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

Thanks for that.

I love Eastenders-long may it reign. I forget about my hetic life with 5 children, mother in law,husband, sister in law and brother all living in my house and I laugh, I laugh at the stupidity, the bad acting, the fact that no one in London has washing machines AND the fact that IT IS NOT REAL!!!!
Its not sick and wrong its fiction and really not that severe. SWITCH OFF, forget about it,put on ITV but dont waste time getting upset about it - its not worth it.

Not read the whole thread but am I the only person who doesn't think the BBC are trying to imply all beareaved women are capable of baby snatching?

Ronnie clearly has mental health issues. It's in her character and has been for a while. The majority of baby snatchers have mental health problems. So actually the BBC are being quite realistic with this storyline. It's not like they picked ... I dunno someone really unlikely like I dunno Heather to be a baby snatcher is it.

Ronnie was depicted as taking the baby as an immediate and direct result of bereavement. I'm repeating someone elses point here but I'm sorry I'm not sure who it was.

The "majority of baby snatchers" would have mental health problems yes.

But the majority of people with mental health difficulties do not kidnap babies.

AFAIK there are two recently bereaved mothers on EE atm. One immediately kidnapped a child. One started sleeping with her child's best friend within days of his death.

"But the majority of people with mental health difficulties do not kidnap babies."

So are you saying because baby snatching is a rare occurrence that there shouldn't be a story line on it?

If they are going to do a story on baby snatching then I think they should pick a character who has mental health issues because it would be even more unlikely for a NT person to do it.

Maybe they should have coincided baby snatching with the condom pricking incident instead? Or with Stacey going completely off the rails and discovering she was bipolar? Or maybe it should have been Jean? I'm sure there would have been uproar with whoever they'd gone with.

"If they are going to do a story on baby snatching then I think they should pick a character who has mental health issues because it would be even more unlikely for a NT person to do it"

And stigmatise people with mental health difficulties further?

It's the swapping of your dead baby with another baby. Not baby snatching. Not cot death. Not mental health issues. But the fact that they are all combined into one sick story.

Like it or not, this will put a mark on society's conciousness that when a mother loses a child, she is likely to steal a baby to replace theirs, especially if she has had a traumatic history.

Mark my words, more than one person in the future will forget where they saw it, but they once saw something about a mad mother who nicked a baby when hers died - having a direct effect on a REAL bereaved mummy.

It's sick. And I think there is legitimate cause to complain to the BBC, who supposedly pride themselves in good research and drama, and who when all is said and done we pay for!

Thank you nappyaddict, glad it's not just me. Think we are i the minority though.

Well what they shouldn't have done is mix a baby snatching story line with a SIDS story line.

A child death is so sensitive and traumatic it needs dealing with properly in it's own right without the confusing of it with a mental health child snatching story.

Neither the BBC nor anyone can really claim that no link has been made here between mothers grief and baby snatching albeit that the character apparently also has mental health issues.

A childs death is horrific. To watch grieving parents, even actors, is horrific.

Depicting what has been and continues to be a real living nightmare for many parents, needed to be considered so much more carefully.

The flippant phrases 'it could happen' and 'it's not real' are irrelevant here, despite both being superficially true.

This has been a depiction of many peoples real life tragedies, and every parents deepest fear.

Since when did the BBC decide that as long as it's 'entertainment' and as long as it could feasibly be true, even in 1: 100000000 probability, then individual personal tragedies can be depicted in any extreme, twisted defamatory way they wish.

And f**k those who are devastated by this.

Switch your Telly off love and get over it, seems to be the message.

There are people saying its not real and no-one would ever believe that a bereaved mother would do that, so dont worry about it.

But there are also people here saying its actually beleivable as long as the character has mental health issues/ has a history of distress/lost a child.

So the stereotypes about bereaved parents and about people with mental health issues do exist in some peoples mind.

And EE went for lazy sensationalist ratings and fed into those stereotypes.

And now on the same threads where bereaved parents have shared their experiences about how they have been isolated and misunderstood because of these stereotypes, after suffering horrific losses, we have people continuing to put forward the same stereotypes.

