



  • Ray: In a relationship with Kim and employed by Alfie as a chef at the Vic. The only reason I sorta kinda wanted it to be Ray was the joy at watching Kim smack the living shit (and botox) out of Kat's foul face. And Kim can pack a punch. Not only would that have scotched their relationship, plus the faux and phony friendship Kat and Kim have, it would also have marked Ray as a creep, who wouldn't be above doing the dirty on someone who'd given him a job off the street. Besides, TPTB had such obvious innuendo between Kat and Ray that the numpties on DS and Walford creche were screaming that it had to be Ray.
  • Max: Again, a red herring as Tanya is leaving shortly. Yes, Max is having women problems, and, yes, Tanya will leave him when he's caught out. But Max knocked back Roxy, and Roxy is miles above Kat in class and cleanliness. Max simply wouldn't go there. The shaggaflat was too obvious a hint as well - not to mention Max's oblique reference to money problems and asking for the address of a flat from Derek. Max's women problems, I surmise, lead back to the lost months he spent with Derek in Manchester; and it wouldn't surprise me if Max were married. Max is not the shagger.
  • Jack: Disabuse yourself of any "touching" notion that Jack and Kat are bonding over Tommy. That's the biggest load of bullshit going. Tommy is not James, and Tommy is alive. Before the football storyline, Jack had drunk in the Vic for donkey's days and not given one glace Kat's way. Besides, he's sniffing around Sharon at the moment.
  • Michael: Another red herring, planted at the time of Janine's wedding, when Kat fabricated a drunken one-night-stand into a full-fledged love affair. Plus, Janine is leaving - easy to reckon that she runs away from yet another Slater nabbing her man. As if. Janine would stay and fight. The fact that a lot of screen time is being built around Janine's PND paranoia about Michael having an affair and tying in with her trust issues in general only means that EastEnders is emphasizing this for Janine reasons only and nothing to do with the Shagger storyline. Michael is not the man.
  • Derek: Derek has the least to lose in this. He's not married, and it's been ages since he's had any sort of sustainable sexual relationship. His last foray was with Rainie Fox, and if Roxy is miles above Katshit, Rainie is just below her, so we know Derek isn't choosy. He also has questionable taste and might find a woman who dresses like she belongs in a lower-end brothel attractive. He would rent a flat for a tryst, and he's be, oddly, cornily romantic enough to send flowers and write a declaration of his love on a bandage in lipstick. Derek is old-fashioned and probably a romantic at heart. Also, Derek has an axe to grind with Alfie after Alfie scammed him earlier in the year; and if the whole affair went tits up, he'd be cheek enough to tell Alfie he'd done him a favour.
Finally, as I said, since affair storylines usually end with someone's departure, and it's getting pretty obvious that, unfortunately for the time being Ms Wallace isn't going anywhere, I'd say having Derek as the secret Shagger is one of pointers to a possible Derek departure at Christmas. Also, I think Lorraine Newman realised how deeply unpopular this storyline is, which is why she's calling time on it now and making the Shagger the most unattractive suspect possible. At the end of the day, she's made this storyline the beginning of Kat's redemption (cough cough), so I suppose that's something positive.

Shack Crapiola

Scott Maslen is a nice enough guy and seems very pleasant in interviews; but he's not the best actor. In fact, his acting style is reminiscent of the following:-


On the other hand, there's the growing problem of the Branning family, itself. Literally growing.

One of the things I dreaded most about Sharon's return would be the inevitable linking of her with the Brannings. Let's face it, everyone on the Square is inextricably linked with the Brannings or one of their satellites in some way. And with the introduction of Cora's long-lost daughter, they're about to become multi-racial. How long before an American or a French or even a Polish cousin is brought into the fray?

Jack Branning was brought into the show for two purposes - purposes which no longer exist:-

  • To emphasise the sibling rivalry dynamic between him and Max and their relationship with Jim, who promoted the rivalry.
  • To have sex with Ronnie.
In the first instance, although the rivalry existed from the getgo, Jim's part in all of that was never fully examined, as John Bardon suffered his stroke shortly after Scott Maslen started filming. Besides, their differences were inexplicably resolved over a bag of chips. In the second instance, Jack not only had sex with Ronnie, he had sex with and impregnated her sister and her cousin. He's also had sex with Tanya and her sister. Jack's really a walking penis.

He's also become the resident sexy mature male in the show, especially now he's donned a Don Draper special haircut.

