Ah I see I do feel for Megan but like I said initially she is grieving the loss of her son and not acting remotely rationally over this. She even said to Jai that Archie had given her purpose
Most posts I read on here are negative about him and I've just read one gleefully hoping he gets seriously punished for buying Archie but I really feel sorry for him and despise Rachel and the rest of her smug and crummy family.
Rachel gets away with stealing Archie from him and suggests she would never let Jai anywhere near him not even letting Jai hug him :( Then Rachel's dreadful sister Ally seems to be suggesting that Jai just bought any baby to make up for Archie being missing and not taking into consideration at all how devastated he was when Rachel ran off with HIS child or that he genuinely thought it was Archie. I mean, what would anyone else do if they lost their child and had the chance to get them back :(
The whole Spencer family are just so self satisfied and act like they are the only ones allowed to get away with wrong doings. I hope Jai not only justifiably gets away with buying Archie but also gets properly reunited with the real Archie and gets custody and doesn't allow Rachel or any of the dreadful Spencers any access at all :cool:
He cheated on Charity with the cleaner, got her pregnant, covered it up because he was ashamed of Rachel, humiliated Charity causing her to flip out and get rid of Charity, kidnapped Charity with no punishment and then paid for his son without a moments thought that Rachel could be dead or in real trouble and he didn't notice it wasnt his son or take a dna test and has shut out new Archie with a flip of a switch.
All he had to do was have respect for Rachel from the offset.
Well Rakesh didn't do himself any favours by claiming that he could destroy Rachel as a witness, then failing to do just that.
And Cain is a berk for hiring Rakesh in the first place. He's not a criminal barrister.
True, but the point stands.
Also true. I put that down to soap-ery though; oh he's a lawyer so he must be solicitor, barrister, judge, whatever, whenever a storyline calls for it.
Eta On the other hand maybe not, I guess they wouldn't have Rakesh flag it up in an in-universe way if were just down to that.
He forced Rakesh to take on the case because of his son and the car thingy Can't remember the details exactly but Rakesh owed him. However Rakesh pointed out that he wasn't a criminal Barrister so I did wonder if Cain really did want Charity to get off :D
I know he did, I'm not quite sure what your point is there?
Yeah, if it wasn't a cloak and dagger way of getting her sent down then it was stupid of him.
Also true. I put that down to soap-ery though; oh he's a lawyer so he must be solicitor, barrister, judge, whatever, whenever a storyline calls for it.
So true. I work for a law firm which has several departments and one can't simply do the other's job as all areas of law are highly specialised. For example, a solicitor who does residential conveyancing couldn't take on a criminal defence client and vice versa as they wouldn't have the specialised knowledge.
So true. I work for a law firm which has several departments and one can't simply do the other's job as all areas of law are highly specialised. For example, a solicitor who does residential conveyancing couldn't take on a criminal defence client and vice versa as they wouldn't have the specialised knowledge.
What I don't get is that surely most people have at least a vague awareness of there being lots of different legal jobs and areas of expertise, so do the soap bosses think viewers won't notice? How hard would it have been to have Rakesh know a barrister that he'd recommend rather than magically being able to do it himself. Even if in reality he wouldn't have much contact with barristers (I've not a clue if he would or not,) it'd surely be less implausible to say that?
It's the same with medicine (and probably loads of other things,) especially in Hollyoaks. They recently had a nurse who was apparently an A&E nurse, midwife, addiction specialist and god knows what else else in one. The other week there was a doctor telling nurses they could go home in the middle of their shift, for no particular reason. As if doctors are in charge of staffing! As if people doing that kind of job can just knock off early because they fancy it... The doctor is also apparently in charge of choosing which taxi firm gets the hospital contract... Bizarre. Not to mention all medical staff casually treat their own friends and family members routinely *rolls eyes*
What I don't get is that surely most people have at least a vague awareness of there being lots of different legal jobs and areas of expertise, so do the soap bosses think viewers won't notice? How hard would it have been to have Rakesh know a barrister that he'd recommend rather than magically being able to do it himself. Even if in reality he wouldn't have much contact with barristers (I've not a clue if he would or not,) it'd surely be less implausible to say that?