Seriously.

nappyaddict "Ronnie clearly has mental health issues." - but she does not have a diagnosed mental illness as far as Im aware - taking the baby could be explained as a "moment of madness" but they also showed her realising fairly soon it was wrong - when she was about to take the baby back and then Jack turned up, so she didnt.

So keeping the baby now is a conscious decision - and her behaviour since I feel has been influenced not by mental health issues - but plain old fashioned guilt - she knows she is putting another Mother through agony.

The only other way I feel EE should have portrayed this is if she was suffering from an extreme form of PND, Pueperal Psychosis - where Mums lose contact with reality and are not responsible for their actions - but she has displayed no other symptoms so this cant explain it, and there lies the issue I have with the story line.

tangle - Tangle - you have taken my post the completely wrong way, so less of the how dare you thanks!

I am a Psychiatric Nurse who amongst other things works with bereaved parents and the victims of sexual assualt - I have a lot of empathy for the experiences people have suffered and the range of emotions that people have had to deal with.

But sadly in my experience the people that end up in long term therapy and with the most long term difficulties are those that dont deal with their grief - at no point did I suggest that you come to terms with it and things will all be better!! - because of course it wont! But to be able to carry on living any loss of any description has to be worked through and adjusted to.

And over time you have to learn to live with it - as humans do all traumas - life goes on but is never the same again, its just hopefully one day the pain will not hurt as much. Coming to terms with a child dying does not lessen their existence or the grievings parents experience of them - its just a natural process - thats why its called the Grieving Process.

I may not have lost a child but I have lost patients to suicide that couldnt deal with their emotions and grief, and been left to deal with their bewildered and grieving families. Talking therapy can and often does help people to come to terms with what has happened to them, and can prevent long term difficulties with mental health and self harm.

The poster said she lost her child 10 years ago - I was concerned she was experiencing a depressive episode and sinking into something which she may need professional help for - what the hell is wrong with that!!

At no point did I state that she hadnt thought of getting help! And at no point did I state she should be "better" after those 10 years - as memories will never fade, but its to do with her current mental health after this passgae of time I was concerned about.

As sad as this subject may be, we cannot force the world to change to accomadate our personal emotional scars. There are issues with alcholism in my family and I can tell you that EE portrayal of it is twaddle.

I don't watch soaps. Simple enough.

Censorship and righteous rage may feel like a good thing, but logically it is anything but.

dons flameproof suit

NewGoldDream said:

"The only other way I feel EE should have portrayed this is if she was suffering from an extreme form of PND, Pueperal Psychosis"

Do you think that people wouold have been any happier if Ronnie had been portrayed as suffering from this condition when she swapped the babies then? Wouldn't we have been faced with similar outrage that not every woman suffering from PND is capable of doing something like that?

Mind you, as I said earlier on in this
thread, no one seemed to care when in the terribly weak drama called "The Little House" on ITV the other week a woman suffering post-natal depression ended up killing her controlling mother in law. I didn't see any outcry about that and in the light of this furore I can't really imagine why. Surely analogies can be draw, no?

Hi, I'm new here but feel so angry about this whole EE thing that I felt compelled to register and give my 2p worth.

I sadly lost my baby to SIDS last year but I am not offended by the current storyline on Eastenders. I understand that it's a FICTIONAL STORYLINE ON A FICTIONAL TV SHOW. I also understand that the baby swap part of the story is in keeping with Ronnie's character. She's mentally disturbed and obviously suffering some kind of breakdown. She swapped the babies in a moment of madness. this is something that Ronnie would do, it doesn't reflect on bereaved mothers as a whole.

I have found the story hard to watch at time's but the acting from Jessie Wallace has been outstanding and I have been able to relate to Kat's grief.

I think people have seriously lost the plot over this. It's a TV show, not a matter of life or death. If you don't like it, don't watch it!!!!

GenevieveHawkings - no I dont think it would have been a similar outrage - Puperal Psychosis is not "ordinary" Post Natal Depression - and Im speaking here not as a Psychiatric Nurse - but also as a Mum who has experienced PND myself. It is a serious pscyhotic illness, and PND isnt. Depression is not the same as pscyhosis.

But you never know as sections of the general public have such a poor image of mental health generally.

