Post is pinned.Post has attachment
In Friday 9th September`s episode no less than 5 - if we include Paul - characters said bye bye. Wheter Mark, Grant, Courtney and Jay are gone for good, remains to be seen - but Paul most likely, and extremely sadly - is. Paralelly with his funeral, or rather his off stage funeral, we were told - but not shown neither Ben`s speech, or Pam cracking up - we didn`t even get to see who came say farewell to Paul. Rather than spend time and money on a proper funeral, Easteders prefered to spend money on extra cast. Pam`s sister, and Dot`s all gay friend whose wedding she was reluctant to go to.

Wheter it was pure cowardlyness, or wheter the sharp distinction between gaybashers and those who claim gays should burn in hell was a point Eastenders had deceided to make, I don`t know. But from a legal point of view it is interesting that a priest or vicar can freely speak about how morally deprived gay people are, without any risk of being held responsible for their words, should someone take them up on their words and feel it in their right to inflict harm to a gay person, club or whatever it might be. But should a mullah speak about infidels and whatnot, he could not only be held accountable for his words, but for terrorist acts commited by others.

If words from mullahs can make people commit terrorist acts, wouldn`t it then be likely words from priests or vicars - condemming gays - could make people feel justified to attack gays as well, and thorefore the same laws should apply for the priests and vicars, as for the mullahs?

I don`t know how many of you who have read the Bible, but I have - several times. And that is enough to establish as a fact there aren`t any Christians on this planet living fully according to the Good Book. There are not even any religion obeying the words of God in full, as they are said to be in the Bible. Despite the Bible clearly stating as an eternal custom specific sacrifices of everything from pigeons to oxes, "to be burned as pleasant scent for the Lord," that custom ended thousands of years ago. And despite the Bible lists in every detail both the measurements, the materials and the interior of the Lord`s house, not a single church or cathedral in the world obeys those demands, as they are listed. Or do you know of a church or cathedral with a dolphin skin roof?

People have selected and chosen specific parts of the Bible to obey, -and others to ignore - since the Christian faith was born. It is well known that Paul, and Jesus own brother Joseph, who both ran their own congregations after Jesus himself had gone, did not agree on many issues. One of them being wheter or not ALL Christians needed to be circumcized. They finally reached a compromise where Paul was allowed not to circumcize non jew believers of the Christian faith, provided he insisted on all the jews being circumsized. The Bible itself was not originally writen as one book, but is a compilation of scriptures which has survived because monks and clergies have hidden them in caves and such during wars or natural disasters. But since we know very little about the people these scriptures belonged to, we don`t know for certain if those scriptures represented the majority view of it`s time - or just a little sect diverting from that view.
The reason the scriptures remianed in the caves suggests the people who placed them there did not survive whatever it was they tried to protect the scriptures from, by placing them in the cave. So for all we know, there might both be scriptures which yet haven`t been found - or those which were lost forever, cause there wasn`t time to hide anything before the disaster struck. There is simply no way of knowing.

All in all therefore most of the Bible we cannot be absolute sure wheter it expresses the will of the Lord, or wheter man has interfered so much - either by will or through coincidence and accident - the Bible, as a book, conveys more the will of man, than of the Lord.

Still, judging by the focus and condemnation homosexuality and gays are being shown in churches and free congregations all over the world, it is easy to assume the Bible is filled with chapters and verses condemming such orientation and practice.

Wrong.

There are more references to being good to widows and children only in the 4 evangelies alone, than there are references condemming homosexuality or gays in the entire Bible. Apart from Paul in one of his first letter to the Romans, and also one of the books in the old testament, there isn`t many lines who speak directly about homosexuality being against God`s will at all. Jesus, forisntance - in the Christian faith God`s own son - doesn`t mention it once.

Yet, listening to some preachers, clergies and churches, and the passion and convictions inwhich they condem homosexuality and gays, you could be led to think it was written in broad types on every page throughout the Bible.

But it isn`t. So why is it then being singled out to be condemned by the churches, clergies and preachers?

Could it be because it is much easier to maintain their position in society, generate enough income sufficient for the churches and congregations to be fully financed - and keep it`s clergy in comfort - if they point to a minority to be in breach with God`s words and will, rather than all of us?

Would the world truely be a better place if everyone was straight? Or is the disease the Bible was meant to cure perhaps elseswhere? If instead of the actions of others - as homosexuality must be said to be for those who are not gay - the churches and congregations instead focused on the responsebility of each individual Christian to sort out his/her own mess, rather than that of their neighbour, maybe - even if we probably wouldn`t have been better people - at least we all would have been more focused on improving ourselves, rather than looking for faults in others.

