The fact is no one can say for definite whether she is coming back or not. We'll just have to wait and see.
I think she'll be back but who knows what will happen between then and now?
To be fair if Jo is on record saying her break is six months. I think we can take her word on it.
Some people need to stop worshipping at the alter of that VirginiaDem poster.
She was one of the posters constantly touting this stuff about Jo not coming back, and she's still doing it on that blog (whilst insulting various members on here in the process). Why do people look up to this person?
If you can only criticize others' arguments on an entire assumption said people don't even have the audacity to have their own opinons (but rather an adoption of someone else's views), then that's really something. And once again (BIB2), another strawman assertion. No one has stated Joyner is never coming back, but leaving the show. They aren't synonomous concepts.
You've got more patience than me, PP. But I agree entirely with what you are saying, especially regarding contracts. There is no way on god's green earth JJ has some weird contract that includes 6 months time off BEFORE she starts work. I've never heard of such a thing. Even Liz Taylor would have been hard pressed to get a contract like that in her heyday.
Indeed, Filiman. I've never heard of a contract of employment which also plans a break beyond when it becomes null and void, and thus is still valid?!
To be fair if Jo is on record saying her break is six months. I think we can take her word on it.
I'm amazed its providing this much debate.
I agree; this whole argument is one based on semantics and technicalities. There's been a lot of talking down to people as well.
The way I see it, Jo Joyner has said that her break is for six months. I see no reason to question that. Yes, technically she is 'leaving' as she is out of contract; I'm sure we all understand that. But in simple terms, I don't see how leaving, whilst already having a return planned can be seen as anything other than a break - which can be defined as 'a pause from doing something'.
Hey everyone have a look at the link which I posted
Thanks for the link.
If you've been proved wrong about something the best thing you can do is keep quiet and slope away. I'm not surprised nobody's replied to the link you posted. :cool:
The Daily Star actually has a pretty good record of accuracy regarding Soaps, it should be said. And Joyner herself with this 'six months' talk has never stated she is taking a sabbitical which is the contractual form of taking a break. In a soap, once you chose not to renew your contract you quit - there's no planned contract somewhere out there for you to sign. The BBC's own PR for EastEnders can't even state specfically when Joyner will be back. If such an arrangement existed (of which I haven't ever heard of happening) where TPTB have drawn up a future contract of employment for Joyner sign, then surely they would at least be able to tell us specfically when thet expect Joyner to return to work?
Tanya has not been 'central to the show's reinvention' even I have to say Saint Stacey Slater and Ronnie Mitchell were more viewer drawers than Tanya Branning. Even under Santer - the show was the Stacey & Ronnie show, it was never the Tanya show. The show's reinvention had more to do with the Mitchell sisters and their own arc, as well as Max Branning and the dynamic between him, his son and his daughter-in-law than it ever had to do with Tanya. For Tanya's first year and half she was nothing more than Max's wife, and despite an increased focus on her in 2008 she didn't really develop beyond that. The Slaters were also 'producer favourites' - in the end that didn't stop that family pretty much disintergating. Jean, is a Slater only by marriage and Mo is Porter - Harris by marriage, and thus related to Pat by marriage.
Tanya doesn't really have much of a place on the square. Her character pretty much has hit a wall as far as mileage is concerned, and she can't just exist there for the sake of it. We have enough deadwood characters. It's like saying Tyler should remain on the square becaue his uncle and brother are there.
But isn't Jean Charlie Slater's sister ?
On another note, I remember reading that Natalie Cassidy was 'taking a break' from playing Sonia when she left with Martin.
If you've been proved wrong about something the best thing you can do is keep quiet and slope away. I'm not surprised nobody's replied to the link you posted. :cool:
Nobody's been proven wrong - because the article confirms none of the things that were asserted in this thread several days ago;
(a. Several FMs, made the assertions that a secret contract had existed regarding Joyner - a future contract - or one that included giving her leave beyond it being null and void. Joyner hasn't confirmed such arrangement has taken place. There is no specfic quote confirming such an arrangement. Indeed, the article doesn't even confirm Joyner has taken a sabbitical. And of course Joyner's 'discussed her break' - she would have to discuss the not renewing of her contract with her boss; that pretty much doesn't refute anything either. Not renewing your contract is pretty much incomparable to taking maternity leave as well, as Joyner compares in the article too.
