What should happen now - Eastenders baby swap story

[PotPourri]

MNHQ have done us proud and taken a stand on our behalf. So what do we want Justine to tell the producer should happen now?

My own view: The only way I would accept is to reverse: make it a dream. It could be a from the point where Ronnie finds her dead baby. Maybe a sleeping sedated Ronnie is trying desperately to 'fix' the situation in her dream, but realising that there is no way to fix it. Then it could flash back to what really happened - the sensitively handled real life traumatic event - an unearthly roar, dialling 999, collapsing with grief, being sedated (hence the crazy dream)

And a public apology from the bbc to viewers and licence payers. And an apology to FSID for abuse of their name.

Reversing and admitting they messed up big style is the only outcome that will show integrity

why so cross clubby2.
I am fortunate to not have come across cot death in my family.
One reason I am so against the storyline is that in the world of soap this is the most ridiculous piece of drivel I have ever come across so decided not to watch EE anymore. I'm glad that MN voiced their opinions and the MNHQ wrote to the BBC.

FSID have a statement on their homepage. They make it clear that they advised on the Moon's response and were not involved in the baby swap storyline.

I'm quite sure that those in charge at FSID will ask for an apology if that is what they feel is necessary, and I expect that the BBC will release a statement apologising if that is what is asked for. I find it quite odd that posters on this thread feel that they should be making this demand on behalf of FSID.

Like it or not, ratings for EE are up thanks to this storyline.

Ratings are all they care about and pulling in as many viewers as possible and if anyone thinks that the producers are going to suddenly pull the whole thing over 6000 complaints (many of which have come from people who have openly said they don't even watch the show) they must be deluded.

As someone has already pointed out, Big Brother continued with waaaay more complaints than that over the Jade Goody thing.

I'm afraid that television producers are in a ratings game. A as far as this furore goes, they'll make all the right noises in public by paying lip service to th notion of placating complainants but behind closed doors they'll be viewing it as "there's no such thing as bad publicity".

Good point evil twins.

I guess it's not that we are demanding they do it, we are just thinking out loud about what would put the situation right- not so much us asking, but the BBC doing it (possibly at FSID's request).

We really do not need to lighten up clubby. I am an intelligent person, but hand on heart, for things that I have had no personal experience of, soaps or magazine articles do fill in the gaps - even though I realise it is usually artistic licence or utter tosh. It still falls into the big gap in personal experience and leaves a slight mark. Child abuse/grooming, bipolar is one example of that for me- Bereavement, cancer is not. I do rationally know that Kerry Katona is not the norm, but she is the only real person I 'know' with bipolar, so it leaves an impression that later experiences will challenge/build on.

See what I mean?

The thing is, when it comes to ratings, it's not the Producers who are 'at fault' as such.

Producers want to produce the best show possible. They want to ensure stories are as close to reality as possible whilst still being dramatic and out of the ordinary - for that's what drama is.

I've never known a Producer say 'We'll do this story because it'll be god for ratings'. They may say 'this story will have everyone gripped' BUT in all honestly, that drive and passion comes from the characters and stories.

And sometimes they get it wrong. And the beauty of having a public funded broadcaster is that a) you can complain and b) those complaints can have a direct effect - stories get re-written and re-shot. This would not happen on ITV.

Tis the Channel(s - for it's not only the BBC that are at 'fault' here) that push for ratings. Often the Execs / Series Producers are also battling with those above them.

PotPourri said:

"hand on heart, for things that I have had no personal experience of, soaps or magazine articles do fill in the gaps - even though I realise it is usually artistic licence or utter tosh."

Are you for real? I can't believe that any well adjusted adult would rely on soaps to inform them and fill in gaps in their knowledge.

No PotPourri, i dont see what you mean.Prehaps you need to get the documentaries channels on sky. If you dont like it, dont watch it.Simple as.

"dramatic and out of the ordinary" is pretty much how I'd sum up the EastEnders cot death/baby swap story ifancyashandy

The relaity comes from the fact that, sadly, babies do die and occasionally (very occasionally in isolated incidents) babies are snatched by women who are suffering trauma relating to loss of a child or infertility.

The rest is dramatic licence.

Whatever, it's got a lot of people hooked and a lot of people tuning into EastEnders. Ratings are definitely up since the storyline took off. That's bound to keep most of them happy - series producers, television executives or whoever.

I seriously dount that stalwart EastEnders fans will be put off by this storyline. Most of the people who are up in arms are people who don't watch it anyway.

