Eastenders #29 Denise's D is buried with Keanu, while Jack's burying his D in Stacey

Shag Marry Kill: Phil, Nish, Ravi

  • Kill Phil, Shag Nish, Marry Ravi

    Votes: 68 30.6%

  • Kill Ravi, Shag Phil, Marry Nish

    Votes: 2 0.9%

  • Kill Nish, Shag Ravi, Marry Phil

    Votes: 30 13.5%

  • Kill Phil, Shag Ravi, Marry Nish

    Votes: 13 5.9%

  • Kill Ravi, Shag Nish, Marry Phil

    Votes: 14 6.3%

  • Kill Nish, Shag Ravi, Marry Phil

    Votes: 34 15.3%

  • Kill them all

    Votes: 25 11.3%

  • Fuck this, we're having a gangbang!

    Votes: 44 19.8%
  • Total voters
    222
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
1 Sort by date Sort by reaction score 2
Livid2020 said:
That was your response to 'You can see where why Gloria said to do anything, I’m not condoning murder at all, but she was desperate to keep her son and mothers will do anything for their kids (even murder)'

Which to me reads as though you'd be OK for something really bad to happen to someone totally innocent just to get your own (selfish) way.

'I'd do anything for this child that I love including killing his birth parents who entrusted us and paid us to look after him whilst they lived life being racially abused and taken advantage of in all walks of life because I'm a mother who loves their child's'.

As if being a 'loving' mother is a justification for murder. It's horrific to think its ok to kill an innocent man so you can keep his child that you were paid to temporarily look after - not only taking his life but depriving the baby of his parents and heritage.

WHAT THE ACTUAL F
Click to expand...
I would do anything for the child I had loved and raised to not be taken away from me, that’s a fact. I spoke to my husband and he agreed he would kill if necessary for our baby. I know it’s not right, but it’s just how it is for some parents. I cannot judge Gloria for that.
 
The writers have mega short, hypocritical memories though. How many times has Peggy told Phil to ‘do whatever necessary’ (usually over her beloved pub, not even a child). She even outright demanded he murder Archie for her. Same goes for Phil, constantly dishing out beatings by goons - even demanding Ben kill Keanu. And Ronnie ordered a hit- can’t remember on who, but she ended up having an innocent Fat Boy killed.
Yet, these actions were apparently entirely redeemable. Whilst a mum absolutely desperate to keep a child she has loved his whole life is scum of the earth.
 
Beverley Macker said:
The writers have mega short, hypocritical memories though. How many times has Peggy told Phil to ‘do whatever necessary’ (usually over her beloved pub, not even a child). She even outright demanded he murder Archie for her. Same goes for Phil, constantly dishing out beatings by goons - even demanding Ben kill Keanu. And Ronnie ordered a hit- can’t remember on who, but she ended up having an innocent Fat Boy killed.
Yet, these actions were apparently entirely redeemable. Whilst a mum absolutely desperate to keep a child she has loved his whole life is scum of the earth.
Click to expand...
But... it's not her child.
The Peggy examples involve threatening and killing people to protect what's theirs.
This is different because Gloria is asking her husband to kill the actual father of the child she was a temporary carer of, so that she can be the permanent carer/parent.
They're both wrong but the situations aren't the same.
 
dee_mc said:
But... it's not her child.
The Peggy examples involve threatening and killing people to protect what's theirs.
This is different because Gloria is asking her husband to kill the actual father of the child she was a temporary carer of, so that she can be the permanent carer/parent.
They're both wrong but the situations aren't the same.
Click to expand...
He was 15! I think they’d gone past temporary carer at that point. I’m not saying it’s right, just pointing out the hypocrisy.
I don’t think murdering over property is somehow more noble or acceptable than murdering over people either.
 
Miss.Chanandler.Bong said:
Stopping your adoptive child getting to know their roots and their birth family when they’re old enough is selfish imo. He had a right to get to know his dad whether she liked it or not.
Chances are George would have got to know his dad but not forgot the people that raised him
Click to expand...
It's what I said yesterday, he was robbed of his actual family and his whole heritage. Grew up believing he was Jamaican. Not her child! And not to mention they knew he was being ridiculed just for being black, his so called dad allowing his friends to be racist towards him.
 
Miss.Chanandler.Bong said:
Stopping your adoptive child getting to know their roots and their birth family when they’re old enough is selfish imo. He had a right to get to know his dad whether she liked it or not.
Chances are George would have got to know his dad but not forgot the people that raised him
Click to expand...
It’s good that we now know how damaging it is for adoptees to not know their background, everybody has a right to know who they are and I’m very pleased that adoptions have to be open now.
 
Furrytriangle said:
I would do anything for the child I had loved and raised to not be taken away from me, that’s a fact. I spoke to my husband and he agreed he would kill if necessary for our baby. I know it’s not right, but it’s just how it is for some parents. I cannot judge Gloria for that.
Click to expand...

