Eastenders Baby Death Storyline

[deemented]

Once again, no one can live happily ever after

Ronnie's baby James, dies and she puts his body in Kat and Alfies son's crib, and steals their baby boy, Tommy.

Why oh why oh why do scriptwriters insist on portraying bereaved parents - mothers especially - as mad and deranged??? Maybe it's because they can't begin to imagine how awful the death of a child is, but really, whilst we are mad with grief, it is our own child that we want back, not someone else's stolen child. When are scriptwriters ever going to understand that?

Still, it'll be a riveting watch, no doubt.

'recent'

It's the interview listed at the bottom of the Samantha Womack interview which somebody has linked.

blimey, i could have sworn i posted a whole different set of words

must be me then

obviously, lunatic, you are the one of the group of wise people i WASNT referring to

(sigh)

Diddll - a number of bereaved parents on this thread have pointed out incidents in popular culture that they feel reflect badly on the pysche of the bereaved parent. That's their perception (one I agree with). In general in this country I think we don't know how to deal with bereavement - we talk about not wanting to upset people - as if our words will send them over the edge and we might cry too and that would be very scary. This stoyline is saying that the death of her child has turned this woman in to a total loose cannon - who can inflict harm on others. It's the bereavement that's done that - small wonder then that the bereaved mums here are upset about that. Don't tell them they aren't being demonised - unspakably arrogant to think your world view trumps theirs.

eh?

wot fucking tales of friendships, fun, and festivities????

does he watch his own show!!

Hi Joni

where did you get the idea EE is "drama"

"unspakably arrogant to think your world view trumps theirs."

I absolutely don´t think that at all.

I see it as a soap storyline & the characters reactions having no basis in reality.

Hello lunatic

but you quoted me, then followed thru with an statement that was clearly at odds with the content and meaning of what i posted.

the latter appeared to be a response to the former?

The BBc is funded with public (i.e. taxpayers) money. The BBC's stated mission is:

"To enrich people's lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain."

This is through all its programming, including dramas. With public money comes responsibilities. Responsibilities the scriptwriters, editors and producers of Eastenders seem to have conveniently forgotten.

Which of the parts of the BBC mission does this Eastenders storyline achieve? It's not entertaining (it would be very very sick indeed to claim babies dying is entertainment). The BBC are claiming it informs and educates. The majority of posters on this thread beg to differ.

The BBC's Charter sets out its 6 purposes as:

" * Sustaining citizenship and civil society
* Promoting education and learning
* Stimulating creativity and cultural excellence
* Representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities
* Bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK
* Delivering to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services"

The last 2 are irrelevant here. This programme has clearly not achieved 1, 2 or 4. So that leaves creativity and cultural excellence. Well, it's very creative, but not in a good way. Given the raft of complaints they had in advance they certainly took a risk (though according to the numerous policy/strategy docs it is BBC3 not BBC1 that is supposed to be the risk-taker!).

The following is from the announcement of the BBC's new strategy in March 2010 by Mark Thompson:

"Firstly and most importantly, it [our new strategy] will bring an unprecedented focus on high-quality programmes. Quality is our raison d'être. The BBC exists to deliver to audiences in the UK and around the world, programmes and content of real quality and value - content which audiences would never enjoy if the BBC did not exist.

...

The BBC will live or die by the quality of its programmes and content. We will retain an unswerving, unwavering, unflagging focus on quality.

...

Our purpose is not to make money, it is to enrich people's lives by capturing the essence of Britain today and making sure everyone can access excellence in programmes and content whoever they are."

I do not think this Eastenders storyline meets that brief for the reasons explained so clearly by the many many posters on this thread, all those who have complained to the BBC, OFCOM, posted on the Eastenders blogs or set up FB groups etc.

The only useful thing the BBC can do now is put up an executive to hold their hands up and say sorry, we got it wrong. I am very much looking forward to a MN webchat on the subject where we can make some of these points directly.

MNs is a site which is well known to be populated by middle class, well educated, assertive women. The sort of demographic who are responsible for getting things done, sorting out failing schools, getting zebra crossing installed, stopping newsagents selling porn and childseyeview level, stopping Primark selling padded bras etc etc,

Yet how many times are we being told to stop complaining because its pointless?

