EE: Was it always inevitable Ben would turn out the way he has?
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d3df60b918df4a901966d3af5777369f.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 20,096 Forum Member
✭✭✭
I remember talking to some friends of mine, and fellow EE watchers, after it had been announced Ben was to be the killer of Heather. Many criticised the pyscho/thug route Ben's character had gone down, and would have liked him to stay in the vein that Charlie Jones had portray him; a lonely, bullied insecure boy dealing with the wrath of his dad and their complex relationship, largely based on their stark differences. In many ways, it would have been interesting to see Ben not grow to be angry, violent but a ''softer'' Mitchell, I suppose. But fundementally, I believe the route they've choosen for Ben is the right one, and the most realistic and inevitable.
The main reason for my view, is one which has been discussed on here previously - the history the Mitchells, and the dominate males in the family. For generations Mitchell men have been violent, pyshcologically abusive, aggressive, and manipulative figures who use fear as the main source of ''respect''. This can be seen infamously, with Archie Mitchell of course, and towards the end of his time on the square, we found out that his farther had been abusive to him, so I premuse he was also abusive to his brother, Eric the father of Phil & Grant. Eric, as documented was violent towards Peggy, and Phil (though seemingly not Grant?). And now of course, we know that Phil has been violent towards Ben. So it seems like vicious cycle, within the Mitchell family that these undesirable traits of bullying, violence, manipulation are learned behaviour, with the cycle never breaking.
Ben's fear of his dad, and desire to emulate to garner his affectations were always going to turn into anger when it went to prision. That was inevitable, because Phil was always encouraging him to act the tough guy, without showing him the boundaries of that, as well and the emotional issues Ben had, of which Phil just excaberated. Ben was always going to be a very self destructive individual, he was either going hurt just himself, or others. He did the latter. I found it interesting on another thread, people were talking about Phil treating Shirley like a possession, illustrating Phil's possessive personality. In many ways, Ben has taken this to the max - his recent actions are a testament to it. I believe though, Ben's possessive traits will be far worse than Phil's. Phil's are simply terriortial. Ben's go to very core of pyschological issues which make unhinged; prone to a loss of impluse control in anger.
But what do you think? Was Ben's turn of personality always inevitable?
The main reason for my view, is one which has been discussed on here previously - the history the Mitchells, and the dominate males in the family. For generations Mitchell men have been violent, pyshcologically abusive, aggressive, and manipulative figures who use fear as the main source of ''respect''. This can be seen infamously, with Archie Mitchell of course, and towards the end of his time on the square, we found out that his farther had been abusive to him, so I premuse he was also abusive to his brother, Eric the father of Phil & Grant. Eric, as documented was violent towards Peggy, and Phil (though seemingly not Grant?). And now of course, we know that Phil has been violent towards Ben. So it seems like vicious cycle, within the Mitchell family that these undesirable traits of bullying, violence, manipulation are learned behaviour, with the cycle never breaking.
Ben's fear of his dad, and desire to emulate to garner his affectations were always going to turn into anger when it went to prision. That was inevitable, because Phil was always encouraging him to act the tough guy, without showing him the boundaries of that, as well and the emotional issues Ben had, of which Phil just excaberated. Ben was always going to be a very self destructive individual, he was either going hurt just himself, or others. He did the latter. I found it interesting on another thread, people were talking about Phil treating Shirley like a possession, illustrating Phil's possessive personality. In many ways, Ben has taken this to the max - his recent actions are a testament to it. I believe though, Ben's possessive traits will be far worse than Phil's. Phil's are simply terriortial. Ben's go to very core of pyschological issues which make unhinged; prone to a loss of impluse control in anger.
But what do you think? Was Ben's turn of personality always inevitable?
0
Comments
Had Kathy survived, Ben would've probably lived a much more stable life. His mother supported him regardless, showered him with affection and, judging by his character, never once forced him to do anything he didn't feel comfortable doing. She accepted him for who he was. His stepdad loved him like his own, buying him gifts etc. (there was a scene that showed Ben getting upset because Phil bought him the same car set as his stepdad).
Ben was a good-natured boy who loved his family, was interested to find out more about them (I remember him drawing a family tree on the wall in the Vic) and was always eager to make new friends. Guessing from his timid persona, he'd never been exposed to violence before.
If he were still living in South Africa, I'd imagine nothing would've really changed for him. He'd probably be encouraged to dance, carry on going to school and eventually grow up to be a sensible, sane man.
Kathy's death could have either left a mental scar that, while never fully healing, would eventually allow him to get on with his life, or else kick-start a reaction in his mind that would cause future mental instability.