It's the same with medicine (and probably loads of other things,) especially in Hollyoaks. They recently had a nurse who was apparently an A&E nurse, midwife, addiction specialist and god knows what else else in one. The other week there was a doctor telling nurses they could go home in the middle of their shift, for no particular reason. As if doctors are in charge of staffing! As if people doing that kind of job can just knock off early because they fancy it... The doctor is also apparently in charge of choosing which taxi firm gets the hospital contract... Bizarre. Not to mention all medical staff casually treat their own friends and family members routinely *rolls eyes*
such an annoying feature of soaps >:( you can bet that Emma who we now know is a nurse will be nursing the whole village whatever their diagnosis!
I dont expect ANYONE to be consistently excellent in their jobs - every one of us has off days. How many times do we see an actor who is good in one thing but rotten in another. From your comment below about Rakesh I cant help wondering if you'Re confusing not liking Cain's actions with not rating the actor.
Re your point about actors 'moving on'_frankly none of us know what jobs these actors
However I do think youre on dodgy ground suggesting that fms are responding negativy to all of the black or asian characters or actors. I havent come across one FM who was any harsher on black or asian characters or actors than white ones.
Anyone would think I don't know fact from fiction. Ofcourse I don't rate the actor because I personally I don't like his acting. I respect your opinion in thinking he is good..
I must admit I wasn't expecting a moral lecture. So if the actors is so good why haven't we seen him in anything else or have I missed something?
How am I on dodgy grounds? I haven't used the R word. Only going by what I have read on these forums. Don't see many praises sung of the actors I mentioned.
For Jai to evoke such strong opinions IMO must mean Chris Bisson plays the role of a spoilt, cold and calculating person using his father to lie when ever he is in trouble very well . I am surprised he still has a factory to run considering he keeps on dipping into the factory funds. The storyline writing for the Sharma family is pretty rubbish. Chris Bisson does his best.
For Jai to evoke such strong opinions IMO must mean Chris Bisson plays the role of a spoilt, cold and calculating person using his father to lie when ever he is in trouble very well . I am surprised he still has a factory to run considering he keeps on dipping into the factory funds. The storyline writing for the Sharma family is pretty rubbish. Chris Bisson does his best.
This. He should have checked the story before handing over money, but of course he had zero concern for the mother of his child just so long as he got Archie for himself.
Jay needs to learn that he isn't going to play happy families if he keeps having casual sex and procreating. At least he's suffering for it this time instead of Declan who was innocent in the whole Ella/Jay/Mia situation.
I know kids often result from ONS's/affairs in soapland but other than Jack Branning, Jay's the only one I can think of to not learn from that.
Rachel can act like she's the mom of the year but she's putting her ego before her son's best interest. Archie deserves to have a father and that father happens to be Jai. If she didn't want to have a child with him then she should have had a termination just like she wanted to until Jai asked her to keep the baby. Rachel is as much a liar and Jai is. She went along with all his lies although he had nothing to put pressure on her. She used her child as a meal ticket. She'll need money soon enough and she'll be knocking on Jai's door with Archie.
For Jai to evoke such strong opinions IMO must mean Chris Bisson plays the role of a spoilt, cold and calculating person using his father to lie when ever he is in trouble very well . I am surprised he still has a factory to run considering he keeps on dipping into the factory funds. The storyline writing for the Sharma family is pretty rubbish. Chris Bisson does his best.
I don't agree, I think some characters are just written in such an infuriting way that viewers have strong reactions to them. I can name other actors who imo are quite dreadful yet evoke strong opinions like Mark Charnok, Kelly hollis or Charley Webb.
Yep he was. So were Raji James, Jimi Mistry and Archie Panjabi. Shame the soaps have high profile actors and do nothing with them. Jimi Mistry is not so good in Corrie and I think that is mainly to do with the rubbish story line he is give IMO. I bet Archie Panjabi is glad she never signed to a British Northern soap. ;-)
Rachel can act like she's the mom of the year but she's putting her ego before her son's best interest. Archie deserves to have a father and that father happens to be Jai. If she didn't want to have a child with him then she should have had a termination just like she wanted to until Jai asked her to keep the baby. Rachel is as much a liar and Jai is. She went along with all his lies although he had nothing to put pressure on her. She used her child as a meal ticket. She'll need money soon enough and she'll be knocking on Jai's door with Archie.
