What a childish, spiteful, self absorbed cow she is.
No doubt some of her fans will either be cheering her on because Linda 'deserves' it (despite bending over backwards to keep the peace despite her own pain) or that it is just a fit of temper and she shouldn't be held responsible for it. Despite the pre meditation that must be involved in such an act (getting the safety equipment, lance etc).
Also, the words nose and face spring to mind. Linda didn't want her involved in the first place and she emotionally blackmailed Mick into giving her a share of the business despite having done nothing to earn it, before or since. She's lost an easy ride both financially and status wide. No longer will she be able to say, "that's my name above the door"
Hmm, I guess they figure that they can make Shirley do anything regardless of how insane it is! I honestly can't quite understand what they are doing with Shirley. But, imo, the only way to accept it is to just take it as lighthearted regardless, she does certainly know how to cause drama. I'm not sure who approved but don't forget, last year, we had 'dog meat pies'.:o On the bright side, It looks like it was fun to film.
Realisticslly, no matter how crazy, I think it just a plot device to dramatically mark the beginning of Shirley being bought out of the vic in the next few weeks (according to the spoilers). It's just an attention grabbing way by tptb to take Shirley's name from the door.
It does bother me that they created her family and continue to further ostracize her from it and continually associate her with rapist Dean, even if she doesn't know. Like you say some viewers won't forgot and I have no idea how they will explain this away!
The scene looks so OTT and crazy that I think it will be absolutely hilarious to watch!:D
Light hearted?
Maybe i've just had a sense of humour bypass but i fail to see how destroying a sign in such a dangerous way (she might have a safety helmet on but does everybody around her that may get hit by hot flying metal) can ever be considered anything other than serious and upsetting, let alone at a wake.
It is disrespectful to stan's memory, upsetting to the rest of the family (not just Mick and Linda but Nancy and Lee and especially Tina who really is the one caught in the middle of it all) and downright distasteful.
If she demands money as a pay off for her 'share' i really will hit the roof.
Maybe i've just had a sense of humour bypass but i fail to see how destroying a sign in such a dangerous way (she might have a safety helmet on but does everybody around her that may get hit by hot flying metal) can ever be considered anything other than serious and upsetting, let alone at a wake.
It is disrespectful to stan's memory, upsetting to the rest of the family (not just Mick and Linda but Nancy and Lee and especially Tina who really is the one caught in the middle of it all) and downright distasteful.
If she demands money as a pay off for her 'share' i really will hit the roof.
Im saying, I think that is the only way we can take this. Of course it is silly but I'm going to just take in good humour because of how ridiculous it is.:D I don't think it supposed to be taken seriously.
I don't think the writers thought to indepth about the safety element, I think they just wanted an 'explosive ' way to get Shirley's name down from above the door and this was what they came up with. Obviously Mick is going to buy her out eventually and she may get her own place while continuing to work at Blades. I do hope if she moves out of the B&B that her and Denise's friendship isn't forgotteb by tptb.
Thing is, regardless of what she paid to Mick, he put her on the deeds and therefore she does own part of the Vic and is part-landlady. She could have given £1 and it would be the same principle.
Im saying, I think that is the only way we can take this. Of course it is silly but I'm going to just take in good humour because of how ridiculous it is.:D
I don't think the writers thought to indepth about the safety element, I think they just wanted an 'explosive ' way to get Shirley's name down from above the door and this was what they came up with. Obviously Mick is going to buy her out eventually and she may get her own place while continuing to work at Blades. I do hope if she moves out of the B&B that her and Denise's friendship isn't forgotteb by tptb.
The writers probably didn't think about it in details but unfortunately some viewers do. I won't be able to overlook it just as I couldn't when Alfie went to all the trouble to march to the vic, grab the Bust, march back over the Square and then chuck it through Phil's window when babies could have been underneath it. That was the beginning of the end for me with Alfie, I'd sympathised with him until that point.