And oh, the article wouldn't have got many repiles because it's was posted quite late at night. Even I, a night surfer, was asleep then. TPTB still have yet to confirm Tanya's return date, in line with Joyner's six months statement.
Nobody's been proven wrong - because the article confirms none of the things that were asserted in this thread several days ago;
(a. Several FMs, made the assertions that a secret contract had existed regarding Joyner - a future contract - or one that included giving her leave beyond it being null and void. Joyner hasn't confirmed such arrangement has taken place. There is no specfic quote confirming such an arrangement. Indeed, the article doesn't even confirm Joyner has taken a sabbitical. And of course Joyner's 'discussed her break' - she would have to discuss the not renewing of her contract with her boss; that pretty much doesn't refute anything either. Not renewing your contract pretty much incomparable to maternity leave as well, as Joyner compares in the article too.
And oh, the article wouldn't have got many repiles because it's was posted quite late at night. Even I, a night surfer, was asleep then. TPTB still have yet to confirm Tanya's return date, in line with Joyner's six months statement.
And I'd pretty much repeat the above, to you too.
This.
I did actually see the post shortly after it was made; but couldn't be arsed to reply to it. Thank you PP - pretty much summed up my view.
I did actually see the post shortly after it was made; but couldn't be arsed to reply to it. Thank you PP - pretty much summed up my view.
I don't actually recall seeing it on Monday, but when the thread was bumped shortly aftet 8.00PM yesterday, looking back at the times, I wasn't asleep - I was out:D I thought the article was posted around 4:30 onwards, because of some of the late repilies (thus my asleep comment).
Given that Tanya isn't due to leave until May next year it's probably way too early for TPTB to give an exact date for her return. We don't have an exact date for Charlie Brooks' return either and she's just finished filming.
And we get it, other people have also said they would be taking short breaks but didn't return until much later. Do you know something else? Some others said they would be taking a short break and - shock, horror - actually returned after said break! :eek:
If Jo Joyner herself has repeatedly said she will be back after this break, then that's good enough for me, regardless of what others on here keep saying over and over again. For all we know the line about her being out of contract wasn't even true, given that as far as I know, Jo Joyner has never made reference to this.
Not sure what you are missing PP but you are back tracking.
This is Jo on quote
Jo, who is the mum of twins, also spoke of her decision to take extended leave from the hit BBC 1 soap.
She will start a six-month break next May after negotiating the time off with new boss Lorraine Newman. And she said she is looking forward to spending more time with her two-year-old twins Freddie and Edie.
She said: “I only took six months when I first had the kids and was very envious of everyone taking a year.
“But this way I’m still getting my six months – just before they start nursery – which is really nice.
“We’re hoping to move back to the countryside as I’m a real country girl at heart and I want to spend as much time with the kids as I can.
“It’s a little while off yet and I have no idea how they’re going to write me out but I will be back.”
She added: “I love playing Tanya and can’t wait to find out what’s coming up.
There is nothing else to discuss. As outlined in my OP. You along with others PP are trying to force the opinion onto everyone that she is leaving for good and not returning. Even in some posts have suggested Newman won't want her back..
Not sure what you are missing PP but you are back tracking.
This is Jo on quote
There is nothing else to discuss. As outlined in my OP.
First, you can't close off discussion, while essentially opening discussion by starting a thread - that in itself is contradictory. Secondly, you've made an assertion regarding my own argument, and since you've done that the onus is on yourself to back up that assertion; which essentially questions the consistiency of my own position; otherwise the assertion remains a unsubstainated statement on my argument. As for your quote, I pretty much dealt with that quote upon the substance of it backing up the argument of you, and several others expressed in this thread several days ago; read back to my post.
And on Charlie Brooks' sceanrio (in reference to a different post) I don't believe her contract ran out; although even I'm not betting heavily on her return, despite the fact I'm a Janine fan.