I'd be worried if the father of my child bought said child without asking why the child was not with the mother when he handed over the money. Yes we know the child is now not archie but jai had no concerns for her welfare.
Rachel can act like she's the mom of the year but she's putting her ego before her son's best interest. Archie deserves to have a father and that father happens to be Jai. If she didn't want to have a child with him then she should have had a termination just like she wanted to until Jai asked her to keep the baby. Rachel is as much a liar and Jai is. She went along with all his lies although he had nothing to put pressure on her. She used her child as a meal ticket. She'll need money soon enough and she'll be knocking on Jai's door with Archie.
I don't agree, I think some characters are just written in such an infuriting way that viewers have strong reactions to them. I can name other actors who imo are quite dreadful yet evoke strong opinions like Mark Charnok, Kelly hollis or Charley Webb.
You are entitled to your opinion. I agree. Just realised who Kelly Hollis is. Yes cant stand Ali.
He cheated on Charity with the cleaner, got her pregnant, covered it up because he was ashamed of Rachel, humiliated Charity causing her to flip out and get rid of Charity, kidnapped Charity with no punishment and then paid for his son without a moments thought that Rachel could be dead or in real trouble and he didn't notice it wasnt his son or take a dna test and has shut out new Archie with a flip of a switch.
All he had to do was have respect for Rachel from the offset.
I don't see at all why Jai should care about Rachel's safety or whereabouts. Would she him? Absolutely not. She took Archie and ran which was far from respectful herself. What if he had done that I'm sure there would have been an outcry. As for paying for Archie, is there really any parent who found themselves in such a predicamnet that wouldn't. Clearly this would only happen on a soap but would Rachel not have done the same if she could? As for a DNA test then say he was stupid if you like but that doesn't make him a bad person
Finally, Charity deserved all she got. It was just a pity she was rescued. She was the one that forced Rachel away and made sure Jai wouldn't see Archie again. Imagine if Jai or anyone had created the circumstances for Noah to disappear like that >:(:(
Rachel can act like she's the mom of the year but she's putting her ego before her son's best interest. Archie deserves to have a father and that father happens to be Jai. If she didn't want to have a child with him then she should have had a termination just like she wanted to until Jai asked her to keep the baby. Rachel is as much a liar and Jai is. She went along with all his lies although he had nothing to put pressure on her. She used her child as a meal ticket. She'll need money soon enough and she'll be knocking on Jai's door with Archie.
You can bet your life on it, she will be round his like a bullet wanting a house, job and money with that God awful sister beside her mouthing off >:( thing is I don't doubt for one second that Jai will make sure Archie is well provided for.
What I don't get is that surely most people have at least a vague awareness of there being lots of different legal jobs and areas of expertise, so do the soap bosses think viewers won't notice? How hard would it have been to have Rakesh know a barrister that he'd recommend rather than magically being able to do it himself. Even if in reality he wouldn't have much contact with barristers (I've not a clue if he would or not,) it'd surely be less implausible to say that?
It's the same with medicine (and probably loads of other things,) especially in Hollyoaks. They recently had a nurse who was apparently an A&E nurse, midwife, addiction specialist and god knows what else else in one. The other week there was a doctor telling nurses they could go home in the middle of their shift, for no particular reason. As if doctors are in charge of staffing! As if people doing that kind of job can just knock off early because they fancy it... The doctor is also apparently in charge of choosing which taxi firm gets the hospital contract... Bizarre. Not to mention all medical staff casually treat their own friends and family members routinely *rolls eyes*
BIB: Not necessarily. Quite often someone comes in and asks for a solicitor for a particular issue. When we say we don't do that work the answer tends to be along the lines of 'you must do, you're solicitors'. It's often difficult to make people understand that we don't do work in all areas of law, only some. A lot just assume all solicitors do all work in all areas of law and they don't understand why that isn't the case - some get annoyed about it.
Anyone would think I don't know fact from fiction. Ofcourse I don't rate the actor because I personally I don't like his acting. I respect your opinion in thinking he is good..