I do understand some might have to find it light hearted to deal with it, to allow themselves to still root for Shirley but as far as i'm concerned it is just the latest in a long list of selfish and potentially dangerous acts - managing to set Ian's restaurant on fire would be another one.
Thing is, regardless of what she paid to Mick, he put her on the deeds and therefore she does own part of the Vic and is part-landlady. She could have given £1 and it would be the same principle.
Oh i know. Legal term is consideration. Legally she'll have a claim for a third despote the morality of how she got the share. Which is why it was a bloody stupid thing for Mick to be guilt tripped into in the first place as many people (including me) pointed out at the time.
Maybe i've just had a sense of humour bypass but i fail to see how destroying a sign in such a dangerous way (she might have a safety helmet on but does everybody around her that may get hit by hot flying metal) can ever be considered anything other than serious and upsetting, let alone at a wake.
It is disrespectful to stan's memory, upsetting to the rest of the family (not just Mick and Linda but Nancy and Lee and especially Tina who really is the one caught in the middle of it all) and downright distasteful.
If she demands money as a pay off for her 'share' i really will hit the roof.
Prepare to peel yourself off that roof at the end of the episode because I reckon that's a given. Maybe not tonight but it'll be coming.
The writers probably didn't think about it in details but unfortunately some viewers do. I won't be able to overlook it just as I couldn't when Alfie went to all the trouble to march to the vic, grab the Bust, march back over the Square and then chuck it through Phil's window when babies could have been underneath it. That was the beginning of the end for me with Alfie, I'd sympathised with him until that point.
I do understand some might have to find it light hearted to deal with it, to allow themselves to still root for Shirley but as far as i'm concerned it is just the latest in a long list of selfish and potentially dangerous acts - managing to set Ian's restaurant on fire would be another one.
Horrible behaviour especially when Mick was guilt tripped into it all in the first place by her (which he should never have allowed himself to be) but ultimately it was a kind act by him and Linda and now Shirley does this in return? Throws their kindness in their face and makes them 'pay' (in more ways than one) for their 'good' act? Bad enough if she'd just asked but all this theatrics AT HER FATHER'S WAKE? Aside from anything else that's really adhering to Stan's wishes of wanting them all reunited eh? Vile, vile, vile.
I'm sorry... are we supposed to like Shirley still? Losing track.
God knows. There'll probably be as many cheering her on in a "way to go Shirley" or "you go girl" way than there will be people like me who'll be repulsed. She certainly divides opinion.
Prepare to peel yourself off that roof at the end of the episode because I reckon that's a given. Maybe not tonight but it'll be coming.
Horrible behaviour especially when Mick was guilt tripped into it all in the first place by her (which he should never have allowed himself to be) but ultimately it was a kind act by him and Linda and now Shirley does this in return? Throws their kindness in their face and makes them 'pay' (in more ways than one) for their 'good' act? Bad enough if she'd just asked but all this theatrics AT HER FATHER'S WAKE? Aside from anything else that's really adhering to Stan's wishes of wanting them all reunited eh? Vile, vile, vile.
God knows. There'll probably be as many cheering her on in a "way to go Shirley" or "you go girl" way than there will be people like me who'll be repulsed. She certainly divides opinion.
Shirley never has had and never will have any sense of gratitude or being beholden to somebody else. It is just self, self, self. It was all self even when stan died as well. As i said last week, being alone with him at the end was one thing, he requested that but she should have called the famiy as soon as he died to allow them to come and see him if they wished. She got a last cuddle before he went cold, tina didn't and probably would have liked to.
I'm sure there will be loads of people cheering her on which frankly I find rather depressing.
Not that I remember no. Wasn't Ian guilt tripped into believing that it had all been his fault somehow? I do remember her going on about how it wasn't fair that Ian even had the restaurant in the first place when she was poor. Shirley, ian has the restaurant because he got himself an education at catering college and then worked his arse off building up various businesses. Yes, he's pulled a few dodgy deals, made some mistakes, but his money basically comes from hard work which is something Shirley has never done in her life. If she had, perhaps she'd have her own money and business rather than constantly having to guilt trip / blackmail people into funding her.