. You along with others PP are trying to force the opinion onto everyone that she is leaving for good and not returning. Even in some posts have suggested Newman won't want her back..
I'm not trying to force any opinion onto anyone - this is a discussion forum, where a variety of views will exist - that's part of the nature of what a forum is, and what one should expect when they sign up to a forum. Since you started a thread on the subject matter, not myself or indeed any other who disagrees with your point of view you should also know that there's a chance someone will disagree with your view that express that viewpoint; and if you don't like it then you are free to respond, or ignore that POV.
I've also not stated Joyner is 'leaving for good'; all I've stated is Joyner is not renewing her contract which is a completely different assertion. I've also not stated she's not returning. Indeed, I included the possibility of a return, and thus TPTB giving her a new contract in one of earlier, if not first post on this thread, on page one. I've also not suggested anything on the matter of whether Newman will 'want her back or not' either way but essentially stating a fact; that it's up to her employers, essentially whether she works for them or not. Like it is pretty much everyone else who works.
the ins and outs of Jo Joyner's contract is neither here nor there as none of us know what is in it or what has been discussed with the show. All anyone on here is doing is speculating on something they know nothing about, regardless of whether you know about contracts or not you don't have Jo Joyner's in front of you so you know nothing about it. A contract is personal between the company (Eastenders) and the employee (Jo Joyner) so not one of us knows anything about it or in fact whether she has signed another one or not. We also don't know what has been said between the two parties about her break. People will believe what they want, whether that is rubbish printed in such quality papers of the Daily Mail or the Star or words from the actress herself.
However I highly doubt that Jo Joyner would be saying she will be coming back without talking to Eastenders first, it would be very unprofessional of her to do so.
the ins and outs of Jo Joyner's contract is neither here nor there as none of us know what is in it or what has been discussed with the show. All anyone on here is doing is speculating on something they know nothing about, regardless of whether you know about contracts or not you don't have Jo Joyner's in front of you so you know nothing about it. A contract is personal between the company (Eastenders) and the employee (Jo Joyner) so not one of us knows anything about it or in fact whether she has signed another one or not. We also don't know what has been said between the two parties about her break. People will believe what they want, whether that is rubbish printed in such quality papers of the Daily Mail or the Star or words from the actress herself.
(1. I know there's no such thing as a contract offering six months' break after it ends; indeed I've never heard of it within any industry; and since this the theory that's been introduced in this thread - which essentially does open discussion to something you think it shouldn't I'll question it. Irregardless of whether someone is apart of TPTB or not, they've never in the history of the show, given out such a contract to any of its actresses and actors; and on that basis it's reasonable to conclude along with Joyner herself never confirming such arrangement is in existance, that such a contract doesn't exist.
And on your comment regarding sources; the very words' from Joyner's mouth are coming from the Star - so, does that therefore make it 'rubbish' because it's in the publication? As a reader of the press, I can judge the viability of an article on for instance, to set out one element - quotations, as well as on said topic (soaps) whether in my exprience the publication has had a good record or not; I don't just dismiss a source enterily, otherwise this negates everything these publications have printed as unreliable, and in essence I doubt that's the case because I doubt either one wants lawsuits dished out to them.
(1. I know there's no such thing as a contract offering six months' break after it ends; indeed I've never heard of it within any industry; and since this the theory that's been introduced in this thread - which essentially does open discussion to something you think it shouldn't I'll question it. Irregardless of whether someone is apart of TPTB or not, they've never in the history of the show, given out such a contract to any of its actresses and actors; and on that basis it's reasonable to conclude along with Joyner herself never confirming such arrangement is in existance, that such a contract doesn't exist.
And on your comment regarding sources; the very words' from Joyner's mouth are coming from the Star - so, does that therefore make it 'rubbish' because it's in the publication? As a reader of the press, I can judge the viability of an article on for instance, to set out one element - quotations, as well as on said topic (soaps) whether in my exprience the publication has had a good record or not; I don't just dismiss a source enterily, otherwise this negates everything these publications have printed as unreliable, and in essence I doubt that's the case because I doubt either one wants lawsuits dished out to them.