I must admit I wasn't expecting a moral lecture. So if the actors is so good why haven't we seen him in anything else or have I missed something?
How am I on dodgy grounds? I haven't used the R word. Only going by what I have read on these forums. Don't see many praises sung of the actors I mentioned.
Some actors go from soaps into theatre. Just because they're not on TV doesn't mean they're not good and that they don't get other work. I have a friend who has been on TV and the theatre and he said theatre acting is harder than TV because it is always live, whereas most TV programmes are recorded so anyone who cocks up in a recorded TV programme can do it again. In theatre they can't.
Some actors go from soaps into theatre. Just because they're not on TV doesn't mean they're not good and that they don't get other work. I have a friend who has been on TV and the theatre and he said theatre acting is harder than TV because it is always live, whereas most TV programmes are recorded so anyone who cocks up in a recorded TV programme can do it again. In theatre they can't.
Seriously how can you judge someones decisions in life unless you know them and their circumstances? This is like some of the posts that were going around about why Gemma Oaten and sammy whatshername not so long ago. All kinds of things happen in peoples lives to make them decide whether to stay with the same old thing or do something new and actord are people like the rest ouf us .you should check out Jeffs IMDB and wikipedia pages if you're genuinely interested in the other work he's done
To get back to jai,you've certainly given me for one food for thought. Perhaps am letting my dislike for the character influence my views of the actor, althiugh I do hold that i havent been impressed by his performances in anything else.bit to get back to the character -well the character is horrible. Hes smarmy, looks down his nose at everyone, constantly runs to his dad when things go wrong. He acts like he's a successful businessman, yet what little success he has has been got ob the back of his dads work. I thought. He treated Rachel like a chattel. The only time he's been vaguely likeable is when he was good to his siblings. To me he's ''all mooth and nae trousers' -it's all image and nothing elsei
. I do have to say sorry though-i think i misunderstood whst you meant in your original post to Lotty. I thought you were implying that anyone who criticised these actors thought the sane about all of them, and you werent allowing for the huge variety of opinions that appear on here.
I wonder whether there's an issue with the writers as well? I wouldnt say Chris Bisson has been given rotten material but some of the characters in your list, as well as others like Dan and Kerry have been given rubbish to work with IMO. Maybe a bit more thought needs to be put in before they introduce new characters?
Seriously how can you judge someones decisions in life unless you know them and their circumstances? This is like some of the posts that were going around about why Gemma Oaten and sammy whatshername not so long ago. All kinds of things happen in peoples lives to make them decide whether to stay with the same old thing or do something new and actord are people like the rest of us .
To get back to jai,you've certainly given me for one food for thought. Perhaps am letting my dislike for the character influence my views of the actor, althiugh I do hold that i havent been impressed by his performances in anything else
. I do have to say sorry though-i think i misunderstood whst you meant in your original post to Lotty. I thought you were implying that anyone who criticised these actors thought the sane about all of them, and you werent allowing for the huge variety of opinions that appear on here.
I wonder whether there's an issue with the writers as well? I wouldnt say Chris Bisson has been given rotten material but some of the characters in your list, as well as others like Dan and Kerry have been given rubbish to work with IMO. Maybe a bit more thought needs to be put in before they introduce new characters?
Not judging in the least only commenting that since certain type of acting is hard then Jeff Hordley has certainly taken the easy way. I left a HOD job because I found it hard and wasn't enjoying it. Now I do something similar without the responsibility and still enjoy it. I would say Kerry, Dan and Chris have been given rubbish material to work with but that's me thinking that others might not think that and they would be entitled to think what they like as they would be entitled to their opinions. Like you I think there is an issue with the writers not doing their homework before launching into new story lines.
I personally think the fake Archie story line is not nice at all. I sympathise with anyone who has The parents e.g. the McCann's must be grieving for the disappearance of their daughter everyday.
Not judging in the least only commenting that since certain type of acting is hard then Jeff Hordley has certainly taken the easy way. I left a HOD job because I found it hard and wasn't enjoying it. Now I do something similar without the responsibility and still enjoy it. I would say Kerry, Dan and Chris have been given rubbish material to work with but that's me thinking that others might not think that and they would be entitled to think what they like as they would be entitled to their opinions. Like you I think there is an issue with the writers not doing their homework before launching into new story lines.