God i really hate that woman. Hate everything she stands for.
The character is interesting, played by a fantastic actress but her personality is horrid.
DTC has lost the plot. That is such an unShirley thing to do....in fact I can't think of any character who would do something so lame. I'm cringing already.
How is it an UnShirley thing? She has always been a nasty and selfish homewrecker. The only thing that doesn't sit right is Shirely is wearing protective gear. Where will she get that from?
It's bad but I'm actually looking forward to this tonight now. It's so so ridiculous and over the top that it's going to be almost interesting to see it unfold. Why they're going all out to make Shirley, one of my favourite characters in the soap become a complete monster is beyond me. It's getting difficult to support her
Not that I remember no. Wasn't Ian guilt tripped into believing that it had all been his fault somehow? I do remember her going on about how it wasn't fair that Ian even had the restaurant in the first place when she was poor. Shirley, ian has the restaurant because he got himself an education at catering college and then worked his arse off building up various businesses. Yes, he's pulled a few dodgy deals, made some mistakes, but his money basically comes from hard work which is something Shirley has never done in her life. If she had, perhaps she'd have her own money and business rather than constantly having to guilt trip / blackmail people into funding her.
God i really hate that woman. Hate everything she stands for.
The character is interesting, played by a fantastic actress but her personality is horrid.
Well said.
IIRC Shirley believed that Ian had it all coming to him because he knew that Ben had killed Heather so therefore, in Shirley's world, deserved to have his restaurant burned. There was no compassion for the man that the knowledge had literally sent him out of his mind, oh no, he knew so should pay.
Pity she didn't apply this attitude to herself who knew that Phil knew and that he actively covered up for Ben but couldn't bring herself to grass him up *roll eyes*
How is it an UnShirley thing? She has always been a nasty and selfish homewrecker. The only thing that doesn't sit right is Shirely is wearing protective gear. Where will she get that from?
Because she is a creature of impulse, and this would take thought and planning. The only person I could see working in this way is Phil...crushing Jack's car, getting his own back on Sharon, getting the Arches back from Max etc. As someone else said she is more a 'brick through the window' type.
IIRC Shirley believed that Ian had it all coming to him because he knew that Ben had killed Heather so therefore, in Shirley's world, deserved to have his restaurant burned. There was no compassion for the man that the knowledge had literally sent him out of his mind, oh no, he knew so should pay.
Pity she didn't apply this attitude to herself who knew that Phil knew and that he actively covered up for Ben but couldn't bring herself to grass him up *roll eyes*
Screaming bloody hypocrite.
Yes, her logic was that besides it not being 'fair' that Ian should have a nice business, home and money he had known about Ben killing Heather and not said anything.
But, as you say, Ian actually had a stronger reaction than anybody else. He tried to persuade Ben to own up and was physically threatened by Phil to keep quiet. I truly believe the knowledge of what Ben did and Phil's pressure was the main cause of his nervous breakdown (referenced by 'Heather' being the first word he responded to on his return) and he spent weeks living rough whilst Phil actively discouraged anybody from looking for him to protect Ben's secret.
Even leaving aside that Shirley chose to keep quiet about Phil's involvement and seemed on the point of staying quiet about Ben's before she and Phil realised he'd gone to the Police by himself, hadn't Ian already suffered enough for his silence?
Because she is a creature of impulse, and this would take thought and planning. The only person I could see working in this way is Phil...crushing Jack's car, getting his own back on Sharon, getting the Arches back from Max etc. As someone else said she is more a 'brick through the window' type.
True.
Maybe she enlists his help?
The pre meditation makes it worse though.
Or is there suddenly going to be some kind of building works going on right outside so she can just grab the stuff from there?
The Arches might have that kind of equipment i suppose.
Is she actually on the deeds? Or just added as a licensee?
This is what I'd like to know and I've asked the question many times myself but no one seems to be sure one way or the other!