I've been gripped by it and feel that the actors are actually portraying the feelings of grieving parents very faithfully and very well. Even Bell Mooney says that in the DM and she's lost a child too.

At last GenevieveHawkings, somebody is talking some sense. Thank you. xx

I'm a stalwart fan, well, was. And yes, they've lost me.

No need to insult me. I'm not saying I completely fill the gaps in my knowledge, I'm saying it leaves a mark that is then later challenged or added to. I'm well adjusted, and I do watch alot of documentaries too you know.

The fact is, I hear people spouting opinions based on all sorts of sources all the time about all sorts of topics. Fictionalised represenations of situations add to the exposure people have to topics. And for some people, that may be the only exposure they have had, or may add to another wrong portrayal they were exposed to. It's not just thick people who take on these notions. Which explains why so many of the real bereaved parents on MN lost friends, or were steered clear of in case they stole their friend's baby. It DOES NOT HAPPEN, yet somehow, somewhere these people have been exposed to some subconcious message that it could/does.

oh ffs now they are rumoured to be starting a story off with SYed & CHristian having a surrogate baby. Sigh. It'll all be sensationalised and blah blah.

Maybe Jane will try to steal it, what with the ratings going up at the last baby swap story...

PotPourri maybe you are no longer intend to watch EE as a result of this storyline but people like you will be few and far between I reckon.

And I'm sorry but babies have been snatched by women who have become mentally ill as a result of tremendous personal loss and suffering. Maybe only an absolutely minute, miniscule proportion of the whole number of women who have ever sufferened such loss such as to make it almost negligible but it has happened. I would never say it is a common occurance (which is why I said they were isolated incidents) but they have been known to happen. Such women might not snatch their friends', relatives' or neighbours' babies and most probably wouldn't snatch a baby in the immediate aftermath of suffering a loss but the fact remains that babies have been snatched in the past - however few. EastEnders have picked this up and run with it applying their usual huge does of dramatic licence.

QODneystone why is that FFS? Do gay couples not have babies then using surrogacy?

Perhaps the like sof you would be happier if EastEnders hold off writing any new storylines until they consult Justine of MumsNet?

Heard a colleague say at work today "well, women do really mad things when it comes to babies. Of course that was a feasible line of enquiry" This was in a discussion about CSI episode where the investigators thought that maybe the mum had killed her own baby to get back at her husband for an affair. One colleague (a mum) to another (a dad). Truely, words fail me!

Now genivieve, do you think he got his viewpoint from the sky documentaries, or from his sister that did this, or his neighbour? I don't. And he's a well educated, intelligent, well adjusted guy. Just had some notion that he picked up from somewhere lying latent in his head, that came out. Of course when I challenged him, he did think about it and realised it really was not likely. But on that initial level, course it was likely, he'd heard about it before (like on CSI or Eastenders maybe...)

nono no you misunderstand me Genevieve - i have a dd thru surrogacy just had my entire heart & soul ripped out and trampled on by people ranting about surrogacy after ELton & his hubbies recent baby.
I'm just gutted that I'll be hearing all the "stealing babies selling babies poor mother has to give it up I disagree with it because I know everything about it although I have no experience of it...." etc etc that I've just witnessed.

and yeah bite me re the asking Justine comment...

PotPourri just stick to the fact I pointed out that babies have been snatched - maybe it's a highly infrequent occurance but it does happen and has happened in the past.

EastEnders is a dramatic soap which we all know is only very losely based in reality. As I said before, they took that fact and ran with it - applying liberal doses of dramatic licence as they always do.

FFS even my 10 year old realises that!

Seriously, if people look to soaps for their take on reality then I give up.

I realise that a lot of people are absolutely incensed by this but they need to see EastEnders for what it is.

Does any scripted drama ever really portray anything particularly authentically? I don't think so. I watched a terribly weak drama called "The Little House" on ITV the other week in which a woman suffering post-natal depression ended up killing her controlling mother in law. I didn't see any outcry about that on here but surely not all women suffering post natal depression are capable of killing thier mother in laws are they, no matter how annoying/interfering they may be! What weren't peopele up in arms about that I wonder?

I didn't come away with the impression that all women who suffer post natal depression are potentiual murderers after watching that and I'm sure no one else did either.

Why is it such a big deal? is it about the death of a newborn of the baby swapping part?