But Ronnie's long gone, and there are no women around Jack's age who aren't related to him with whom he can couple - and if there are (like Denise), they have too much taste. Before she opened her big gob and got suspended went on her break, it was rumoured that TPTB (i.e. Birkwood) were planning a shagfest for Jack and Katshit (AKA Jessie Wallace). Just as well it didn't happen. The pithy excuse of then bonding over a child Jack thought was his son and her mooning (pun intended) after a child she considered dead was too sensationalist for words.

Besides, Jack likes his white trash scrubbed up (like Tanya).

Jack's hanging around with nothing to do but shag nameless women who pass through the burg and play football, and blonde, ex-Mitchell Sharon is returning. The shallow side of TPTB make the obvious pairing. Sharon is pretty, has a Mitchell connection and is available. She is also a Walford icon and he walking symbol of original EastEnders. Of course, the Branning proponent amongst the production staff is salivating at the prospect of real Walford royalty copulating with a member of the family of pretenders who are spreading through the Square like a bad rash. 

Shack would validate the Brannings. Shack would bring them on par with the Mitchells.

But wait ...

Jack is not Grant. Jack is not even Dennis, and let me tell you, Dennis was not the love of Sharon's life. Dennis was a plot device, conjured up on a moment's notice when Steve McFadden decided to take a year-long sabbatical.

Dennis wasn't even Sharon's type. He was the first in a string of what's become Walford's traditional pretty boys. The difference in Dennis and the current bunch is that Dennis was played by a passable actor (who laughed at the character off-screen). Dennis was younger than Sharon and weaker in character. 

Believe me, it showed.

Consider what would have been had McFadden stayed that year: Sharon forced to choose between her lover, Phil Mitchell, and dear old dad, Zombie Den. Both men playing mind games with each other. You wouldn't have seen Den Watts make Phil Mitchell cry like this:-


For whatever reason.

Dennis was weak and easily manipulated - by Jack Dalton, by Andy Hunter and by Phil. Sharon knew that and didn't trust him. So the perfect Eastenders' love story was lacking in trust. Had the union survived, it would have been squelched - child or no child - by Sharon's constant need to protect and look after her husband as well as her child. I always likened Jane Beale's emotions toward Ian as maternal, and I recognised this with Sharon toward Dennis as well.

Sharon thrived on a relationship of equality. This is what she had with the Mitchells, especially with Phil Mitchell. The chemistry is abundant between their characters, even now, on the screen.

That is lacking with Jack.

In addition to stamping a seal of approval on the Brannings as the first family of Walford (something that would be a definite nail in the coffin of EastEnders), the only other purpose a Shack relationship serves would be the embodiment of a shallow ideal that only a pretty woman can couple with a pretty man.

An interesting initiative for EastEnders would be an exploration of Jack's bent copper days, when his past comes back to haunt him. Instead, he's got to reprise his role as a wooden-topped Dr Love. At the expense of Sharon.

Worthy of noting that the only Branning with any depth of character and who's as watchable and as nuanced as Phil Mitchell is Max Branning - arguably the least physically attractive of the bunch (bar Derek). 

Update:-  Oh, and by the way, matthieus of Walford Web creche, Jack is not "now with Sharon." Man up ... a one night stand and a kiss does not establish a relationship. If you recall, Roxy slept with Jase Dyer once and kissed him afterward, and they were never a couple. The same for Carly Wicks and Jake Moon.

People who are either too young or too shallow to consider that someone like Sharon could even consider having a relationship with someone like Phil or Grant Mitchell really need to learn that charisma and attraction ofttimes runs more than skin deep.

Essence of Shack: She slept with him once - and that scene was difficult for me to comprehend because it was so much outside the character of Sharon as to be almost alien, but I'll buy her suffering and desire for a bit of comfort sex. Then he bet her a kiss that she would stay. She lost the bet and complied. It doesn't mean they are going to be the next thing to light up Walford. You know what happens when you set fire to a piece of wood.

Update II:  And Will Slater-Mitchell, Sharon didn't stay in Walford after Sharongate and face everybody down. She left shortly afterward. On Christmas Day, as I recall, after Grant terrorised her into signing the divorce papers by literally getting in her face and marching around the kitchen table breaking plate after plate. She was shunned by all in Walford except Michelle and Pat. Perhaps you're confused. Pat, after Patgate in 2000, stayed in Walford and faced the peasants down.








Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Another Day in Branningville Review: 28.08.2012

Tonight the stars of the show were clearly Janine and Jay, plus a nice little surprise interlude.

Wanna know the interlude?

Alice and AntKnee. Seriously. I've never ever been a fan of the Moon Goons, but this attraction between AntKnee and Alice is something that is just too little too late, and I'm seriously wondering if the wrong Goon brother was given the push.

