It would be a shame if they go that route. Shirley and Kathy have the potential to have a really good friendship, I always enjoy their scenes together. IMO friendships are far more important and interesting than any sordid affairs.

I'd rather see them dump the men and become flat mates.

I think Phil is actually quite evolved for someone who was brought up by a nasty racist thug

I think Steve does a fantastic job at humanising Phil.

Exactly why I don't want an affair storyline, that and I find them quite boring nowadays. But the friendship that is developing between Shirley and Kathy has been a joy to watch and I wouldn't want anything to come between that. I definitely don't want Kathy and Shirley to be pitted against each other, they are good as friends.

Kathy isn't the type of person who would cause trouble but if the two characters will be pitted against each other, I will be Team Kathy all the way but again she's not the type of woman to belittle Shirley. Shirley, on the other hand..........

Would love to see Kathy move in with Denise - she needs another good friend and her and Kathy work because they're morally good people.

Think you are viewing Kathy through rose tinted spectacles. How you want her to be. She faked her own death and let her boys think she was dead for a decade. To then hang onto belief that she wouldn't do anything to cause upset with someone (Shirley) she barely knows is not in line with her (now) character.

I don't think that's a good thing to be honest. it's one thing to say a character works well in a particular family unit, but to say they need it is basically saying they can't stand on their own two feet.

It's admitting defeat and inferring that Sharon hasn't really recovered from her disastrous reintroduction. I do think Sharon's benefitted from being in certain dynamics over the years but she could also stand on her own two feet and wasn't afraid of walking away from the Mitchells when the time was right. She's done it a few times already. Sharon shouldn't be tethered to Phil forever if the relationship reaches a natural conclusion and this does feel like one. It'll be a joke if she gets with Grant and then back with Phil again.

l actually think she is now capable of standing on her own two feet. It's time to give Sharon and Phil a rest and allow Sharon to regain her independence. She can still have involvement as a friend to Phil and one-time stepmother to Ben but I'd like to see her in a new relationship with someone who treats her better. I would also reintroduce Vicky but not played by Scarlett Alice Johnson. I don't think her relationship with Phil is doing her any favours. She's more of a doormat than Shirley ever was to him. She even said herself she is all talk, no action.

The Mitchells were created specifically for Sharon. If anything it's the other way round.

Kathy did snog her husband's brother.

I know Kathy and Phil were separated at the time but he wanted to get back together and she also had Alex the vicar after her. Her indecisiveness didn't help the situation. Grant was also with Tiffany at the time Kathy snogged him.

She is one of the more moralistic characters on the show and not the type to have a full-on affair/steal another woman's man but I could see a kiss. Kathy is lonely.

I don't think either needs the other. Sharon existed for five years before the Mitchells (although the 80s weren't her best years if we're being honest, she always played second fiddle to Michelle with storylines) and she didn't need them between 2002-2006. The Mitchells have also spent long periods on screen without being linked to Sharon and have been fine.

The Mitchell brothers were actually introduced as an anti-dote to those awful comedy characters they brought in in 1989 and then axed in 1990 when they inevitably flopped. Sam was created at the same time. It's a myth they were created for Sharon but they did know early on that Sharon was eventually going to end up with both of them. I remember Tony Jordan saying that idea entered his head from the minute Sharon served them in the pub in their first episode.



I wouldn't say Sharon needs them as it's been proven before she doesn't but I do think she benefitted the most from the dynamic. The brothers were a hit from the off. Sharon was a bit lost without Den and Angie. Her foray into religion and relationship with the vicar did nothing for her character and the writers had plans for Simon/Cindy/Ian so Sharon/Simon wasn't going anywhere. I did like her with Simon but they didn't set the screen alight.

The biggest contribution Sharon made to the Mitchells is The Vic. I highly doubt Phil and Grant on their own would ever have been made landlords of the show's central location. It was Sharon who grew up there and wanted to own it which gave the writers the chance to attach their most popular family to the show's most notable location. Peggy's reincarnation as Barbara Windsor and subsequent choke hold over The Vic would not have been on the table without the Sharon connection. The family in The Vic always gets preferential treatment (which isn't always deserved).

Not that Phil and Grant were not successful in their own right but it's fair to say the partnership with Sharon was mutually beneficial and still is to this day even if they don't always need each other.

