Think you need to read the terms and conditions on DS.

I disagree. I find the links from each family to each other fascinating actually, and think it's a really interesting, bold move with a conclusion I hope pays off.

People thrown 'retcon' around far, far too much. Unless it is a direct contradiction of undisputable fact, then anything else is just additional information to what we already knew - and if that advances a story, then all the better for us.

Kathy was married to Phil and didn't think to mention that she used to knock around with his mum and dad? or the fact that they have known each other since Phil was a kid?

Peggy didnt think to mention it to her son either but then she isn't known for being mouthy and opinionated

dirty den again failed to mention ever knowing the mitchells and being besties with Eric and Peggy, surely that would of come up given his daughter has been married to both Mitchell sons

Ian never mentioned his mum marrying an old friend

but yes, the whole made up nonsense makes things better and not a mockery of the history of the show 🙄🙄🙄😁😁

It's been a bit of a mess - introducing Gavin has been a mess, but never mind, she's back now, and I guess viewers just have to hope that things will get better with a new EP as they have (a little) with Sharon. I wasn't really happy about another resurrection story after Den, but at least it makes up for at least one of the reckless killings of an original character that was clearly a mistake. The problem is, the newer writers just don't know how to write for these characters. Kathy, Kat and Sharon's reintroduction have all been awful and just so inauthentic for long term viewers, but I guess you can argue that they've all had life changing events happen to them, so they're not going to be the same, are they? People change. But that also seems to defeat the object of bringing back a well known character!

I agree completely. DTC had completely butchered the show with these back stories that make no sense at all.

Well said! Yes, the whole Gavin saga has been an eye-rolling bore, but having Kathy back has been great. She's back long term, so no need to have any massive storylines just yet.

Yes, that was always my argument whenever the 'bring back Kathy' threads would spring up. That any explanation which posters came up with (WP, insurance fraud, amnesia, coma, sold into white slavery) wwas either so out of character for her that she would be unrecogniseable or would have been so traumatic that she'd be a nervous wreck and unrecogniseable. Basically, any explanation they came up with to explain why the Kathy we knew would let her children,, one of whom was a shy, nervous, disabled 10 year old, believe she was dead for however many years, would destroy the character that Kathy was and why she was popular so shy bother bringing her back? That whilst people do fake their own deaths, Kathy wouldn't have - imo, obviously.

They are still having to deal with that decision and have lost most of what made Kathy, Kathy. How can they have her be an agony aunt, be a dispenser of tough love and moral voice when anybody she is talking to can just turn round and reply "well you let your kids think you were dead for 10 years, how dare you lecture me".

As somebody else said, the only way she can get any respect from the other characters is to build it up from scratch, have them see what kind of person she basically is, aside from the insurance fraud, and that does mean her just quietly being 'good' for a very long time, probably years.

I'm another one who hates how they've tied Gavin in with everybody, with the side effect of retrospectively tying Den and the Mitchell's together.

It might not be an outright retcon in so far as Den never having specifically stated that he never met Eric (and of course he could have been lying) but it is a retcon by inference - by which I mean, you could reasonably have expected De to use it as a weapon against Pohil during their fued in 03 (you're just as weak as your old man, he was a coward who mucked everything up as well type taunting to Phil) or Peggy having made comments about Den and Angie during one of her many slanging matches with Sharon if she was meant to have been living in Walford in the 60s/70s/80s as she would have known them as publicans, even if Phil kept his business relationship with Den a secret. Also, the idea that somehow Pete (and therefore Kathy) didn't know any of these people (Gavin, Eric and everyone else in the photo that was Den's 'gang') despite them being best friends with Den and Angie having their stall straight in front of the Pub and Ted also being part of the group. And sorry, I don'( believe Kathy wouldn't have mentioned knowing of Eric through her brother and Den. Or come to that, Ted wouldn't have mentioned knowing Eric to Phil or Peggy when he came back in the mid 90s.

Snogging the face off Kathy is the only remotely interesting thing Buster has done since he arrived. Did they have sex? It was kind of implied, but not confirmed

This is also not out of character for Kathy given that she had an affair with the local vicar and slept with Grant, though I do expect her guilt to get the better of her. Kathy has always been a fundamentally good person but with flaws, just like any of us. I definitely wouldn't want to be around Shirley when she finds out.