Consider the couple known not-so-fondly as Twitney (or Shitney, depending on what kind of mood I'm in). Remember when they were literally being forced down our throats at the beginning of the year? Remember the abhorrent Moon party when Whitney acted like a real chav and wanted to fight the Lollygag Beale bag o'bones? Remember the dodgy lock on the door of the bathroom, Fatboy's sket moment and getting dumped in the R and R?

It was butt-clenchingly cringeworthy. And who can forget EastEnders' twenty-seventh anniversary episode featuring Whitney, Tyler and balloons?

How many viewers can put their hands up and say they could hear Bryan Kirkwood demanding that we like Whitney and Tyler?

Actually, Alice and AntKnee work. His fling with Amira was awful, and maybe in this instance, the actress is carrying the piece; but given some good writing, the couple had something in which the audience could invest. Nice young couple, a girl who isn't a loud-mouthed chav or a slut who'd sleep with anything with a pulse and a fella who's willing to wait until the right moment for the right girl, up against her loutish father and brother. A couple to root for, but it all ends next week.

I see David Wittless has developed a vocal range of sorts, and a faux Cockney accent. He's obviously been taking steroids diction lessons from Tony Discipline as well, because he's bloody unintelligible when he speaks. And, please, Eastenders, will you tell him to keep his mouth S-H-U-T.

It's unattractive and off-putting. He is a mouth-breather, and if he's got an adenoid problem, then I'm sure the production team would give him time off to nip down to Harley Street and get it sorted. Or else I want a scene where Joey swallows a fly and chokes on it. They should ensure that "There Was an Old Lady Who Swallowed a Fly" is played as Joey's theme song every time he appears on screen.

Anyway, Joey is resembling his old man more and more. His control and devotion to Alice are creepy at best. In fact, all the natives on various fora are clamouring for a Joey the Toad-Lauren the Gurner liaision really need to wake up and smell the coffee. Joey's gaga for his sister. Well, vice is nice, but incest is best, and the Brannings certainly are sleazeball inbreds.

The Brannings were everywhere tonight, like a bad genital itch. Seriously. Even when they weren't involved with a storyline, their presence was felt. More on that later.

Sharon and the Brannings

Honestly, I'll say it now. If Lorraine Newman is even thinking about pairing Sharon with Jack, she should be taken out and slapped. Jack's been at a loose end since Ronnie left. He's superfluous since the departure of the Ice Queen, so maybe he should bugger off and buy an ice cream van. Scott Maslen is a nice man, but he's wooden, and together he and David Witts are like two planks in search of cuprinol.

Maslen ups his game against the likes of Jake Wood, but Letitia Dean is an EastEnders' icon, and she shouldn't be used just to justify the continued existence of a plankey actor simply because he's handsome and supposed to be a romantic lead and she's pretty. It's simply using Dean's character as the ultimate symbol of what EastEnders originally was to justify the awful Brannings as what it's become - a gaggle of loud-mouthed, gobby chav women and men who sleaze about and who can't keep their dicks in their pants. And mark me, there's no bigger male slut on the Square than Jack Branning.

Sharon should go get tested. Immediately. And Jack should go visit one of his several children dotted about the Continent.

The last scene was positively pukeworthy. No chemistry whatsoever, and Scott Maslen's cultivating a nice turkey neck.

Whilst we're on the subject of Sharon, her character still works best with the the characters she knows best - Ian and Phil. Her scenes tonight with Ian were just so natural and flowed really well. I'm not buying into the Sharon-the-Lost-Soul bit, but I suppose she's still grieving Dennis-the-Plot-Device. Yes, she loved him; but the viewers all know that Dennis was weak, and she was the one who carried that relationship. Had they lasted, eventually she would have tired of him and vice versa. Sharon likes equality in a relationship, and she's only ever found her equal in Phil ... and vice versa.

As for DamienDen ... my constitution is having coniption fits at the thought that very soon, Harry Hickles will be joined on screen by the amazingly obnoxious Maisie Smith. Denny meets Tiffany. Not one, but two amazingly obnoxious drama school kids. All we need now is for R Leanne to visit from Wetherfield and bring Simon down to play. 

I'd want to cut my throat.

The kid needs a haircut, and FFS, she speaks to him as though he's a three year-old. Whoever writes this does not have children.

Jay and the Brannings

I'm 100% sympathetic to Jay's plight, and more than anyone involved with the Heather fiasco, he's showing and has shown remorse and guilt. But that doesn't eliminate the fact that, even though he was bullied by Phil to stay onside, Jay, himself, admitted that part of the reason he covered the crime was his devotion to Ben and the Mitchells.