Why do you have to get so defensive when people make comments that you don't agree with? Whatever you think or believe is just that, it is your opinion and not gospel. Others have their own opinions. You sit there and try and make others feel inferior and stupid with your replys to them. In this whole thread you have acted like you are the only one that has a clue about anything.
If you think the Star is a reliable source for news then that's your opinion. To me it is nothing more than a comic and one that lies. I don't read any of the tabloids for the simple fact that they are all rubbish.
Why do you have to get so defensive when people make comments that you don't agree with? Whatever you think or believe is just that, it is your opinion and not gospel. Others have their own opinions. You sit there and try and make others feel inferior and stupid with your replys to them. In this whole thread you have acted like you are the only one that has a clue about anything.
If you think the Star is a reliable source for news then that's your opinion. To me it is nothing more than a comic and one that lies. I don't read any of the tabloids for the simple fact that they are all rubbish.
I saw your comments as questioning my argument; ''you know nothing about it''. It's one thing to express a POV, and elaborate on reasons for your disagreement and another to dismiss other's POVs. I've also never stated others can't have their own opinion; and I've never gone out to make others feel 'inferior' or 'stupid'; I've argued enterily based on the points people make - so I can't really see where I've made anyone feel 'stupid' - if anything, I've been talked down to in this thread. I also haven't stated I only know about everything, but questioned the claims of others. I also never stated I found the Star reliable on 'everything' regarding news (as news covers a wide spectrum of different types of news). I stated I judge an article on a variety of things, which is a different perspective. Anyway, I'm exiting this thread.
(1. I know there's no such thing as a contract offering six months' break after it ends; indeed I've never heard of it within any industry; and since this the theory that's been introduced in this thread - which essentially does open discussion to something you think it shouldn't I'll question it. Irregardless of whether someone is apart of TPTB or not, they've never in the history of the show, given out such a contract to any of its actresses and actors; and on that basis it's reasonable to conclude along with Joyner herself never confirming such arrangement is in existance, that such a contract doesn't exist.
And on your comment regarding sources; the very words' from Joyner's mouth are coming from the Star - so, does that therefore make it 'rubbish' because it's in the publication? As a reader of the press, I can judge the viability of an article on for instance, to set out one element - quotations, as well as on said topic (soaps) whether in my exprience the publication has had a good record or not; I don't just dismiss a source enterily, otherwise this negates everything these publications have printed as unreliable, and in essence I doubt that's the case because I doubt either one wants lawsuits dished out to them.
I work in property doing project management and planning. I've had contracts in place with builders, consultants and contractors which have breaks within them to fit both our timetables (for example I might need someone at the start and end of a build project but not for a chunk in the middle). I'm not saying EE have such a contract in place with Jo but for you to suggest that "there's no such thing as a contract offering six months' break after it ends" isn't true.
They might not be conventional contracts but they do exist (and yes I do have a legal team working with me who specialise in employment law).
Comments
To be fair if Jo is on record saying her break is six months. I think we can take her word on it.
I'm amazed its providing this much debate.
I have also been featured.
That ain't the half of it!
I agree; this whole argument is one based on semantics and technicalities. There's been a lot of talking down to people as well.
The way I see it, Jo Joyner has said that her break is for six months. I see no reason to question that. Yes, technically she is 'leaving' as she is out of contract; I'm sure we all understand that. But in simple terms, I don't see how leaving, whilst already having a return planned can be seen as anything other than a break - which can be defined as 'a pause from doing something'.
Jo Joyner says in this interview that her break has been discussed with Lorraine Newman
If you've been proved wrong about something the best thing you can do is keep quiet and slope away. I'm not surprised nobody's replied to the link you posted. :cool:
Insert Cruella De Vil laugh here
But isn't Jean Charlie Slater's sister ?
On another note, I remember reading that Natalie Cassidy was 'taking a break' from playing Sonia when she left with Martin.