I personally think the fake Archie story line is not nice at all. I sympathise with anyone who has The parents e.g. the McCann's must be grieving for the disappearance of their daughter everyday.
I think soap actors, writers etc have a very difficult job. You left a job you were unhappy in and thankfully yhat turned out to be the right choice. I've done the same in the past but that doesnt give me the right to assume everyone hates their jobs or to question their motives for staying in a stable job.
Tbh, i think they"re quite brave to do this story. I hopewe do discover the truth about 'fake archie' and that the trafficking side of it is not purely a plot device- although i suspect it will be😠. Out of the lot of them its Megan, Fake Archie and Rakesh(who's been dragged into the whole sorry mess) who have my pity vote.
Comments
Ah I see
He cheated on Charity with the cleaner, got her pregnant, covered it up because he was ashamed of Rachel, humiliated Charity causing her to flip out and get rid of Charity, kidnapped Charity with no punishment and then paid for his son without a moments thought that Rachel could be dead or in real trouble and he didn't notice it wasnt his son or take a dna test and has shut out new Archie with a flip of a switch.
All he had to do was have respect for Rachel from the offset.
True, but the point stands.
Also true. I put that down to soap-ery though; oh he's a lawyer so he must be solicitor, barrister, judge, whatever, whenever a storyline calls for it.
Eta On the other hand maybe not, I guess they wouldn't have Rakesh flag it up in an in-universe way if were just down to that.
I know he did, I'm not quite sure what your point is there?
Yeah, if it wasn't a cloak and dagger way of getting her sent down then it was stupid of him.
So true. I work for a law firm which has several departments and one can't simply do the other's job as all areas of law are highly specialised. For example, a solicitor who does residential conveyancing couldn't take on a criminal defence client and vice versa as they wouldn't have the specialised knowledge.
What I don't get is that surely most people have at least a vague awareness of there being lots of different legal jobs and areas of expertise, so do the soap bosses think viewers won't notice? How hard would it have been to have Rakesh know a barrister that he'd recommend rather than magically being able to do it himself. Even if in reality he wouldn't have much contact with barristers (I've not a clue if he would or not,) it'd surely be less implausible to say that?
It's the same with medicine (and probably loads of other things,) especially in Hollyoaks. They recently had a nurse who was apparently an A&E nurse, midwife, addiction specialist and god knows what else else in one. The other week there was a doctor telling nurses they could go home in the middle of their shift, for no particular reason. As if doctors are in charge of staffing! As if people doing that kind of job can just knock off early because they fancy it... The doctor is also apparently in charge of choosing which taxi firm gets the hospital contract... Bizarre. Not to mention all medical staff casually treat their own friends and family members routinely *rolls eyes*
such an annoying feature of soaps >:( you can bet that Emma who we now know is a nurse will be nursing the whole village whatever their diagnosis!
Anyone would think I don't know fact from fiction. Ofcourse I don't rate the actor because I personally I don't like his acting. I respect your opinion in thinking he is good..
I must admit I wasn't expecting a moral lecture. So if the actors is so good why haven't we seen him in anything else or have I missed something?
How am I on dodgy grounds? I haven't used the R word. Only going by what I have read on these forums. Don't see many praises sung of the actors I mentioned.
*in best Bridget Parker voice* oh no. poor Jai.
Agreed. That really annoys me about soaps.
i think shes a phyco she leaves james for dead next week caring i dont think so
he was good in east is east
Rachel can act like she's the mom of the year but she's putting her ego before her son's best interest. Archie deserves to have a father and that father happens to be Jai. If she didn't want to have a child with him then she should have had a termination just like she wanted to until Jai asked her to keep the baby. Rachel is as much a liar and Jai is. She went along with all his lies although he had nothing to put pressure on her. She used her child as a meal ticket. She'll need money soon enough and she'll be knocking on Jai's door with Archie.
I don't agree, I think some characters are just written in such an infuriting way that viewers have strong reactions to them. I can name other actors who imo are quite dreadful yet evoke strong opinions like Mark Charnok, Kelly hollis or Charley Webb.