I believe he's sincere in what he told Abi, but Abi is very young and confused by everything that had happened, as much as Jay is. Viewers know he did, indeed, try to stop Ben, but things happened so fast that intervention was impossible.

What was the height of hypocrisy was chavvy Tanya and chavvy Cora decreeing that Jay should stay away from Abi, that she was better than he. I wonder what Abi would make of the fact that not only did her sister attempt to kill their father, her mother did also - as well as killing her own. Tanya has no right to take the moral high ground with Jay. As well as suffering from a distinct lack of tact in tonight's episode.

(Big hint: her remark about Cora's firstborn means Ava's on her way.)

Janine and the Brannings

Janine, apart from Jay, is still the most sympathetic character on the programme. She's easily suffering from PND and the pressure of dealing with a young baby for the first time. She's also still reeling, I think, from a lot of the treatment she got in the run up to her wedding - specifically, the incident with Jean and the threat by Cora, who was bloody awful tonight.

Tanya was actually quite likeable when she helped Janine and reminisced about how hard it was to deal with Lauren and how Max got the easy end of the deal. But she didn't need to reveal her suspicions about Max having an affair when she was dealing with Abi. That set Janine's insecurities off once again. And Michael is bloody annoying in this instance, almost treating Janine badly in a deliberate way, as he's such a control freak.

FFS, if he'd bought a necklace "as an investment" for their child, why the hell didn't he show Janine? What was the purpose of hiding it like that? I feel for her deeply. What was totally incongruous to this scene was Tanya's presence, especially after she was bitchy to Janine, as well, duringn her pregnancy.

Katshit and the Brannings

Well, we almost know that Derek is the shagger. And we saw an excellent example of Kat's spousal abuse tonight as she threw her shoes at Alfie because he was busy and couldn't take her out, as he'd promised.

Her compassion to Shirley's plight was short too. All she's worried about is seeing the fat porker who's porking her. Slut.

Really, if Lorraine Newman wants to make her mark, her first task should be to thin out the Brannnigs. Her second task should be to thin out the Hollyoaks contingent.
















With Friends Like Shirley

There's a brilliant discussion going on at the moment on Digital Spy about whether or not Shirley should have grassed Phil in order to get justice for Heather. Most of the contributors make valid and articulate points. On the other hand, there were two contributors who keep making ... well, pretty inane points, really.

It's a really great thread, and it got me thinking about Shirley. Almost the entire ethos of her existence since March has been an undying quest for Heather's killer and anyone involved in her murder to be brought to justice. But even Shirley has admitted that part of this quest is out of an inate sense of guilt she feels at having repeatedly let Heather down on her side of the friendship. In fact, she let Heather down as late as 24 hours before what was supposed to be her wedding.

Shirley let a lot of people down.

catsmeow, troll and Ignorati of the Week, refuses to judge Shirley (whilst sitting in judgement on Sharon) because she claims not to know or want to know Shirley's history. Not only is that stupid, it's sheer bullshit.

Shirley's history reflects what she is today. Shirley and Heather were friends, but - as Heather referenced many times - whenever Shirley caught a guy's eye, Heather became a nuisance. Shirley was the sort of best friend who dropped all the girlfriends when a guy came along and expected to be welcomed back into the girlfriend fold when the guy dumped her. Shirley dumped Heather when she got involved with Kevin; and Shirley dumped Kevin and the kids when being a wife and mother became too much of a bore for her.

In point of fact, Shirley's abandonment of her children and of Kevin was never explored sufficiently. Dean was a baby when she left, and James was disabled. Was she suffering from PND? When she returned some eighteen years later, it was obvious she was still in love with Kevin, who'd shouldered all the hard work in raising the kids. She didn't even know James had died. Yet she expected Dean and Carly to welcome Mummy with opened arms, and she was bereft when Kevin died in her arms, thinking only of Denise.

Yet Shirley left her husband and children in the 1980s in order to take up with Heather again as a couple of ageing party girls. And that's how they lived - Heather, the eternal child, doing her mummy Queenie's bidding, when she wasn't doing Shirl's. And from time to time, Shirl abandoned Heather for whatever man happened to take her fancy.

It's often been referenced, grudgingly by Shirley, that she "looked after" Heather. In fact, on the last day of Heather's life, she snarled at her that she "wasn't looking after her anymore." Heather was a surrogate child; she actually devoted more love, care and attention to Heather than she did her own children. And when those children showed up, Heather was quick to display jealousy, as she did when Dean would frequent their flat.