As for Kathy and Buster - yuck! This is the best they could come up with for Kathy?

Agree with this. Keeping her with Phil and increasingly so if she went back would drag Sharon character down. She doesn't need to be in a relationship with Phil to interact with Mitchells. She is close to Ben and Jay . It does annoy me that Gavin has been made her father. They had the opportunity of being able to create a family for her but have thrown it away. Vicky does need to come back I agree.

I accept this point. I'm barely thirty-something so I mightn't have been able to appreciate Sharon's status fully at the time but you're right that she did come across merely as daddy's little girl on the face of it.

I remember reading an interview with Babs where she explained that Peggy was dowdy and had little potential in the beginning until a new producer (Corinne Hollingworth) came in and was fixated on the idea of her being this larger than life character behind the bar of the Vic. So I think Peggy could still have got there without the brother's prior association with the place.


We've almost reached the point again where it's played out though. In terms of romantic entanglement I mean. When Sharon was away from the Mitchells between 2002-2006 she did stay friends with Phil except for the time he had Dennis beaten up and then slapped her in the pub.

The inevitable temporary reunion of Sharon and Grant feels like the natural end point for Sharon and Phil this time round. It's been a toxic marriage and now they're getting a divorce. I have more faith in Sharon than some of her fans seem to in that I think she could now work away from the Mitchells. I'm shocked a fan would be so defeatist as to say otherwise. DTC has done wonders for her.

When viewers see her on-screen with Grant again, assuming the writers manage to recapture their chemistry which was always a notch above anything with Phil and Dennis, they will see how much she has settled for Phil. Do you really see a future for her and Phil at the moment? The writers just have them going round in circles.

I wouldn't be surprised if Sharon leaves with Grant. We know she's a great character in her own right but the writers can't fathom any woman existing without a man to validate her. The way they brought her back proved that.

In a way I think I would prefer that than watching a continuous poorly photocopied version of what she used to be with her hanging on to Phil's coat tails. As you say all women seem to need a man to validate them in this version of EE.

Surely we'd have heard if she was leaving?

Sharon has never been single for long although nor was she so man-dependent she would put up with the sort of crap Phil has dished out to her.

No such thing as independent woman on EE at least not for long.

Said it before and I'll say it again. I'm convinced Sharon is heading back to The Vic. So many subtle hints of it this past month.

I find this utterly baffling. Why do they do it? Must admit I'm enjoying the shoe being on the other foot with Phil desperately sniffing around all his exes and being rejected by each one. What a refreshing change!

Not necessarily. There's a lot going on with Peggy's death and Grant's return. They know people are going to be watching. Sharon's exit might be a well kept secret until it airs.

I agree that Sharon doesn't need to be with Phil to interact with the Mitchells; she and Phil have arguably always worked better as friends anyway. I think associating Sharon with the Mitchells again in 2013/14 was necessary to repair the damage the incompetent writers did to her when they tried to transform her into Tanya 2. Sharon is naturally at home with a family around her, and watching her strut around the Square as Ma Mitchell was fabulous to watch.

Her relationship with Phil was growing tired last year so removing her was the right move. One thing Phil and Sharon have never been is boring, but the constant break ups were starting to get boring. I think she's more than strong enough to stand on her own two feet now they've got the writing correct for her again. I've said before she needs a new man, a Steve Owen type who brings plenty of drama with him. I do not want to see her in Mitchell doormat mode again.

Possibly I think a split vic might be good idea.


Boggles, I wonder if the female writers cringe having to write some of the scenes of the woman being downtrodden again and again, not very empowering.

Been good to see him not getting what he wants for once.

Same. There's been too many for it to be a coincidence.

By saying that Sharon doesn't work with Phil and that she doesn't need the Mitchells to survive isn't a dig, or by wanting Kathy and Ben's dynamic to be played out isn't bashing Sharon. Actually I would say that saying Sharon needs the Mitchells to survive is worse, and is in any case, not true. I have voiced on numerous occasions how I would much prefer Sharon's biological family to be explored, and/or Vicki to be recast to rebuild the Watts, as well as developing her frenemieship with Shirley and her friendships with Ian/Linda. If it was a case of wanting to bash Sharon I would be flooding threads saying I didn't like her and how she should be axed, which some posters seem to do at times with other characters.

Germaine Greer needs to sneak into Elstree and doctor the scripts.