I just mean if they had portrayed the character of Ronnie as having PPP then this would be an explanation for taking the baby - when someone loses contact with reality and are psychotic, and becomes delusional.

Someone psychotic could have taken the baby - but someone psychotic could equally have done something else - they are no more likely to snatch a baby than you or I - I simply said it would have offered an explanation for Ronnies behaviour.

And if she was portrayed as suffering PPP it would have soon become glaringly obvious - and the situation with the baby could have been resolved so much quicker.

I am not saying it was a good or realistic storyline at all either - because someone psychotic is not responsible for their actions (if they are psychotic at the time) - whereas everyone else, including Mums who have been bereaved are - I to dont like the implication that "all" bereaved Mums could steal a baby.

I dont know if anybody else agrees but it wasn't the taking the baby that was the issue for me, it was Ronnie leaving her own baby.

I think it was disgusting for EE to suggest that any mother would want to do anything other than hold on to her child and wish it back to life.

Drag this story on till spring? End it at the funeral, because it will be just as bad to suggest that Ronnie would stand by watch her baby be buried by strangers.

beachholiday So with a baby snatching storyline you think they should pick somebody without mental health issues but not be in keeping with a realistic scenario. It's not a stereotype that baby snatchers are usually mentally ill - it's reality.

NewGoldDream Just because no one has picked upon Ronnie's illness yet and diagnosed her doesn't mean that it isn't there IYSWIM.

Going back to the topic of this thread. Reports say the storyline will have a "warm and tender" ending .

There's also an interview with Mark Thompson in the Daily Mail here. It struck me as ironic that he said the following:

"Asked about ITV?s Daybreak, which poached Adrian Chiles and Christine Bleakley from the ­Corporation at a reputed cost of £10 million, he smiles wryly and says: ?You have to understand your audience. It?s wrong to alienate mothers who watch that show.?"

Well quite Mr Thompson. Alienating one's audience, especially mothers, is rarely advisable .

Chummymummy I agree with you yes. I fear the funeral episode could be one of the sickest yet.

Apparently in Friday's episode Kat and Ronnie came face-to-face and Kat asked to hold the baby (as if!). Ronnie refused and was pretty rude to her. This is very inconsistent with all people have been saying about how she regrets it and can't look at the baby etc. She could just have handed it straight back. I don't buy all this 'afraid of the consequences & guilty' rubbish either. Her baby is dead. In her eyes what worse thing could possibly happen to her?

What punishment do people who kidnap babies receive? Do they go to prison?

nappyaddict, fair enough (about undiagnosed illness) and I wouldnt be surprised if she is suddenly diagnosed with PND - but again to me that would just be stigmatising mothers with mental health issues.

My point about PPP as a credible explanation as to why she took the baby - and not responsible for her actions - in the context oif what you are syaing - doesnt ring true for PPP, as not only has there been no signs she is psychotic - it has been the exact opposite actually - she is clearly feeling guilty and ashamed of her actions - and the scene where she clutched "James" to her whilst a distraught Kat was in her flat looking to get wee Tommys toy back - showed me she knew her actions were wrong. If this is the case and she is feeling guilty there is no way she is psychotic.

I should have added not ashamed enough to give him back mind you. And not guilty enough to stop another Mums pain.

HereMeRoar - "Apparently in Friday's episode Kat and Ronnie came face-to-face and Kat asked to hold the baby (as if!). Ronnie refused and was pretty rude to her. This is very inconsistent with all people have been saying..." - You're not watching it, so IMO, commenting on what's going on (ie "apparently...", "people have been saying...") invalidates your argument.

Whilst I understand your POV about the storyline (and, like you, I am coming at this as someone who hasn't had to endure the heartache of losing a baby), and respect your opinion entirely, I think you are weakening your own argument by commenting on things you are not watching.

The storyline is cruel and insensitive and I feel as a viewer I have been treated with contempt for the sake of 'Ratings'.
Well BBC I have stopped watching and now spend the time on Wii Fit.

Doom, gloom and Greek Tragedy with a cockney
accent have now been banished from our house.
We are happier and healthier and I suggest that you show your disapproval with the 'Off
Switch'.