Death of a newborn:
It happens and its horrible for the people involved and I know because it happened to my best friend a few years ago. Eastenders is great for storys like this because it gives people an understanding of how people feel and react to tragic events.

Baby swapping:
Its a story! FICTION..have you heard of that word?. Im sure there are films and books available with the same type of story but I dont see anyone complaining about them.

Noone complains when characters are murdered, when teenagers carry/shoot guns, commit arson, beat eachother up and use drugs in the show. There was a story a while back about a young girl being abused by a pedophile and I bet you were all on the edge of your seat for that one..but didnt complain.

Im sorry if you were offended but 6000 complaints out of 10+million viewers isnt worth it and its a STORY..FICTION! MADE UP!.

You are all complaining but I bet every single one of you will tune in to watch Eastenders next week and continue to watch it...and when you do you should ask yourself this question. If it offends you so much and you hate the storyline...why are you still watching it? that will defeat the whole point of complaining..dont complain about something and then keep going back for more!.

I think it's the missed opportunity of the SIDS story that's part of the problem. The had a great opportunity to show what it could be like, give out info, help and advice re: cot death and the loss of a baby...and this has been totally overshadowed with the babyswap.

BBC could have done so much better. I now the babyswap is for dramatic affect but it's tied in with such a harrowing event that many viewers will unfortunately relate too

Soaps have always used 'props' in character storylines - rape, murder, alcoholism, parental death, abondonement ad infinitum.

Obviously I wouldn't wish the pain of losing a child on anyone. But neither would I wish the pain of any of the above on anyone. I don't feel more anger about the SIDS death than I would about any of the other potiential 'props'. I don't feel a SIDS death should be any more 'protected'.

I accept I will get flamed but I don't think s SIDS death (or the subsequent swapping) is dismissive.

This thread is supposed to be about what happens next. We hear EE are shortening the storyline & who knows they may actually welcome guidance having received so much bad press regarding the Ronnie storyline. Figures may be up but the BBC no doubt want positive publicity too.

I agree that Ronnie should admit to her midwife the baby is Kat's baby. The midwife should arrange for police family liasion officers to work with both Ronnie & Jack and Kat & Alfie.
Sands, FSIDs & psychologists should be brought in to help both families.

Kat & Alfie should have initial difficulties accepting their baby is alive (you cant just hand their baby back & they forget the pain they have been through losing James). FSIDs should discuss the risks of SIDS with Kat and Alfie and advise them on ways to minimise risk (baby sleeping on their back etc) ~ as they would also have a fear of losing Tommy for real.

Sands would work with Ronnie and Jack and we could see how bereavement affects dads... If Ronnie is going then focus on Jack's journey.

All four parents could receive counselling and possible mediation where Ronnie has the opportunity to apologise ~ because although Ronnie is continually described as 'mad' by people she isn't and this was supposed to be a moment of madness.

This thread is supposed to be about what happens next. We hear EE are shortening the storyline & who knows they may actually welcome guidance having received so much bad press regarding the Ronnie storyline. Figures may be up but the BBC no doubt want positive publicity too.

I agree that Ronnie should admit to her midwife the baby is Kat's baby. The midwife should arrange for police family liasion officers to work with both Ronnie & Jack and Kat & Alfie.
Sands, FSIDs & psychologists should be brought in to help both families.

Kat & Alfie should have initial difficulties accepting their baby is alive (you cant just hand their baby back & they forget the pain they have been through losing James). FSIDs should discuss the risks of SIDS with Kat and Alfie and advise them on ways to minimise risk (baby sleeping on their back etc) ~ as they would also have a fear of losing Tommy for real.

Sands would work with Ronnie and Jack and we could see how bereavement affects dads... If Ronnie is going then focus on Jack's journey.

All four parents could receive counselling and possible mediation where Ronnie has the opportunity to apologise ~ because although Ronnie is continually described as 'mad' by people she isn't and this was supposed to be a moment of madness.

amy .. I dont watch ee.. i dont watch any of the soaps and couldnt honestly tell you what is happening in any of them at the moment except for this story line.. because its all over the media

i understand that some poor mum is going to bury what she believes is her son. As a bereaved mum i think its SICK to show someone going through this when their son is alive and well.. SICK.

Yes I know its fiction but ee sets itself up as dealing with real life issues... this is not a real life issue .. its sick and wrong

Stacey as much as your post is correct, it will never happen. Because watching the FSIDS advice, how to minimise risk etc would make for dull TV.

It will have to be about the emotional responses to the situation - that is what drama is.