Options

A bit confused over Ronnie's release

IanMandyIanMandy Posts: 14,893
Forum Member
✭✭
So Alfie doesn't know Ronnie's coming out and isn't happy about it, Kat's just found out as well.

Yet a few months ago, Kat had a restraining order put on her (which seems to be totally forgotten as she is
allowing Ronnie to live with her
, Alfie's moaning about Roxy never telling him (he even said to Roxy that he didn't care Ronnie was coming out! That he knew whose sister he was dating!)

I don't know if the writers just forgot or not but is this another stupid retcon? Honestly, it seems as if they are making it up as they go along?
«134567

Comments

  • Options
    HarloweHarlowe Posts: 20,023
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think you've answered your own question, they are going back on what they previously said to accommodate the storyline to make it plausible for Ronnie to live back on the square, I guess we are to believe Kat gives her permission perhaps for her to stay in walford and Alfie is just a born liar and user when its concerning Roxy.
  • Options
    IanMandyIanMandy Posts: 14,893
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Harlowe wrote: »
    I think you've answered your own question, they are going back on what they previously said to accommodate the storyline to make it plausible for Ronnie to live back on the square, I guess we are to believe Kat gives her permission perhaps for her to stay in walford and Alfie is just a born liar and user when its concerning Roxy.

    I always wondered how they got past the restraining order- obviously couldn't find an imaginative way so pretend it never happened? What a way to run a soap!
  • Options
    eaststreetlovereaststreetlover Posts: 608
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Another thing is she was sent down for 3 years and is being released after 2
  • Options
    dancing.queendancing.queen Posts: 14,090
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Another thing is she was sent down for 3 years and is being released after 2

    Some people are released after serving less than half their sentence, a year isn't to unrealistic in soapworld.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,402
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Alfie just needs to back off! That's Roxy sister, he shouldn't make her choose.
  • Options
    O-JO-J Posts: 18,861
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    IanMandy wrote: »
    I always wondered how they got past the restraining order- obviously couldn't find an imaginative way so pretend it never happened? What a way to run a soap!

    I hope pretending goes away with Lorraine whats-her-name!

    Her writers are taking us for a fool, they have no vision what so ever, and shes even worse for giving the scripts the go ahead, something tells me that she just never reads them!
  • Options
    The_abbottThe_abbott Posts: 26,979
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    well we all know the conclusion to the story anyway so its just a dramatic (by that I mean unrealistic) way to get there (Kat and Alfie reunion)
  • Options
    Joe_ZelJoe_Zel Posts: 20,832
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    So, they brought in a reference to Ronnie about to be released off screen before they planned to ask Womack back and then when she agreed they've had to change the story?

    Bit daft.
  • Options
    SecretLifeoBeesSecretLifeoBees Posts: 51,056
    Forum Member
    The whole thing of Ronnie being able to come back to the square has confused me too as I remember when it was first mentioned about her being up for release Kat said she had been asked if there were any conditions she wanted and she said the only thing she had asked was for her not to be allowed to return to the area. :confused: Unless I've missed a scene where Kat has dropped this request I don't know what's changed.
  • Options
    thejoyof_patthejoyof_pat Posts: 30,822
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I thought what was most unrealistic was Kat going on about "having Ronnie" :o Ohh errr and then forgiving her at the last moment WTF B*tch?
  • Options
    Broken_ArrowBroken_Arrow Posts: 10,637
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I can see a lot of people throwing the towel in with EastEnders due to Ronnie's return. It's pure fantasy with retcons, implausibilities, suspensions of belief and desperation. In fact it puts me in mind of another ill advised comeback from about this time 10 years ago - and that one didn't require half as many contrivances as Ronnie's return does.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 352
    Forum Member
    Another thing is she was sent down for 3 years and is being released after 2

    3 years 9 times out of 10 means 1.5 years in prison and 1.5 years on license.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,325
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    3 years 9 times out of 10 means 1.5 years in prison and 1.5 years on license.

    In order to be released on parole Ronnie would need a rehabilitation project and accommodations. People are not released on parole and free to do whatever they like. She would not be allowed anywhere near albert square and near her victims that's for sure.
  • Options
    coolercooler Posts: 13,024
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I can see a lot of people throwing the towel in with EastEnders due to Ronnie's return. It's pure fantasy with retcons, implausibilities, suspensions of belief and desperation. In fact it puts me in mind of another ill advised comeback from about this time 10 years ago - and that one didn't require half as many contrivances as Ronnie's return does.