Case in point Dot Cotton, the God fearing and kindhearted old woman, but oh so blind to the pain her convictions of what is right and wrong can cause others to experience. She is very condemming of everyone else, but quick to forgive herself her own imperfections, wheter it is a little cherry "for medicinal purposes" or one of her little "ciggies." She so easely find an excuse for herself, wheter she needs a glass of sherry or a cigarette. But when other people is in frame, her faith and convictions are absolute. She doesn`t realize, that just as she needs a glass of sherry or a cigarette ones in a while, other people have needs in their life they are just as dependent on to lead a happy life. So what right does Dot, her church and her likeminded really have to deny them that?

Just as religious freedom grants an individual to believe in whatever he/she believes in, I believe religions should respect each other as equals in return, and defended the individual person`s right to live their life as he/she wanted themselves, and be respected for that choice.

Had we all respected each other`s choices, and regarded each other as equals no matter what, this world would have improved in quality for us all, both as individuals and for society/the world as a whole.

It is the fact certain groups or individuals regard certain other groups or individuals to be of lesser worth than themselves, which is the driving force behind anything from racism and homophobia to crime and wars. The infamous n-word wouldn`t have been interpreted to be degenary, had it not been for the fact those who used it regarded themselves to be above the group they addressed with it. And the act of war would have been impossible to commit one group of people to, if they regarded the group they were asked to attack to be of equal value to themselves.

Maybe, if the churches, clergies and preachers had commited themselves to advocating the commandment saying "Thou shall not kill," with the same passion and conviction as some of them now agitates against homosexuality and gays, the world would have been a safer place for us all?
Photo

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
What is the story with Lee Carter?
-
votes visible to Public
Poll option image
He is loosy at his new job
He is about to overspend money big time
He didn`t get the job - just pretending
Something else - elaborate in comments
54%
He is being bullied at work
0%
He is loosy at his new job
12%
He is about to overspend money big time
30%
He didn`t get the job - just pretending
4%
Something else - elaborate in comments

Post has attachment
Have we gotten the full story from Steven now, or was there something he didn`t confess to Jane? And if not, what info do you think he held back?
Photo
Photo
2016-10-24
2 Photos - View album

Post has attachment
Where you happy with the exit for Les and Pam Coker?
-
votes visible to Public
Poll option image
Paul and Ben should have waved them off
Les and Pam should have stayed on
Paul, Ben, Les and Pam should`ave stayed
other - explanation in comment
53%
Couldn`t have been better
21%
Paul and Ben should have waved them off
7%
Les and Pam should have stayed on
9%
Paul, Ben, Les and Pam should`ave stayed
9%
other - explanation in comment

Post has attachment
Any chance they will be back?

Eastenders the last year seems to have been very keen to reduce their number of regular cast - and even keener to hire cast for as litle as one episode only, like the character of Moose, Lee`s friend arriving for the stag (top right photo) - where he ended up drenching Whittney with a fire extinguisher in the Vic before the stag even had started. The charcter was played by Sam Gittins, probably mostly known from the series Smoke with Taron Egerton.

Other examples are Pam`s sister who appeared for Paul`s funeral, the female H&R representative interviewing Dot, the headmistress talking to Holly and Billy about their daughter and more.

Pam`s sister, the woman interviewing Dot, or the headmistress I wont miss. They had one function, and one function only - help deliver that specific storyline. But with Andy, Mark Fowler and the character of Moose I think there was a lot more ground to be explored and discovered, than the limited specter of storylines they were allowed to take part in, before being written out.

Andy was the best oppurtunity for Ronnie to learn more about the daughter she lost - and with her track record, for her to be sending Andy on his way just because he had lied and stalked her, made little sense. In my opinion Jack Derges was a true find for Eastenders - it wasn`t his fault the storyline used to introduce the character, was so creepy people came to dislike Andy as a consequence. A few little adjustments to his storylines, and I think he could have rivaled the popularity of the likes of Ben Hardy (Peter Beale), David Witts (Joey Branning) and even further back Paul Nicholls (Joe Wicks), Sean Maguire (Aidan Brosnan) and Sid Owen (Ricky Butcher). Writing Andy out, and letting Jack Derges go, therefore was a huge mistake, as I see it. On par with killing off Paul Coker (Jonny Labey).

The character of Moose may only have been intended as a guest appearence. But because of how real Sam Gittins made the character appear, how much of what currently is missing on the square such a character could have brought with him - charm, humour, a little bit of cockiness and cheek - and not the least how excellently such a character could have bridged the lack of knowledge for us viewers in regard to what made Lee the way he is - I think Eastenders should have had the character to remain in Walford after the stag do. Even after Lee has been written out (which I guess will be because of suicide around Christmas) the character should have stayed, in my opinion. Maybe to comfort Whittney - and the two of them falling in love? Or maybe Moose`s charm to the ladies was just a front, and he would find someone like Lee`s kid brother Johnny, Ben or even Stephen more interesting. Even better, what if he and Stephen had "encountered" each other, and Stephen were dead scared of Lauren finding out? Or maybe Moose played for both teams, and was equally interested in Lauren as Stephen?

