Right. I have a few points i'd like to riase. Forgive me if they don't seem to be in order, i was thnking of them and going off on tangents.
I'd be very interested to know how this could have ever been thought of as a feasable storyline? Was the death of a baby not ratings worthy enough for you? Why would anyone think 'Oh i know, when she finds her childs cold, lifeless body, instead of howling imhumanely, trying CPR and dialing 999, all the while screaming for her baby, we'll have her mutter 'don't do this to me' and take baby outside and then swap it with her friends newborn, then carry on pretending nothings happened' Why was this not shot down in flames during the planning stage?
Have you any idea, Mr. Kirkwood, of the disservice that this soryline has done to bereaved parents? We are stigmatised enough, people think our loss is catching, people ignore us, people are incedibly insensitive - and now, thanks to your storyline, people will also think that we want to steal their babies. I know it's a storyline, You know it's a storyline, but there are many many peope out there that do think that this is real, that it could happen. Do you remember when Dierdre Barlow was imprisoned in Coronation Street? The 'Free The Weatherfield One' campaign was set up - showing that some people cannot distinguish between a soap and real life events. Life as a bereaved parent is already horrendously difficult - now it has become even more so.
To be honest, i've been very very dissapointed with Eastenders and the BBC's response to our complaints. To hide behind the 'We sought advice from FSID' excuse was nothing short of cowardly and has done a great disservice to FSID - it implied that you had consulted them on the swap part of the storyline, when in fact, you hadn't, had you? Yet you were happy to let people think you had. You knew full well that people were NOT complaining at the showing of a cot death, but at the following baby swap storyline, yet you still sought to pacify the people complaining with a pathetic, inadequate respone that didn't address their complaints at all. What do you have to say to this?
I'd like to know just how stupid Bryan Kirkwood thinks we, the Eastenders viewers, are? The BBC said 'It's not real' when they couldn't hide behind FSID anymore - well if that's the case, why have a tag on the end of the programme which says 'If you have been affected by this programme, please ring this number'? What did the operators on the line say - 'oh get over yourselves, it's not real you know'? No? I didn't think they would.
Why do you think it is enough to say that Ronnies past would lead her character to decide to swap her dead child for her friends live one? Or is it the fact that she has been abused and had other losses in her life enough of a reason - i certainly don't think so. There are many bereaved parents out there that have had horrendous things happen to them before the death of their child - i can't think of a single case where one of them has done what Ronnie did. I'd like to know where you did your research that showed that this could happen? Kat is also a 'damaged' woman, and a bereaved parent, or so she thinks, but she hasn't stolen another womans baby - why not?
You said that you have cut this storyline short - that it had been due to run til Christmas, if not longer - how exactly was that supposed to happen, given that Samantha Womack was leaving in May anyway? Or did you think you would spin us that and think we'd believe it?
You say there is to be a 'Warm and Tender' conclusion to this storyline. How exactly is that supposed to happen? One baby is dead, and buried under another babys name. The baby that it has been swapped for is with a mother who, you'd like to have us believe, is insane with grief, and there is a family grieving for a baby who isn't really dead. How exactly can this have a 'Warm and Tender' conclusion?
I'd be very interested in your response to these points, Mr Kirkwood.