Yep he was. So were Raji James, Jimi Mistry and Archie Panjabi. Shame the soaps have high profile actors and do nothing with them. Jimi Mistry is not so good in Corrie and I think that is mainly to do with the rubbish story line he is give IMO. I bet Archie Panjabi is glad she never signed to a British Northern soap. ;-)
I'd be worried if the father of my child bought said child without asking why the child was not with the mother when he handed over the money. Yes we know the child is now not archie but jai had no concerns for her welfare.
My sentiments exactly.
You are entitled to your opinion. I agree. Just realised who Kelly Hollis is. Yes cant stand Ali.
I don't see at all why Jai should care about Rachel's safety or whereabouts. Would she him? Absolutely not. She took Archie and ran which was far from respectful herself. What if he had done that
Finally, Charity deserved all she got. It was just a pity she was rescued. She was the one that forced Rachel away and made sure Jai wouldn't see Archie again. Imagine if Jai or anyone had created the circumstances for Noah to disappear like that
You can bet your life on it, she will be round his like a bullet wanting a house, job and money with that God awful sister beside her mouthing off >:( thing is I don't doubt for one second that Jai will make sure Archie is well provided for.
BIB: Not necessarily. Quite often someone comes in and asks for a solicitor for a particular issue. When we say we don't do that work the answer tends to be along the lines of 'you must do, you're solicitors'. It's often difficult to make people understand that we don't do work in all areas of law, only some. A lot just assume all solicitors do all work in all areas of law and they don't understand why that isn't the case - some get annoyed about it.
Some actors go from soaps into theatre. Just because they're not on TV doesn't mean they're not good and that they don't get other work. I have a friend who has been on TV and the theatre and he said theatre acting is harder than TV because it is always live, whereas most TV programmes are recorded so anyone who cocks up in a recorded TV programme can do it again. In theatre they can't.
Then Jeff Hordley has taken the easier route.
Seriously how can you judge someones decisions in life unless you know them and their circumstances? This is like some of the posts that were going around about why Gemma Oaten and sammy whatshername not so long ago. All kinds of things happen in peoples lives to make them decide whether to stay with the same old thing or do something new and actord are people like the rest ouf us .you should check out Jeffs IMDB and wikipedia pages if you're genuinely interested in the other work he's done
To get back to jai,you've certainly given me for one food for thought. Perhaps am letting my dislike for the character influence my views of the actor, althiugh I do hold that i havent been impressed by his performances in anything else.bit to get back to the character -well the character is horrible. Hes smarmy, looks down his nose at everyone, constantly runs to his dad when things go wrong. He acts like he's a successful businessman, yet what little success he has has been got ob the back of his dads work. I thought. He treated Rachel like a chattel. The only time he's been vaguely likeable is when he was good to his siblings. To me he's ''all mooth and nae trousers' -it's all image and nothing elsei
. I do have to say sorry though-i think i misunderstood whst you meant in your original post to Lotty. I thought you were implying that anyone who criticised these actors thought the sane about all of them, and you werent allowing for the huge variety of opinions that appear on here.
I wonder whether there's an issue with the writers as well? I wouldnt say Chris Bisson has been given rotten material but some of the characters in your list, as well as others like Dan and Kerry have been given rubbish to work with IMO. Maybe a bit more thought needs to be put in before they introduce new characters?
Not judging in the least only commenting that since certain type of acting is hard then Jeff Hordley has certainly taken the easy way. I left a HOD job because I found it hard and wasn't enjoying it. Now I do something similar without the responsibility and still enjoy it. I would say Kerry, Dan and Chris have been given rubbish material to work with but that's me thinking that others might not think that and they would be entitled to think what they like as they would be entitled to their opinions. Like you I think there is an issue with the writers not doing their homework before launching into new story lines.
I personally think the fake Archie story line is not nice at all. I sympathise with anyone who has The parents e.g. the McCann's must be grieving for the disappearance of their daughter everyday.
Tbh, i think they"re quite brave to do this story. I hopewe do discover the truth about 'fake archie' and that the trafficking side of it is not purely a plot device- although i suspect it will be😠. Out of the lot of them its Megan, Fake Archie and Rakesh(who's been dragged into the whole sorry mess) who have my pity vote.