I'd say moving to Walford to live with Phil was the cause of the latter. Ben was simply not ready for contact with such a loud, selfish bunch of people. His father loved him, but was disappointed that he wasn't more "manly". Ben sussed that out very early on in their relationship. He was scared, upset and hurt when Phil revealed how he felt about him dancing. He's been under the influence of Jay, too, who was quite the delinquent back then. Then there was the whole stella incident...
Phil'a drinking and drug use, followed by the verbal and physical abuse he suffered, left another scar in Ben's mind. On top of all of that, he started getting bullied. Phil's advice only made things worse, with him ending up in prison. His one source of support, Peggy, eventually moved away too. The hellish experience of prison killed what little innocence Ben had left, and the rest is history.
Yes, Ben was always doomed...from the moment he moved in with Phil, that is.
Prison sort of sealed the deal, and he was never right since he came out. I thought once when he was opening up to Jane about his time in the big house, he was going to push some sort of sexual abuse storyline. Might have been interesting, and could have redeemed him. Now he is the editors go to character for getting rid of others they want off the show.
There is a pattern here, and this is what I mean when I point out Kat's abuse of Alfie. Abused children sometimes grow up to be abusers. Billy was also abused, but I always got the impression that Billy's father, Eric and Archie's first cousin, was a softer Mitchell, but they held him in disdain because he put his sons in care, after his wife died - and they were abused.
Actually, Eric was abusive towards Grant, and it was Grant who eventually made him stop. The Grant-Eric backstory was tweaked and rehashed in the Brian Slater-Sean Slater backstory. Eric's abuse of Peggy and the boys continued until Grant was sixteen. One day Eric was smacking Peggy about, and Grant snapped and literally beat the sh*t out of Eric. Then Grant ran away in fear of repercussion. He joined the army, and Eric stopped abusing Peggy and the kids.
As much as people hate to admit or recognise it, for all her tragedy, there were abusive elements at play in Ronnie's character: the fact that she'd scarred Roxy's face in a row, her control of Roxy, her manipulations ... all a part of the Mitchell history.
BIB: This.
I believe that Ben was always destined to do something utterly terrible. I think it was Minty who remarked upon it to Phil, about how, when Ben reacts to something that's bothering him, he overreacts and ends up doing more damage than intended, and when that happens, he tries desperately to cover his tracks.
This started when he beat up Freddie Mitchell and was willing to let Little Mo get done for child abuse. Then, the Christmas of the Stax reveal, when Jack found Louise and showed Phil her picture, Ben sat in the background glaring angrily. He burned Louise and locked her in the allotment sheds. Then there was the incident with Jordan. And since he's returned from juvy, he's been all over the place - pushing Glenda down the stairs, telling major lies about Patrick and Christian.
He's always got himself into scrapes and then either lied or depended on Phil (or both) to get out of danger. I just wonder how Peggy would be reacting to all of this.
Seriously !!! Ben is nasty piece of work and whatever the reasons for him turning out the way he has he shouldn't get away with it.
Phil is a fool destroying his own life in a misguided attempt to save his son. He has sacrificed his relationship with Shirley which he will regret. A decent parent would have made Ben confess what happened and then stood by him when he went to trial.
That's still murder
Harming animals and small children is one of the first telltale signs of sociopathic behaviour. And sociopaths are able to cover their tracks by rationalising reasons for their behaviour - Ben "didn't mean" to harm Freddie, it was Freddie who'd pulled his hearing aid while they were playing. They can also be very charming people too. We have never ever heard a backstory of what went on in South Africa. Ben could have had the kindest, most understanding mother in the world, but if he had sociopathic tendencies, that has nothing to do with nurturing.
I always found Grant "less bad" when he returned the last time. Their roles had been, effectively, reversed. In the 90s, Phil was the more cerebral brother, the peacemaker, the compromiser. He'd look to settle a situation with negotiation rather than a fight - that was all Grant. Phil's job was to temper Grant. Grant's temper, which resulted in him beating Eric, was honed in the Army, and what you saw afterwards was a prime example of PTSD.
When Sharon first slept with Phil, she told him it was like having the nice part of Grant. Grant's moods could change on a dime. He hit Sharon and subsequently hit Peggy - knocked her to the ground when he was married to Tiffany. Then Peggy told him he was just like Eric, and Grant did a flit, like he always did.
When Grant left, Phil assumed many of his characteristics. Grant got psychological help abroad, and when he returned, he was the way Phil used to be. This is why I say now that Phil is old Grant and Shirley is old Phil.