I'd have hoped she was just added as a licensee and that they didn't actually give her a share of the property/business but this being EE and them going for maximum drama I bet she owns part of it *roll eyes*
I remember being angry as hell with Mick when he was putting pressure on Linda to agree. He was guilt tripped by Shirley and Linda was guilt tripped by him and I felt she only agreed because she felt guilty that it was her ultimatum ("us or her!" when Shirl burnt down their previous pub) that led to Mick and Shirley being estranged for so long.
A lot of guilt flying about - but none from Shirley it seems.
Is she actually on the deeds? Or just added as a licensee?
As lotty says nobody seems to know and never have done. It was something loads of us were asking when it first happened, was a legal document drawn up, did she get a third of the profits or was she still paid a salary for her work behind the bar, would she be able to stop linda and Mick selling if they wanted to move on or would they have to give her a third of the current value of the business, is it just the pub or the flat as well etc, etc.
They never told us because they wanted to keep it vague.
Comments
What a childish, spiteful, self absorbed cow she is.
No doubt some of her fans will either be cheering her on because Linda 'deserves' it (despite bending over backwards to keep the peace despite her own pain) or that it is just a fit of temper and she shouldn't be held responsible for it. Despite the pre meditation that must be involved in such an act (getting the safety equipment, lance etc).
Also, the words nose and face spring to mind. Linda didn't want her involved in the first place and she emotionally blackmailed Mick into giving her a share of the business despite having done nothing to earn it, before or since. She's lost an easy ride both financially and status wide. No longer will she be able to say, "that's my name above the door"
Light hearted?
Maybe i've just had a sense of humour bypass but i fail to see how destroying a sign in such a dangerous way (she might have a safety helmet on but does everybody around her that may get hit by hot flying metal) can ever be considered anything other than serious and upsetting, let alone at a wake.
It is disrespectful to stan's memory, upsetting to the rest of the family (not just Mick and Linda but Nancy and Lee and especially Tina who really is the one caught in the middle of it all) and downright distasteful.
If she demands money as a pay off for her 'share' i really will hit the roof.
Im saying, I think that is the only way we can take this. Of course it is silly but I'm going to just take in good humour because of how ridiculous it is.:D I don't think it supposed to be taken seriously.
I don't think the writers thought to indepth about the safety element, I think they just wanted an 'explosive ' way to get Shirley's name down from above the door and this was what they came up with. Obviously Mick is going to buy her out eventually and she may get her own place while continuing to work at Blades. I do hope if she moves out of the B&B that her and Denise's friendship isn't forgotteb by tptb.
I'm sure in her mind that bought her a third.
Thing is, regardless of what she paid to Mick, he put her on the deeds and therefore she does own part of the Vic and is part-landlady. She could have given £1 and it would be the same principle.
The writers probably didn't think about it in details but unfortunately some viewers do. I won't be able to overlook it just as I couldn't when Alfie went to all the trouble to march to the vic, grab the Bust, march back over the Square and then chuck it through Phil's window when babies could have been underneath it. That was the beginning of the end for me with Alfie, I'd sympathised with him until that point.
I do understand some might have to find it light hearted to deal with it, to allow themselves to still root for Shirley but as far as i'm concerned it is just the latest in a long list of selfish and potentially dangerous acts - managing to set Ian's restaurant on fire would be another one.
Oh i know. Legal term is consideration. Legally she'll have a claim for a third despote the morality of how she got the share. Which is why it was a bloody stupid thing for Mick to be guilt tripped into in the first place as many people (including me) pointed out at the time.
This is just pathetic now. This will dominate tonights show then.
Prepare to peel yourself off that roof at the end of the episode because I reckon that's a given. Maybe not tonight but it'll be coming.
Horrible behaviour especially when Mick was guilt tripped into it all in the first place by her (which he should never have allowed himself to be) but ultimately it was a kind act by him and Linda and now Shirley does this in return? Throws their kindness in their face and makes them 'pay' (in more ways than one) for their 'good' act? Bad enough if she'd just asked but all this theatrics AT HER FATHER'S WAKE? Aside from anything else that's really adhering to Stan's wishes of wanting them all reunited eh? Vile, vile, vile.
