Totally agree with the OP..... he seems to be fine with trying to drown your kids, soliciting and covering up a murder!!!!! (Bobby Beale and Ian) yet Jay, who he has known for a couple of years, says he didn't know the girls age yet Mick is saying he'd hang the person who did that to Nancy?!?!?
Totally agree with the OP..... he seems to be fine with trying to drown your kids, soliciting and covering up a murder!!!!! (Bobby Beale and Ian) yet Jay, who he has known for a couple of years, says he didn't know the girls age yet Mick is saying he'd hang the person who did that to Nancy?!?!?
What a stupid arse!
He's such an arse, maybe Jay should have tried to sell a baby, Thick Mick probably would have asked Jay to move on with him.
Phil was a moron for not hearing Jay's side of the story. Everything's black and white with Phil. He could have easily stayed in court to hear Jay telling the court what happened.
The Poison potato is scum pure and simple.
Remember when feeling lonely and sorry for himself that he stole him off Billy?
He was then just used as a convenient Mitchell dogsbody.
Mitchell has disowned Jay twice now - if TPTB would ever allow it (they won't) I would like to see the lad punch his selfish, pig-ignorant lights out.
That doesn't mean he can't think Jay was aware of her true age and is now denying it.
It's difficult to believe you could go out with someone for months without finding out basic things about them - or looking at their social media profiles, as is standard nowadays.
As viewers we know Jay better than Mick. We also have a full oversight of the storyline. He's reacting based mostly on hearsay. It's nothing that wouldn't have come out of the mouths of past landlords.
Hear say should also tell him that the Mitchell's had also spent time with Linzi - were they just turning a blind eye to it? Also as a parent to kids not long out of their teens, as well as having worked Pubs his entire adult life, surely he is pragmatic enough to know that teenagers lie about things like their age if they feel telling the truth will stop them doong something they want, and feel old enough to - such as date somebody they like, be served alcohol etc.
I think if Mick was some old fogey who perhaps didn't have much contact with 'yoof' and who hadn't sired 3 children with a girl before they were legally old enough to marry plus having pled guilty to a sex offence he was actually innocent of himself, it would be slightly more believable and not so hypocritical that he is taken the "he admitted his guilt in court, it must be true" line despite his own sister/mother saying that she knows the boy and no way would he have done something like that i it must have been a mistake and she did look older.
Just because other landlords might have said it as well (and actually i'm not sure they would, i think they'd accept that the girl had looked old enough to be served by his own staff/family so maybe the man had just assumed she was of age as well) it doesn't make him thinking the worse any more palatable.
And of course, we know this isn't the case, but he might have asked and been lied to about her age, what she did for a job. Hadn't Jay assumed she was at college rather than school?
I am so glad that I am not alone in my complete dislike of Mick. Thick Mick is right.
I really liked him the first year but it all started going wrong (imo) in the aftermath of the rape/Mother reveal and it just got worse after he forgave Babe for baby trafficking just because she hadn't been able to go through with selling him and then his reaction to Ollie being hurt, blaming Nancy entirely when a lot of things contributed to that accident.
Hear say should also tell him that the Mitchell's had also spent time with Linzi - were they just turning a blind eye to it?
Also as a parent to kids not long out of their teens, as well as having worked Pubs his entire adult life, surely he is pragmatic enough to know that teenagers lie about things like their age
When did the Mitchell's spend time with Linzi? I only remember us seeing her on a few occasions and it was mostly Jay meeting up with her, like at The Arches. I don't think anyone is disputing that Linzi looks 16+. The Mitchells, like Mick, might've presumed that to be the case upon sight. However, that doesn't preclude Jay from having known her actual age and denying it now.
Of course there's an alternative way of looking at it eg. believing Jay when he says otherwise / assuming he asked and was lied to about the girl's age, but nonetheless I still see Mick's POV as understandable as an outsider. We have had the other take on it from people like Roxy and Ben which is again understandable as they actually know Jay beyond being a customer.
I can understand that this is the writers portraying the relative outsider's views and immediate judgements given Jay's situation and conviction but I think it is silly to pick Mick to voice these opinions given reasons mentioned in this thread as he just ends up coming across as hypocritical. Three important points are that Mick has been wrongly charged with sexual related offenses himself, didnt question Linzi's age himself while serving her in the Vic & as kitkat rightly points out he didnt have much regard for age laws when he was fathering his own children.
Nev should take the pub, by force if necessary, then give Mick a good kicking around the square gardens in front of the whole community. It would hopefully teach him not to be such a deeply stupid individual.
