I honestly remember Jim refusing it. Even if Johnny did buy it, they would never have been able to afford the mortgage when he died, so the council maybe bought it back.
I honestly remember Jim refusing it. Even if Johnny did buy it, they would never have been able to afford the mortgage when he died, so the council maybe bought it back.
What Mortgage? He paid for it outright he was a millionaire many times over. Like the vic he was going to buy outright.
25 Albert Square was originally Tom Clements' house, until he swapped with Dot Cotton. She lived here until she left the Square in 1993. During her time here she had numerous guests, including her son Nick and husband Charlie Cotton, and her friends Ethel Skinner, Rod Norman, Marge Green, Hazel, Nigel Bates and Donna Ludlow, who died in the living room.
The Jackson/Branning family moved in after Dot in 1994; they remained here until 1997 when they were placed in a witness protection programme, but returned to the property in 1999 and it has remained in the family's possession since
"Johnny tells them that he has had a finance problem and can't go ahead with the purchase of their house. Tina is surprised that Johnny has taken notice of her comments. She goes out into the kitchen and asks Johnny why. He says that he is tired of being dodgy."
"Johnny tells them that he has had a finance problem and can't go ahead with the purchase of their house. Tina is surprised that Johnny has taken notice of her comments. She goes out into the kitchen and asks Johnny why. He says that he is tired of being dodgy."
So nothing's been
Wel at least now people can stop saying its dodgy writing etc when it was in fact not
"Johnny tells them that he has had a finance problem and can't go ahead with the purchase of their house. Tina is surprised that Johnny has taken notice of her comments. She goes out into the kitchen and asks Johnny why. He says that he is tired of being dodgy."
So nothing's been
Wel at least now people can stop saying its dodgy writing etc when it was in fact not
Just to confirm the confirmation. I've just watched the scenes -
Johnny was going to buy Dot and Jim's house from the council and let them live there rent free - so, when they died, he would sell the house.
Jim was keen, Dot less so, but Tina really didn't want Johnny to do it (I think she thought he would rip them off).
Dot and Jim went for dinner, and by the time of dinner, Johnny had had a change of heart and told them that the financing had fallen through.
I always thought that Dot and Jim owned the house and now someone comes up and says she is owing money....Could it actually be tax money and not rent money? As all of you must agree, someone is not looking up correct information from the show from many years ago. Someone better change something soon or they will lose their credibility.
I always thought that Dot and Jim owned the house and now someone comes up and says she is owing money....Could it actually be tax money and not rent money? As all of you must agree, someone is not looking up correct information from the show from many years ago. Someone better change something soon or they will lose their credibility.
Dude have you not read the above posts, it's not the writers that are wrong it's you guys jeez
:eek: Whoa, people are so quick to jump on the hate bandwagon...
It just shows how hard it is to please the fans of Eastenders. These forums seem to be of the opinion that Eastenders can do no right....
I think the show is great 99% of the time. It is just times like this that they should make sure of their information before they put it on the show. There are a lot of us here who have been watching since the first episode, so we see things that are not all correct. I love the show and don't bad mouth it...Only when someone is really not correct.:)
I think the show is great 99% of the time. It is just times like this that they should make sure of their information before they put it on the show. There are a lot of us here who have been watching since the first episode, so we see things that are not all correct. I love the show and don't bad mouth it...Only when someone is really not correct.:)
Wel to be fair if you've watched since the first episode then how did you miss this
I think the show is great 99% of the time. It is just times like this that they should make sure of their information before they put it on the show. There are a lot of us here who have been watching since the first episode, so we see things that are not all correct. I love the show and don't bad mouth it...Only when someone is really not correct.:)
But the show are right. Dot's house is a council house.
They've done no wrong here. Feel free to hate the story, or the writing, or the acting, but people can't claim that the continuity is poor when it's actually spot on here.
Oh and it wasn't really any of your posts I was talking about. It was more so the people who were trying to use this apparent continuity issue to show that the program must be awful.
No in the end he didn't buy it. Dot was impressed when he offered and loved the idea but Jim never trusted Johnnycake and refused to let him buy it. It was an odd story, because it was ultimately pointless.
I don't remember Johnny Allen (nearly wrote Nelson instead there! ) doing that. I remember him buying some new cars for the Ferreira's taxi company though.
EE always changes "the facts" on things like this. Over the years they keep on changing who is the older Michell brother. Sometimes its Grant, then its Phil then back to Grant! :rolleyes:
What was wrong with Dot having house guests too? Since when does a council tennant need permission for that unless there is the risk of over occupation which I don't think there was and are there rules on informing the council if you aren't in your place for a few months?
Comments
Loooool
I remember Nick trying to poison Dot there too (at least the front room is always recognisable
The squatters were all evicted by the council in 1992.
http://wikibin.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=27121
What Mortgage? He paid for it outright he was a millionaire many times over. Like the vic he was going to buy outright.
That is one extensive list. Cheers for that!
The Jackson/Branning family moved in after Dot in 1994; they remained here until 1997 when they were placed in a witness protection programme, but returned to the property in 1999 and it has remained in the family's possession since
I have all the episodes from that period, so can go back and check...
I must say I thought he had offered, but they turned him down.
It was back in 2005.
http://archive.walford.net/
"Johnny tells them that he has had a finance problem and can't go ahead with the purchase of their house. Tina is surprised that Johnny has taken notice of her comments. She goes out into the kitchen and asks Johnny why. He says that he is tired of being dodgy."
So nothing's been retconned.
I swear they turned him down. You wil need more proof then Wikipedia
This is kind of what you people get for reading Wikipedia
It just shows how hard it is to please the fans of Eastenders. These forums seem to be of the opinion that Eastenders can do no right....
Dude have you not read the above posts, it's not the writers that are wrong it's you guys jeez
M8 I always felt that as wel. Everyone's just so quick to jump on it
I think the show is great 99% of the time. It is just times like this that they should make sure of their information before they put it on the show. There are a lot of us here who have been watching since the first episode, so we see things that are not all correct. I love the show and don't bad mouth it...Only when someone is really not correct.:)
Wel to be fair if you've watched since the first episode then how did you miss this
But the show are right. Dot's house is a council house.
They've done no wrong here. Feel free to hate the story, or the writing, or the acting, but people can't claim that the continuity is poor when it's actually spot on here.
Oh and it wasn't really any of your posts I was talking about. It was more so the people who were trying to use this apparent continuity issue to show that the program must be awful.
I didn't think Dot owned the house.
EE always changes "the facts" on things like this. Over the years they keep on changing who is the older Michell brother. Sometimes its Grant, then its Phil then back to Grant! :rolleyes:
What was wrong with Dot having house guests too? Since when does a council tennant need permission for that unless there is the risk of over occupation which I don't think there was and are there rules on informing the council if you aren't in your place for a few months?