Then, there was the infamous time when Shirley left Heather and infant George homeless on a park bench in order to look after a drug-addled Phil Mitchell - not to mention the bullying efforts Shirley undertook to get Heather to abort her child. In fact, I seem to recall her bitter words to homeless Heather as she led Phil away being that Shirley was neither Heather's nor George's mum.

Of course, we all know that Shirley was hopelessly in love with Phil, that she lived with him even knowing that he didn't love her. She was there in that household by grace and favour of Ben's approval. Phil gave her a roof over her head and status and she gave him sex in the desperate hope that he would one day really love her. She did this, knowing that he could never promise fidelity and knowing that he still carried a candle for Sharon. In fact, her worst dream was Sharon reappearing in Walford - and that occurred at the worst time: when she discovered that Ben had murdered Heather and that Phil had helped him cover up his guilt.

So now, Shirley's anger at wanting justice for Heather is inextricably mixed up with jealous rage toward Sharon and even more anger at herself for having let Heather down.

catsmeow tries to justify Shirley being owed something by Phil for the years she stayed with him, cooking, cleaning etc. Again, that's bullshit. Shirley profited from being Phil's squeeze. It was a power and an ego trip for her. She went from being an ageing slapper to being First Lady of Walford, the so-called natural successor to Peggy Mitchell, without the surname. She connived with Phil to steal the last amount of cash Roxy had and flaunted a fur coat to show for it. She conned another large sum of money from Roxy in order to buy the Arches back from Pat for Phil. But work?

Please.

Shirley and housework mixed like chalk and cheese. When Heather was almost suffocated by fumes in her flat, Shirley offered her accommodation at the Mitchells' as long as Heather cooked and cleaned for them. Shirley sat on sweet Fanny Adams all day long. Her culinary inabilities were infamous. Ben and even Phil cooked better than Shirley. She made a pigs' ear of the cafe.

When Shirley was with Phil, she was Lady Muck.

What's eating Shirley now is not as much the fact that Ben killed Heather, not even as much that Phil covered up for Ben for five months. What's eating Shirley now is that she loves Phil too much to let go of him, and that's a betrayal of Heather's friendship. Again.

After finding the murder weapon, she even hid it at the last minute, after a plea from Jay - who isn't entirely the innocent in all of this either. Yes, witnessing a murder preyed upon his conscience, but rather than break the "family code" of a family of which he wasn't really a part, he kept quiet; and he begged Shirley to keep schtum too. Even after surrendering the frame, she went along with Phil's request and didn't reveal his part in the cover-up to the police.

She remained in the Mitchell house for days after this and didn't leave until Denise and Andrew remarked to her how it looked as if she were in on the Mitchell cover-up as well - or at least approved of it.

Even now as she staggers around Walford, drunk and sleeping rough, her concern seems more to be anger at the fact that Sharon is in Walford and she's walked in a couple of times on private conversations between Sharon and Phil than any justice for Heather. When the Moons brought her into the Vic off the street, gave her some food and a good bath, Alfie offered her something she needed badly - a job: a focus on something other than Phil, a means of earning money and becoming less financially dependent on him. A chance to start over.

But Kat, who's nothing more than a Shirley-in-training convinced her that she should be getting money from Phil, that Phil owed her. So what does Shirley do? Blackmail Phil. Demand money in return for keeping quiet about what she deemed to be Phil's "little secret."

I don't get this. Ben's killed Heather and finally put his hand up. Jay's admitted his guilt in perverting the course of justice too. Yet Shirley knows Phil controlled this entire deception, and rather than screaming his guilt to the police, she blackmails him. More than that, she grieves the loss of her "family."

Shirley lost her family the day she walked out the door of her suburban home and left Kevin with three small kids - one disabled and two who weren't even his. She eventually cobbled together a family from Phil Mitchell's skagends of which Heather was only a peripheral part. On the day Heather was killed, Shirley taunted her by telling her that Ben and the rest of them laughed at her.

Shirley is in the mother of all rages at the moment, but her rage is less about justice for Heather and more about how she is incapable of letting go of Phil Mitchell and even more about her jealousy at the fact that the woman he really loves is now back on the scene.

And please, disabuse yourself of any notion that Phil loves Shirley and thinks love will conquer all by getting her to move back in with him. This is no more proof that he loves her than it is that he doesn't love Sharon, whom he does. It's all about his own self-preservation. At the moment, Shirley is more important to him solely because she holds the figurative keys to his freedom. He either needs her as close to him as possible or as far away as possible. Once he's certain that she doesn't intend to grass him up (and he will realise this very shortly), then his next manouevre is to get her to leave and live with her daughter.

Shirley should, rightly, be ashamed of herself. She's let Heather down yet again. Heather deserved better in friendship.