When they first arrived, Ronnie was a real control freak over Roxy, under the guise of "wanting to protect her." She treated Roxy like a ten year-old child. Roxy would make a mess, and Ronnie would clean up. Don't you remember when they arrived, Roxy had just broken up with her fiance' Damien? Ronnie engineered that, by lying to Roxy that Damien had wanted to sleep with her. When he followed her to Walford, Ronnie tore her clothing and messed herself up to make Roxy believe Damien had attacked her.
The first sign of rebellion came when Ronnie told Roxy to get an abortion. Ronnie was supposed to have the baby first, not Roxy. Roxy refused, and when she and Sean were making an effort to get together, Ronnie goaded Sean into smacking her in order to convince Ronnie that Sean was violent.
Stella abused Ben, but Ben's problems didn't start with Stella's abuse; and, really, Stella had the same emotional age as Ben. Remember their relationship started out from nothing, with Ben being vicious to her on the telephone when she was on her first date with Phil. What you had there in that storyline was an adult, with the emotional age of a child, abusing a real child.
Times like this, I wish Peggy were here.
I agree. I think there was always an element of cruelty and violence in young Ben (Phil should never have been allowed to procreate). However if Ben had continued in a stable and loving relationship with his mum and stepdad, I feel it's less likely his 'dark side' would have emerged. Once he fell into Phil's hands I think his fate was sealed.
No it isn't. Murder requires intent to kill. What Ben committed was manslaughter at worst.
Besides, Hev had it coming.
Manslaughter is unintentional death caused by an accident. Martin Fowler hitting Jamie Mitchell whilst driving. Ben entered Heather's flat intending to hurt her in some way, even if were only to hurt her feelings. That he was angry enough to get physical was shown right from the very beginning, when he shoved her against the wall as he entered the flat. Ben intended to harm Heather, regardless. Around 90% of actual murders committed are done by people who originally didn't intend to kill their victim. Things got out of hand.
I daresay Ben didn't intend to kill Heather, but when he is caught, the Court will be aware of his history of violence. And that won't go well with him at all. Suffice it to say, Ben didn't drop in at Heather's for a cuppa and a chat. And Ben didn't hit Heather with that picture frame by accident. She was preventing him from entering the room where her son was sleeping and Ben was determined to get her out of the way. If he hadn't hit her hard enough to knock her off her feet - and it must have been with some force, because Heather wasn't small - she wouldn't have hit her head on the sink.
Jay will be a key witness when this comes out into the open.
LOL, have not heard that for a while.
Murder requires the intention to kill, or the intention to do something in the knowledge that the action is likely to result in death. Manslaughter does not require that the action which resulted in death was an accident.
Ben did not hit out at Heather with the intention or the expectation to kill her, therefore, it cannot be murder.
you cannot be serious. whether premeditated or not, he took the life of another person. in anger.
"accident" or not, he killed someone.
The important thing to consider is that he ACCIDENTALLY took the life of another person in anger. His only intentional crime is assault. It was just down to a bit of bad luck for Ben that Heather died from the blow. How many men can honestly say that they have never lashed out at a human being before? Or women...ever slapped a friend or boyfriend in anger before? It could happen to any of us.
Ben is just a boy, and boys will be boys. I know it won't happen, but I'm rooting for him to get away with it.
sorry mate but we'll just have to agree to disagree.
"boys will be boys"? wow. just... wow.
So if you ever slap a boyfriend out of anger and he falls over and hits his head on a table and dies, does that make you a 'killer' in the same way you think Ben is a killer? Because it would be the same thing.
This is a million miles away from murder.
I realise this is probably an unpopular opinion... but I don't believe anyone is evil. We all have the capability of doing evil things, Ben obviously is more capable than most, but to say Ben is 'evil' or anyone is evil, I believe, is really why crimes will probably always continue to happen. Instead of trying find the root or cause of people's behaviour, we just brand them as evil, lock them up for a few years and hope that somehow they'll be cured of their 'evil' behaviour. It's just idiotic.
Anyway, I've gone off on a tangent.
I don't think Ben becoming psychotic was inevitable necessarily, I do however think it was the most likely of a few outcomes.
your post presumes i would, in anger, bash my partner over the head with a hard metal object. this is not something i would do in the first place. assault (premeditated or not) can result in permanent injury, disability, and death.
as i stated previously, i've chosen to "agree to disagree."
But a slap on the face can result in death. Even a push can. If you ever push someone and they fall over and die, you are guilty of the same crime as Ben. Sorry, but that's the truth.