Three important points are that Mick has been wrongly charged with sexual related offenses himself,
Jay wasn't wrongly charged. Regardless of the mitigation, having those pictures of Linzi on his phone was still an offence.
didnt question Linzi's age himself while serving her in the Vic
I don't remember him serving Linzi in the pub. But I don't think the issue is whether or not Linzi looks 16. She does. But that doesn't preclude Jay from having known her actual age.
& as kitkat rightly points out he didnt have much regard for age laws when he was fathering his own children.
Both he and Linda were underage teenagers which the law doesn't prosecute - a bit different to Jay's situation (a 21 year old dating and having pictures of a 14 year old girl).
Nev should take the pub, by force if necessary, then give Mick a good kicking around the square gardens in front of the whole community. It would hopefully teach him not to be such a deeply stupid individual.
Nev really made quite the impression on you, didn't he JB
That doesn't mean he can't think Jay was aware of her true age and is now denying it.
It's difficult to believe you could go out with someone for months without finding out basic things about them - or looking at their social media profiles, as is standard nowadays.
As viewers we know Jay better than Mick. We also have a full oversight of the storyline. He's reacting based mostly on hearsay. It's nothing that wouldn't have come out of the mouths of past landlords.
First Jay has said, in the pub, as well as to others that he didn't know. The same way Mick said "we've served her in here as well". Meaning he didn't know either. He better than anyone should know what is like to be judged on hearsay. First when he pleaded guilty to kerb crawling and second when the Square believed his wife had an affair with Dean- especially when the police released Dean without charge. I guess those experiences haven't taught him much.
First Jay has said, in the pub, as well as to others that he didn't know. The same way Mick said "we've served her in here as well". Meaning he didn't know either. He better than anyone should know what is like to be judged on hearsay. First when he pleaded guilty to kerb crawling and second when the Square believed his wife had an affair with Dean- especially when the police released Dean without charge. I guess those experiences haven't taught him much.
Just because Mick has heard the other side (though not in detail that I recall), that doesn't mean he has to believe it.
Phil, someone who is closer to Jay than Mick, doesn't believe him so why should Mick have to?
I'm sure I remember Linzi having been at the Mitchell's house at the same time as sharon and i think Phil. Ben and Abi certainly socialized with her, in the Pub i think.
Of course Mick also being underage has a bearing on whether or not there was any abusive elements involved - of course if a 21 year old man had actually grromed and seduced a 14 year old girl, it would be very different to two 14 year olds entering a sexual relationship. But i do think his and Linda being underage when they started sleeping together and indeed having children (who weren't a mistake but planned it would seem) should show him that sometimes an underage girl isn't always being taken advantage of but might want to have sex. Unless he of course believes that Linda and he weren't actually old enough to understand what they were consenting to.
I do get what you are saying about us as viewers having seen the full story meaning we have a different (and more sympathetic) perspective on Jay's situation than somebody actually 'in' the situation as a bystander and on the face of it, yes he plead guilty. It is just Mick's specific circumstances having met the girl and not questioned her age himself, plus having been charged with a sex offence through circumstance rather than actual guilt for which he plead guilty because it seemed the best way of dealing with it plus people he trusts (like shirley) backing Jay makes his seeming determination not to even consider that Jay might be telling the truth about not knowing how old she was very stubborn and somewhat unreasonable.
So, to just believe Jay with no reservation just because he has got people saying "but he's a nice boy" i don't expect as rarely do all people that know actual sex offenders turn round and say "you know, i always thought he/she was dodgy" - usually people close to them do have trouble believing it and will defend him. But couldn't they show him conceding it is possible that Jay's story is true when shirley is defending him?
Actually, i might find it more understandable if there was a "once bitten, twice shy" element to it in that he allowed Dean into his home and he went on to rape his wife so will be extra cautious about any allegation now. Also maybe that he doesn't trust Shirley's judgement on such things after she spent a year protesting Dean's innocence. That would make sense.
Comments
Totally agree with the OP..... he seems to be fine with trying to drown your kids, soliciting and covering up a murder!!!!! (Bobby Beale and Ian) yet Jay, who he has known for a couple of years, says he didn't know the girls age yet Mick is saying he'd hang the person who did that to Nancy?!?!?
What a stupid arse!
He's such an arse, maybe Jay should have tried to sell a baby, Thick Mick probably would have asked Jay to move on with him.
The Poison potato is scum pure and simple.
Remember when feeling lonely and sorry for himself that he stole him off Billy?
He was then just used as a convenient Mitchell dogsbody.