There are so many ways Moose could have been written in as a regular character, and at the same time provided some well needed charm and cheek to the square - as well as help filling the gaps of - or giving us reminders of - what we know about Lee`s past that in part can explain why he is and acts the way he does.

The last one of the trio, Mark Fowler, I feel also had a very poorly thought out introduction, focusing too much of the attention around the character on who his father was - quite pointless since Ross Kemp only had been signed for a few episodes. I think it would have been much more interesting if Michelle (Mark`s mother) never had written any letter to Peggy, but that Mark, for some reason (maybe a blood test?) had discovered the man he thought was his father wasn`t so afterall. Therefore he had deceided to go to the place his mother had lived prior to comming to the US, hoping to learn enough about his mother to figure out who his father could be.

That quest whould have led him to a former college professor and the former character of Lofty - even Phil Mitchell - before he would have suspected Grant - cause everyone remembered how hostile his mother and Grant were with each other. With such an angle to the fatherhood story, Ross Kemp could have gotten his brief return too - having scenes with his daughter, Courtney, so we as audience learned who Mark`s biological core family were. And after Mark finally had been told (or overheard someone talking?) who his father was. But going to see Grant, arrived to hear from afar his father in one of the altercations with his sister - he deceided he was better off with the father he had in the US instead. From there he could either return to the US - or he could transfer to a London universety to complete his studies there, and get to learn his English relatives and his mother`s background better.

But it seems we have seen the last of these three characters - which I think is a great shame.
PhotoPhotoPhoto
2016-10-16
3 Photos - View album

Post has attachment
Will the men charged with killing Paul be convicted?
-
votes visible to Public
Poll option image
Yes
Pam will get some to change their plead
guilty in some charges - not all
something else will happen - see comment
18%
No
69%
Yes
5%
Pam will get some to change their plead
3%
guilty in some charges - not all
5%
something else will happen - see comment

Post has attachment
As Ellen Thomas (playing Claudette Hubbard) has been announced as the 12th character to be leaving Eastenders within the comming months, others are Natalie Cassidy and Kellie Bright (maternety leave), Roger Sloman and Lin Blakely (Les and Pam Coker), Rita Simons and Samantha Womack (Roxy and Ronnie Mitchell), Nitin Ganatra (Masood Ahmed), Kyle Slater (Riley Carter), Buster Briggs (Karl Howman), Danny-Boy Hatchhard (Lee Carter) and Annette Badland (Babe Carter), and only two have been announced arriving - Neil McDermott will return for a shorter stint as Whitney`s brother, Ryan Malloy and Jake Wood later this year will return as Max Branning - is there a change in approach by the new EP Sean O`Connor to reduce the permanent cast, in favour of more guest and short term appearences, or is the Eastenders budget gradually being reduced?
(Source for the characters leaving and returning Digital Spy: http://www.digitalspy.com/soaps/eastenders/feature/a130011/eastenders-coronation-street-emmerdale-hollyoaks-whos-leaving-returning-joining/)
Photo

Post has attachment
Now that there has past a few weeks, and we have seen what followed after him, what do you think about Eastenders` decission to kill off the character of Paul?
-
votes visible to Public
Poll option image
No, Ben & Paul should have continued
written out, but not killed off
stayed on - but not been with Ben
something else - see comment
25%
Yes, it was time for Paul to go
50%
No, Ben & Paul should have continued
0%
written out, but not killed off
0%
stayed on - but not been with Ben
25%
something else - see comment

Post has attachment
Which former Eastenders has made the most of themselves since leaving Walford behind?

They are a varid bunch the former Easteders stars, one of them have top ten hit songs, and won Brit Awards, anoher have been in the states and done sitcoms and comedy films after first having released two albums and some singles, before returning to the UK appearing in a season of forinstance Scott & Bailey, one has done several tv series (some extremely successful - others not that much) before she went to a soap competitor of Eastenders as a landlady, but now has gone to America, one went straight from Eastenders to a police drama and a few films, and have been on both Holby City for a couple of episodes, as well as guestappeared in Midsomer Murders for an episode, and was also starring in Law & Order UK for a while, and finally one who, after first having played a cop on tv, went on to a play an SAS officer there for several seasons, before he tested out his tough guy routine in full, doing documentaries on gangs and other tough and hard types of people.
-
votes visible to Public
Poll option image
63%
Ross Kemp
Poll option image
13%
Michelle Collins
Poll option image
13%
Paul Nicholls
Poll option image
0%
Michelle Gayle
Poll option image
13%
Sean Maguire
Wait while more posts are being loaded