Pointless in who's opinion?

Not mine. If something is offensive, harmful, hurtful, innacurate in the extreme and distressing to a large amount of people - I am really being told to just leave it be?

Why does it bother the few people on this thread so very much that we want to tell the makers of this tripe that we DONT LIKE IT?

Why do you for page and pages try and tell us to leave it alone, its not worth it?

It clearly IS worth it or we would all be so bloody pissed off.

Never mind that I pay a fucking huge sum to pay for the making of this toss.

I really do not understand why I am ging told to stop caring about something because someone else doesnt.

Oh, and when they do crawl out from behind their stone and respond to complaints or actually show their face on MN, they'd better not have the fucking cheek to say that by stimulating public debate through the outrage on threads like these they are doing some sort of public service .

Joyce Epstein of FSID has said:

"We are very grateful to Eastenders for their accurate depiction of the devestating effect that the sudden death of an infant can have on a family."

I think she should come on here to explain her comments.

I'm with you MrsDeVere. If I feel something is wrong I'm like a terrier. I don't care what other people think.

If every young black man was portrayed in soaps as a drug dealer, or if every asian-looking man was portrayed as a bomber, would there not be a legitimate outcry amongst some sections of society?

Yet when women, mothers, mothers of deceased children are portrayed as mentally unstable, depressed, irrational baby-snatchers, they are supposed to somehow...shut up about it?

I know we live in a highly misogynistic society but even on MN???? Come on little women, run along and stop being such silly little things about a soap opera, of course it is dramatic, but it's only pretend, it's not real. Let's not create a fuss, there's a dear.

My God.

Joni -it was before they knew the whole storyline. Read this.

Presumably the BBC misled them by seeking their advice on how Kat and Alfie wouls respond to their baby's cot death, conveniently forgetting that Kat and Alfie's baby actually doesn't die. I don't think FSID were asked to advise on Ronnie's behaviour.

See clues in Shane Ritchie's interview here.

Sorry, scroll down on the link and Shane speaks on the interview (about 1min 48 in onwards)

Hearmeroar - excellent post above and that very thought (re stimulating public debate, etc) did cross my mind earlier today as well!

If this fiction is to achieve its aim of tackling a powerful gritty cot death storyline what we should all be left discussing is raising awareness of the risk factors of cot death and also the family devastation that is left in the wake of a child bereavement - the focus is ALL wrong here - the focus should be on the issue not the shock factor, headline grabbing sensationalism.

FWIW I haven't watched it - there is no need in my opinion to have watched it to entitle me to complain about it - it has upset numerous members of my family just by the adverts and knowing it is 'out there' let alone any of us sitting down for a lovely family NYE and relive the events of my son's death

MrsDeVere - I am with you one hundred percent. Two close friends are bereaved mothers and having spoken to them about this they feel it is adding to the stereotype.

The storyline of cot death is so important, and could be used as a means of getting the nation to look at how to treat parents who lose a child.

My friends have had to put up with some shit. People don't know what to do or say and end up saying nothing/avoiding them/ ptting their foot in it, and a lot of that is because the issue is either not discussed as it too awful to contemplate or like this. Every time. I am sickened.

"The BBC's stated mission is:

"To enrich people's lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain." "

That is interesting HearMeRoar. None out of Four is a bit bad..

I am getting more and more annoyed about this storyline

Having lost a baby you would not just throw away or forgot you own baby

Its pathetic

I am watching tonight. First in 3 episodes. Was anyone else astonished at the new born sleeping on a bed with duvet and pillows surrounding him?

Bear in mind that Ronnie has been depicted as unhinged from the beginning as a women who has repeatedly lostbabies. I can't bear to watch this programme any more. It's horrid.

LunaticFringe

*And?

Are all your posts on a particularly emotive topic absolutely spot on for grammar, spelling etc? I came back and clarified - I can't edit the post so you'll just have to live with being mildly miffed.

Off out now*

(Grammar and spelling???)

But im not clarified.

Sorry to say, but Im not clarified, i dont have a clue what you mean in any of the posts replying to me?