God knows. There'll probably be as many cheering her on in a "way to go Shirley" or "you go girl" way than there will be people like me who'll be repulsed. She certainly divides opinion.
Has she paid for that restaurant yet?
Shirley never has had and never will have any sense of gratitude or being beholden to somebody else. It is just self, self, self. It was all self even when stan died as well. As i said last week, being alone with him at the end was one thing, he requested that but she should have called the famiy as soon as he died to allow them to come and see him if they wished. She got a last cuddle before he went cold, tina didn't and probably would have liked to.
I'm sure there will be loads of people cheering her on which frankly I find rather depressing.
Not that I remember no. Wasn't Ian guilt tripped into believing that it had all been his fault somehow? I do remember her going on about how it wasn't fair that Ian even had the restaurant in the first place when she was poor. Shirley, ian has the restaurant because he got himself an education at catering college and then worked his arse off building up various businesses. Yes, he's pulled a few dodgy deals, made some mistakes, but his money basically comes from hard work which is something Shirley has never done in her life. If she had, perhaps she'd have her own money and business rather than constantly having to guilt trip / blackmail people into funding her.
God i really hate that woman. Hate everything she stands for.
The character is interesting, played by a fantastic actress but her personality is horrid.
Well said.
IIRC Shirley believed that Ian had it all coming to him because he knew that Ben had killed Heather so therefore, in Shirley's world, deserved to have his restaurant burned. There was no compassion for the man that the knowledge had literally sent him out of his mind, oh no, he knew so should pay.
Pity she didn't apply this attitude to herself who knew that Phil knew and that he actively covered up for Ben but couldn't bring herself to grass him up *roll eyes*
Screaming bloody hypocrite.
Because she is a creature of impulse, and this would take thought and planning. The only person I could see working in this way is Phil...crushing Jack's car, getting his own back on Sharon, getting the Arches back from Max etc. As someone else said she is more a 'brick through the window' type.
Yes, her logic was that besides it not being 'fair' that Ian should have a nice business, home and money he had known about Ben killing Heather and not said anything.
But, as you say, Ian actually had a stronger reaction than anybody else. He tried to persuade Ben to own up and was physically threatened by Phil to keep quiet. I truly believe the knowledge of what Ben did and Phil's pressure was the main cause of his nervous breakdown (referenced by 'Heather' being the first word he responded to on his return) and he spent weeks living rough whilst Phil actively discouraged anybody from looking for him to protect Ben's secret.
Even leaving aside that Shirley chose to keep quiet about Phil's involvement and seemed on the point of staying quiet about Ben's before she and Phil realised he'd gone to the Police by himself, hadn't Ian already suffered enough for his silence?
True.
Maybe she enlists his help?
The pre meditation makes it worse though.
Or is there suddenly going to be some kind of building works going on right outside so she can just grab the stuff from there?
The Arches might have that kind of equipment i suppose.
This is what I'd like to know and I've asked the question many times myself but no one seems to be sure one way or the other!
I'd have hoped she was just added as a licensee and that they didn't actually give her a share of the property/business but this being EE and them going for maximum drama I bet she owns part of it *roll eyes*
I remember being angry as hell with Mick when he was putting pressure on Linda to agree. He was guilt tripped by Shirley and Linda was guilt tripped by him and I felt she only agreed because she felt guilty that it was her ultimatum ("us or her!" when Shirl burnt down their previous pub) that led to Mick and Shirley being estranged for so long.
A lot of guilt flying about - but none from Shirley it seems.
Love it. Now THIS I might find funny!
As lotty says nobody seems to know and never have done. It was something loads of us were asking when it first happened, was a legal document drawn up, did she get a third of the profits or was she still paid a salary for her work behind the bar, would she be able to stop linda and Mick selling if they wanted to move on or would they have to give her a third of the current value of the business, is it just the pub or the flat as well etc, etc.
They never told us because they wanted to keep it vague.