It's not her child she was trusted and paid to look after him temporarily, they knew the deal before they entered the agreement. They took advantage of his birth parents plight. The saddest part is that this would have actually happened (and probably loosely based on a true story). They felt they were entitled to something that ISN'T theirs. Your example states your own baby. They lied to George his ENTIRE life - about where he came from and who he is, thats CRAZY.

POC were being taken advantage of in every way possible - do you really think George's parents would have wanted to give up their son?? They did 'whatever it takes' for their sons upbringing which resulted entrusting their child to Gloria. They thought doing so would allow George to have a better quality of life and did so out of love for THEIR child but instead ended up dead and with George being racially abused his entire life. They also had 'mothers' love and made the ultimate sacrifice in giving up their baby temporarily.

They were taken advantage of from the very beginning for simply being black and murdered to fit Gloria's very selfish needs. They raised George in a racist environment grooming him to fight and be aggressive in order for him to feel wanted. The audacity to use George as a character witness, I just can't. They're vile people through and through.

You mentioned you have a baby, if someone was looking after your baby as maybe you were unwell for a while or something and they refused to give your baby back as they grew a bond - how would you feel?! And then they decide its ok to take your life and their raise your baby to not know anything about you or your family or your heritage. And then for your child to not feel loved or wanted and hearing constant jokes for the colour of his skin that he was born with. How would you feel?

Just cos you and your husband agree doesn't make it acceptable. It shows, on a personal level, your questionable moral compass. If you could look the other way for Gloria doing what she did, you would have been part of the problem back then.

I don't think there's much more to say on this, I'd like to think most people think murder (in any situation but especially this) is not the answer. You and I have very different opinions on this and I'm glad I don't know many people with your opinion in real life.
 
Last edited:
Well done to 63 of you!
Screenshot_20240215_114608_Chrome.jpg
 
Beverley Macker said:
Yes, children aren’t allowed to not be told they aren’t adopted anymore I don’t think? They can receive letters from their birth family in most cases now too.
Click to expand...
I think there’s quite strict rules on what they can write with letterbox contact. I know they can’t write anything about them missing them or explaining the circumstances and I’m 99% sure the parent can’t use mum/dad, just their first name. I know adoptive parents can send stuff as well like milestones and things the child has achieved.

Someone on my mums street has adopted 2 kids and they used to have actual contact with the parents every 2 weeks I think it was
 
Livid2020 said:
It's not her child she was trusted and paid to look after him temporarily, they knew the deal before they entered the agreement. They took advantage of his birth parents plight. The saddest part is that this would have actually happened (and probably loosely based on a true story). They felt they were entitled to something that ISN'T theirs. Your example states your own baby. They lied to George his ENTIRE life - about where he came from and who he is, thats CRAZY.

POC were being taken advantage of in every way possible - do you really think George's parents would have wanted to give up their son?? They did 'whatever it takes' for their sons upbringing which resulted entrusting their child to Gloria. They thought doing so would allow George to have a better quality of life and did so out of love for THEIR child but instead ended up dead and with George being racially abused his entire life. They also had 'mothers' love and made the ultimate sacrifice in giving up their baby temporarily.

They were taken advantage of from the very beginning for simply being black and murdered to fit Gloria's very selfish needs. They raised George in a racist environment grooming him to fight and be aggressive in order for him to feel wanted. The audacity to use George as a character witness, I just can't. They're vile people through and through.

You mentioned you have a baby, if someone was looking after your baby as maybe you were unwell for a while or something and they refused to give your baby back as they grew a bond - how would you feel?! And then they decide its ok to take your life and their raise your baby to not know anything about you or your family or your heritage. And then for your child to not feel loved or wanted and hearing constant jokes for the colour of his skin that he was born with. How would you feel?

Just cos you and your husband agree doesn't make it acceptable. It shows, on a personal level, your questionable moral compass. If you could look the other way for Gloria doing what she did, you would have been part of the problem back then.

I don't think there's much more to say on this, I'd like to think most people think murder (in any situation but especially this) is not the answer. You and I have very different opinions on this and I'm glad I don't know many people with your opinion in real life.
Click to expand...
Calm your tits. I said what I said. I’m glad I don’t know people like you in real life either, such a headache 🫠
 
Beverley Macker said:
It’s good that we now know how damaging it is for adoptees to not know their background, everybody has a right to know who they are and I’m very pleased that adoptions have to be open now.
Click to expand...
I would love to adopt one day for many reasons and I would never let them not have a relationship with their birth parents if that's what they wanted. As long as you are there if something was to go wrong and you still raised them. My bf is adopted and unfortunately meeting his birth family didn't go well (his mum is an absolute horror) and he didn't have any adopted parents to fall back on (he was in care due to his adopted parent dying). I look at him sometimes and think wow you've been through so much so I applaud all adoptees and their adopters for being supportive.
 
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
Back
Top