http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/...ving-show.html

There have been lots of rumours and tabloid articles that Jamie is leaving and this now seems to prove that he is defo going at Xmas!

*opens bottle of champers*

Does this mean he's gonna be the christmas 'whodunnit?'

Looking very likely, it's been speculated that this will happen for quite some time.

Lol! I agree the panto villain act has run it's course:yawn:, but I agree like others on here, what Jamie Foreman pays towards his kids shouldn't be in the public arena because it's really a private matter and nothing to do with anyone else!

But as for Derek, yes thank god he'll be leaving! He was bad enough without his dreadful kids, but he's become even worse since they arrived on the scene IMO:yawn:!

Aren't his kids old enough to look after themselves now?

Well that's another thing that's bugging me, I've not read the full story but I gather the 'kids' are in their 20's now, so in that case they should be fending for themselves surely???

Ffs it's not like Jamie is Mick Jagger,Macca or Rod Stewart who really can afford to pay for their freeloading kids if they choose too, but methinks Jamie's kids need a reality check by the sounds of it!

How could him leaving possibly be good news?

Vile character and too overused...

Yeahhhhh I hope its a whodunnit that way he can never return.

I'm glad that your finding pleasure over a man that has money troubling losing his job.

What a lovely person you are.

Big mistake if he dies IMO

Gutted. I really hope he isn't killed off in yet another Christmas death. Feels too soon after Who Killed Archie? for another Christmas who-dunnit. I'd much rather he is sent to prison after a long chase scene/big stunt.

The man's private business is all over the papers and he could possibly face jail. Not something to celebrate is it?

If you think about it, every interview Jamie has done, he ALWAYS spoke in a way that suggests he knew Derek wasn't going to be a long term character, and that he knew characters like that always had a shelf life.

Could it be that the 'axed' headline implied by the Daily Mail is as usual, wildly exaggerated and infact Jamie always knew he'd be leaving after X amount of time??

So no, we're not glad that someones losing his job, because it seems this job was for only a certain amount of time anyway!

Awww thanks for saying I'm lovely. Thats so nice of you.

You do realise that actors know what they are getting into, acting is a hard business and that there are often times when ever the best actors struggle to find work. It's their choice to go into that business, if they wanted better stability then they certainly wouldn't have taken up acting as a career.

Don't throw on the guilt at me about Jamie losing his job. i wasn't the one who sacked him.I don't like the character and I am glad he is leaving. I'm not going to deny that. It doesn't mean I want to see Jamie out on the streets eating out of dustbins.

I know it's wrong but that made me lol.

Eeek you better not show pleasure at someone elses misfortune with jimthepig around! run and hide quick!

Do you think this is funny?
A man losing his job and ending up on the streets eating out of a bin IS NOT humorous!

Told you so

Listen mate I have nothing more to say on the matter.

Good night.

Night night, sleep tight. Don't let the bed bugs bite.


Right now Jimthepig is nicely tucked up in bed what does everyone else think of Derek leaving?

Do you need a hand getting down off your high-horse?

Nobody is expressing any delight in Jamie Foreman's loss of a job. But they are perfectly entitled to express their happiness at the departure of a character who they do not enjoy - and who they ultimately, through the license fee, pay to watch.

It's not EE's job to provide charitable employ to anybody who might be on their uppers regardless of whether their character is popular or not. Hundreds of actors have come and gone through the years on Eastenders and, upon their departure, returned to obscurity and a relatively low income compared to what they received for their work on the show. That's the nature of the business. Should they all have been kept on board; with the cast growing to hundreds upon hundreds of characters; just because the actor could do with the money? Providing jobs to all who could do with a bit of financial help is not their duty. They are creating a product and if they feel the need to axe somebody to improve that product then that is their prerogative - whether the actor needs the money or not.

Actors know that they are not in a particularly stable or dependable profession and that is the risk they take when they pursue that vocation. At least Foreman, unlike many before him, has the advantage of being an established and recognisable actor who will have little trouble finding work after the show. Work which will pay significantly more than those actors who simply retired back into normality and now work in supermarkets and post offices.

Thanks Felix, your post expressed my thoughts on the matter.

I think it's sort of back pay, but you think it would be his ex who would get the dosh rather than the sons.

Obvious troll is obvious

I'm actually annoyed to hear this. Not because Derek is a good character - he's not - but because they brought in this promising character, pushed him in everyone's faces, built him up to nothing, and didn't actually cement him with any big or interesting story that befitted a 'huge' character like his screen-time would suggest. I just sort of figured that maybe they'd get their act together and give him something proper to do, with a proper story to get his teeth in to, but no: he was an incessant bit-player in other people's stories that ended up becoming completely irrelevant.

I'm glad Jamie Foreman is leaving: he's a much better actor than this and he deserves something better, that actually lets him act. Hopefully he'll play a proper baddie in something soon.