    Kat must have changed her mind and allowed Ronnie to live in Walford. After all, a restraining order doesn't evaporate into thin air.
  • Options
    Otis HillOtis Hill Posts: 2,353
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The whole thing of Ronnie being able to come back to the square has confused me too as I remember when it was first mentioned about her being up for release Kat said she had been asked if there were any conditions she wanted and she said the only thing she had asked was for her not to be allowed to return to the area. :confused: Unless I've missed a scene where Kat has dropped this request I don't know what's changed.

    The flimsiest explanation I can come up with is that when Ronnie's sentence was extended for bad behaviour all the conditions etc were disregarded and her current release (which Kat wasnt notified about and had to ask Roxy for exact details) has a new set of conditions that says she can do whatever she wants.
  • Options
    Zack06Zack06 Posts: 28,304
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It would be very unlikely that Kat would be successful in filing for a termination of the restraining order. It's fairly uncommon, as it as viewed as a waste of time.

    It also depends whether Kat was granted a no contact order. In this case, it would be extremely unlikely that Ronnie would be allowed to go anywhere near the Square at all. If the court order is based solely on distance, then as long as Ronnie does not breach the specified distance, she is potentially free to go where she wants, including back to the Square.

    The tricky part is the fact that Kat invites Ronnie to stay with her. In this case, they could both be breaching the court order, Ronnie, for breaching the conditions of the order, and Kat, for displaying frivolity in regards to an order issued by a court of law.

    But it is possible for Ronnie to be on the Square, however it all depends on the nature of the order granted, and I can't remember if the details were ever stated.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,836
    Forum Member
    Harlowe wrote: »
    I think you've answered your own question, they are going back on what they previously said to accommodate the storyline to make it plausible for Ronnie to live back on the square, I guess we are to believe Kat gives her permission perhaps for her to stay in walford and Alfie is just a born liar and user when its concerning Roxy.

    It's not plausible no matter what - this is completely unrealistic and just below aliens landing in the square. Never in a million years would Ronnie be allowed by authorities to live near the minor she abducted and endangered.
  • Options
    Bomani channingBomani channing Posts: 898
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I just sense the whole purpose of ronnie's comeback is to complete the kat moon propping tour. First they have her forgive her :rolleyes:. Then she files a restraining order when they're is a chance ronnie could get out early. No she's going to ask ronnie to stay with her? There isn't a writer on staff that could make this plausible
  • Options
    Otis HillOtis Hill Posts: 2,353
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Filiman wrote: »
    It's not plausible no matter what - this is completely unrealistic and just below aliens landing in the square. Never in a million years would Ronnie be allowed by authorities to live near the minor she abducted and endangered.

    To be fair she never endangered him
  • Options
    Broken_ArrowBroken_Arrow Posts: 10,637
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    If anything this storyline cements once and for all that EastEnders has moved far away from its roots and can no longer be considered realistic in any sense of the word. Never in a million years would this storyline have come to pass in the old days. It flies in the face of everything EastEnders used to stand for. Ronnie has been an incredibly destructive character for EastEnders. The far fetched tragic heroine nonsense, the baby swap and now this ill conceived return. This character requires far too many dramatic conceits and has damaged the credibility of the show. The sense of realism EastEnders used to have is long gone. It's not solely down to Ronnie but she's the worst culprit.
  • Options
    felixrexfelixrex Posts: 7,307
    Forum Member
    I just sense the whole purpose of ronnie's comeback is to complete the kat moon propping tour. First they have her forgive her :rolleyes:. Then she files a restraining order when they're is a chance ronnie could get out early. No she's going to ask ronnie to stay with her? There isn't a writer on staff that could make this plausible

    You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It is common practice for the mothers of abducted children to invite the abductor to live with themselves; the biological father and the child in question upon release. Perpetrators of such crimes also rarely face any ignominy or hostility from others and often reintegrate seamlessly into society; especially if they choose to return to the tight-knit community in which the crime was committed. All in all it is considered a rather harmless jape barely worthy of a slap on the wrist, a jape which may draw the occasional discerning remark or raised eyebrow, but such actions are usually meant purely in lighthearted jest.