Nobody's been proven wrong - because the article confirms none of the things that were asserted in this thread several days ago;
(a. Several FMs, made the assertions that a secret contract had existed regarding Joyner - a future contract - or one that included giving her leave beyond it being null and void. Joyner hasn't confirmed such arrangement has taken place. There is no specfic quote confirming such an arrangement. Indeed, the article doesn't even confirm Joyner has taken a sabbitical. And of course Joyner's 'discussed her break' - she would have to discuss the not renewing of her contract with her boss; that pretty much doesn't refute anything either. Not renewing your contract is pretty much incomparable to taking maternity leave as well, as Joyner compares in the article too.
And oh, the article wouldn't have got many repiles because it's was posted quite late at night. Even I, a night surfer, was asleep then. TPTB still have yet to confirm Tanya's return date, in line with Joyner's six months statement.
And I'd pretty much repeat the above, to you too.
Just like Letitia Dean also 'took a break' when she left in 2006. Longest 'break' I'd ever heard of.
This.
I did actually see the post shortly after it was made; but couldn't be arsed to reply to it. Thank you PP - pretty much summed up my view.
And we get it, other people have also said they would be taking short breaks but didn't return until much later. Do you know something else? Some others said they would be taking a short break and - shock, horror - actually returned after said break! :eek:
If Jo Joyner herself has repeatedly said she will be back after this break, then that's good enough for me, regardless of what others on here keep saying over and over again. For all we know the line about her being out of contract wasn't even true, given that as far as I know, Jo Joyner has never made reference to this.
This is Jo on quote
There is nothing else to discuss. As outlined in my OP. You along with others PP are trying to force the opinion onto everyone that she is leaving for good and not returning. Even in some posts have suggested Newman won't want her back..
First, you can't close off discussion, while essentially opening discussion by starting a thread - that in itself is contradictory. Secondly, you've made an assertion regarding my own argument, and since you've done that the onus is on yourself to back up that assertion; which essentially questions the consistiency of my own position; otherwise the assertion remains a unsubstainated statement on my argument. As for your quote, I pretty much dealt with that quote upon the substance of it backing up the argument of you, and several others expressed in this thread several days ago; read back to my post.
And on Charlie Brooks' sceanrio (in reference to a different post) I don't believe her contract ran out; although even I'm not betting heavily on her return, despite the fact I'm a Janine fan.
I've also not stated Joyner is 'leaving for good'; all I've stated is Joyner is not renewing her contract which is a completely different assertion. I've also not stated she's not returning. Indeed, I included the possibility of a return, and thus TPTB giving her a new contract in one of earlier, if not first post on this thread, on page one. I've also not suggested anything on the matter of whether Newman will 'want her back or not' either way but essentially stating a fact; that it's up to her employers, essentially whether she works for them or not. Like it is pretty much everyone else who works.
However I highly doubt that Jo Joyner would be saying she will be coming back without talking to Eastenders first, it would be very unprofessional of her to do so.
And on your comment regarding sources; the very words' from Joyner's mouth are coming from the Star - so, does that therefore make it 'rubbish' because it's in the publication? As a reader of the press, I can judge the viability of an article on for instance, to set out one element - quotations, as well as on said topic (soaps) whether in my exprience the publication has had a good record or not; I don't just dismiss a source enterily, otherwise this negates everything these publications have printed as unreliable, and in essence I doubt that's the case because I doubt either one wants lawsuits dished out to them.
Why do you have to get so defensive when people make comments that you don't agree with? Whatever you think or believe is just that, it is your opinion and not gospel. Others have their own opinions. You sit there and try and make others feel inferior and stupid with your replys to them. In this whole thread you have acted like you are the only one that has a clue about anything.
If you think the Star is a reliable source for news then that's your opinion. To me it is nothing more than a comic and one that lies. I don't read any of the tabloids for the simple fact that they are all rubbish.
I work in property doing project management and planning. I've had contracts in place with builders, consultants and contractors which have breaks within them to fit both our timetables (for example I might need someone at the start and end of a build project but not for a chunk in the middle). I'm not saying EE have such a contract in place with Jo but for you to suggest that "there's no such thing as a contract offering six months' break after it ends" isn't true.
They might not be conventional contracts but they do exist (and yes I do have a legal team working with me who specialise in employment law).