Mitchell has disowned Jay twice now - if TPTB would ever allow it (they won't) I would like to see the lad punch his selfish, pig-ignorant lights out.
Couldn't agree more. Also, the way he kind of pouts his lips annoys me >:(
Hear say should also tell him that the Mitchell's had also spent time with Linzi - were they just turning a blind eye to it? Also as a parent to kids not long out of their teens, as well as having worked Pubs his entire adult life, surely he is pragmatic enough to know that teenagers lie about things like their age if they feel telling the truth will stop them doong something they want, and feel old enough to - such as date somebody they like, be served alcohol etc.
I think if Mick was some old fogey who perhaps didn't have much contact with 'yoof' and who hadn't sired 3 children with a girl before they were legally old enough to marry plus having pled guilty to a sex offence he was actually innocent of himself, it would be slightly more believable and not so hypocritical that he is taken the "he admitted his guilt in court, it must be true" line despite his own sister/mother saying that she knows the boy and no way would he have done something like that i it must have been a mistake and she did look older.
Just because other landlords might have said it as well (and actually i'm not sure they would, i think they'd accept that the girl had looked old enough to be served by his own staff/family so maybe the man had just assumed she was of age as well) it doesn't make him thinking the worse any more palatable.
And of course, we know this isn't the case, but he might have asked and been lied to about her age, what she did for a job. Hadn't Jay assumed she was at college rather than school?
I really liked him the first year but it all started going wrong (imo) in the aftermath of the rape/Mother reveal and it just got worse after he forgave Babe for baby trafficking just because she hadn't been able to go through with selling him and then his reaction to Ollie being hurt, blaming Nancy entirely when a lot of things contributed to that accident.
Of course there's an alternative way of looking at it eg. believing Jay when he says otherwise / assuming he asked and was lied to about the girl's age, but nonetheless I still see Mick's POV as understandable as an outsider. We have had the other take on it from people like Roxy and Ben which is again understandable as they actually know Jay beyond being a customer.
I don't remember him serving Linzi in the pub. But I don't think the issue is whether or not Linzi looks 16. She does. But that doesn't preclude Jay from having known her actual age.
Both he and Linda were underage teenagers which the law doesn't prosecute - a bit different to Jay's situation (a 21 year old dating and having pictures of a 14 year old girl).
Nev really made quite the impression on you, didn't he JB
sorry, Thick Mick is a knob
condescending, judgmental knob
cannot stand the character
First Jay has said, in the pub, as well as to others that he didn't know. The same way Mick said "we've served her in here as well". Meaning he didn't know either. He better than anyone should know what is like to be judged on hearsay. First when he pleaded guilty to kerb crawling and second when the Square believed his wife had an affair with Dean- especially when the police released Dean without charge. I guess those experiences haven't taught him much.
Phil, someone who is closer to Jay than Mick, doesn't believe him so why should Mick have to?
Of course Mick also being underage has a bearing on whether or not there was any abusive elements involved - of course if a 21 year old man had actually grromed and seduced a 14 year old girl, it would be very different to two 14 year olds entering a sexual relationship. But i do think his and Linda being underage when they started sleeping together and indeed having children (who weren't a mistake but planned it would seem) should show him that sometimes an underage girl isn't always being taken advantage of but might want to have sex. Unless he of course believes that Linda and he weren't actually old enough to understand what they were consenting to.
I do get what you are saying about us as viewers having seen the full story meaning we have a different (and more sympathetic) perspective on Jay's situation than somebody actually 'in' the situation as a bystander and on the face of it, yes he plead guilty. It is just Mick's specific circumstances having met the girl and not questioned her age himself, plus having been charged with a sex offence through circumstance rather than actual guilt for which he plead guilty because it seemed the best way of dealing with it plus people he trusts (like shirley) backing Jay makes his seeming determination not to even consider that Jay might be telling the truth about not knowing how old she was very stubborn and somewhat unreasonable.
So, to just believe Jay with no reservation just because he has got people saying "but he's a nice boy" i don't expect as rarely do all people that know actual sex offenders turn round and say "you know, i always thought he/she was dodgy" - usually people close to them do have trouble believing it and will defend him. But couldn't they show him conceding it is possible that Jay's story is true when shirley is defending him?
Actually, i might find it more understandable if there was a "once bitten, twice shy" element to it in that he allowed Dean into his home and he went on to rape his wife so will be extra cautious about any allegation now. Also maybe that he doesn't trust Shirley's judgement on such things after she spent a year protesting Dean's innocence. That would make sense.