    I was once as ignorant as you in regards to such matters but I was educated about all these cold hard facts from some bird called Lorraine I met in a pub in Elstree a couple of weeks ago. Pissed as a fart, she was; said it was her work leaving-do or something.
  • Options
    Broken_ArrowBroken_Arrow Posts: 10,637
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    felixrex wrote: »
    You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It is common practice for the mothers of abducted children to invite the abductor to live with themselves; the biological father and the child in question upon release. Perpetrators of such crimes also rarely face any ignominy or hostility from others and often reintegrate seamlessly into society; especially if they choose to return to the tight-knit community in which the crime was committed. All in all it is considered a rather harmless jape barely worthy of a slap on the wrist, a jape which may draw the occasional discerning remark or raised eyebrow, but such actions are usually meant purely in lighthearted jest.

    I was once as ignorant as you in regards to such matters but I was educated about all these cold hard facts from some bird called Lorraine I met in a pub in Elstree a couple of weeks ago. Pissed as a fart, she was; said it was her work leaving-do or something.

    The entire scenario surrounding her return is absurd. They've asked us to suspend belief on many occasions in recent years but they've gone too far with this one in my opinion. I don't think the character of Ronnie will be done any favours with the child snatcher tag being attached to her going forwards. To bring it up all the time means she can never move on but to cast it aside and only mention it occasionally makes it look like child abduction is being lessened as a serious crime.

    What the hell are they thinking? They wrote Ronnie into a very dark corner and shouldn't have brought her back as a regular character. The very notion of such a character being pushed to the forefront of the series is disgusting. Now we have the morally depraved Brannings and the manipulative child snatcher as the main stars. It's more than a bit distasteful.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,325
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think the writing will be geared towards making Ronnie the main victim. And the characters who won't be pleased to see her back will be portrayed as narrow-minded, unsympathetic, resentful with a lynch-mob mentality.

    What's also interesting is Kat being so "mature" about Ronnie. I wonder where that Kat was when she was enjoying bullying Tamwar 5 minutes ago :rolleyes::rolleyes:
  • Options
    Broken_ArrowBroken_Arrow Posts: 10,637
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    MissLola wrote: »
    I think the writing will be geared towards making Ronnie the main victim. And the characters who won't be pleased to see her back will be portrayed as narrow-minded, unsympathetic, resentful with a lynch-mob mentality.

    What's also interesting is Kat being so "mature" about Ronnie. I wonder where that Kat was when she was enjoying bullying Tamwar 5 minutes ago :rolleyes::rolleyes:

    The thing is though, with the exception of Ronnie's super fans, isn't that how most of the viewers will react to Ronnie? The baby swap was the most controversial storyline they ever did and received much criticism from viewers. If they continue to show the other characters as unsympathetic as they have been with Alfie recently then they're effectively sticking 2 fingers up at the viewers. It wasn't enough to simply end the baby swap storyline. They should have ended the character of Ronnie too since she's the one who snatched the baby. As I said, I think this may be the straw that breaks the camel's back for quite a lot of viewers.
  • Options
    liliroselilirose Posts: 10,204
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    This is happening so I really see no point in debating this. Also wait to see it on screen regarding Kat. Why is she taking Ronnie in, what are her feelings? People in real life have forgiven the murderers of their children.

    Things are not black and white and each case is different especially in the legal system in England; there is case law. Each case is discussed on its merit. Kidnapping is a broad term. One kidnaps, tortures, exploits and murders a child and is still kidnap just like something similar to what Ronnie did is kidnap too. However the law considers each crime separately, circumstances, details, and the harm caused. These factors will determine the gravity of the crime and the punishable prison sentence as well as the terms of release.
    Ronnie was not meant to be portrayed as evil; she and Kat were both victims and in soapland she got her punishment, when many get away with crimes time and time again and never get any comeback for it either.

    Ronnie is coming back, this is fiction, EE has stopped portraying real life and it is not a documentary. I bang on myself about it coming up with absurd things; I even stopped watching it after the baby swap debacle.
    There are times however when one has to suspend disbelief for the sake of drama and fiction and whether one can tolerate it or not determines whether one watches it or doesn’t.
Sign In or Register to comment.