They have at least spent some time building up a connection between Kathy and Buster - it hasn't come from nowhere and be based purely on lust. Plus, as mentioned elsewhere, they've already established that Kathy is lonely and that Buster doesn't always feel valued by Shirley.

BIB 1 I got the feeling that they had.

BIB 2 But I really want to see that.

Kathy recognised Old Mother hubbard within seconds of seeing her having not clapped eyes on her for well over 30years

which furthers adds to the question, if she recognised her that quick and made jabs about "the roxy" where they hung out she clearly would remember the rest and would have brought up the good old days

Spot on. It beggars belief. Let's hope this story will disappear soon with DTC's exit.

Shirley and Kathy had a great budding friendship, it would a shame to ruin it with an affair. If they are going down the Kathy/Buster route, I would rather it wasn't an affair. With Kathy/Buster and Sharon/Phil, is Shirley slowly being phased out? I hope LH doesn't leave with DTC.

Yes exactly. Kathy, Glenda and wasn't there somebody else all recognising Claudette and commenting on it makes it even less believable that nobody has any of the other interconnecting characters (Peggy, Den, Ted, Pete etc) prior to 2015.

You're right it was Kathy, Glenda and Aunt Sal was third person all to recognise Claudette. At lot of references were made to Claudette knowing the old gang in the 1960s however recently when we saw her passport it gave her date of birth as 1956 meaning she was just a child in the 1960s, which makes no sense.

The Gavin/Hubbard retcons have mangled the Mitchells and Sharon's backstories more than they have Kathy's. The least they could do is have Gavin admit that he lied to Sharon about the 'Ello Princess stuff which taints her relationship with Den (as if the Berridge-initiated Den fancies Sharon stuff wasn't bad enough) but there's no way around some of the other stuff they've changed.

I seriously hope a line is just drawn under all this mess. Best forgotten. Sad thing is they've lost the opportunity to bring in Sharon birth father. They could have built a family connected to her. Unless it turns out Gavin was lying!

The fundamental problem with DTC era is his over complication of storylines. I can just see the venn diagrams in the planning meetings but they just don't translate onto screen. I think this is at the heart of the story blocking problem everybody talks about. Storylines just seem to go on and on or be dropped for a while because they are linked into something else that needs to play out. Emmerdale has its faults but they are better at linear storylining. Even if they do it in parts they conclude each bit as they go along.

All true.

I've read that they went back and forth about whether to make Gavin Sharon's father or not (and i can see why them having established Kathy's husband and Sharon's father's first names being the same seemed too tempting a co-incidence to just let go and that it opened up new avenues) but they should have left it. Or, if they were going to do it, have it be a complete co-incidence, him being from a different area of London who happened to know Ted through business and then met Kathy through him abroad. So that Ted and Sharon's birth Mum were his only connections and that he didn't know Den, Eric etc.

It is all just too convulated and does crap over the established history of how and when Sharon came to Den and Angie, the Mitchell's being new to Walford in 1990, Den needing to ask about them in 2003, Ted having left the area when he was still very young and not getting on with Pete (again Pete was too good a friend of Den's not to have also been in that 'gang'), ian not mentioning that Gavin was ex Walford and had known Den and we assume Pete one of the many times he met him in SA etc, etc, etc.

Oddly enough, having been vehemently opposed to bringing Kathy back from the dead, and how they went about it last year - I don't actually mind what they are doing with her now. No over the top storylines, she's just quietly working the stall and being with the family. I do think that is the only way they can build her back and reintegrate her into the show - go back to grass roots with no melodrama (like Gavin chasing her round) and then maybe, in time, we'll be able to put the whole horrible mess to the back of our minds.

But of course, the trouble is, many will argue that there was no point doing such a shark jumping thing if they aren't going to use her for big storylines.

She shared a kiss with Grant (who was married to Tiff at the time) in April 1998 but it was initiated by him and she was in a very emotional state at the time. I don't think its fair to judge her harshly for that. And her relationship with Alex the Vicar occurred when she was single after separating from Phil. When Kathy and Grant slept together in September 1999 both were free agents she'd actually been separated from Phil for two years at that point. So she has never cheated on anyone or cheated with anyone before now. Which is why I find the Buster thing to be so out of character, Shirley and Kathy have been shown to get along well and I cant imagine the old Kathy ever going with another woman's man. She was just too moral to do something like that and knows all too well what its like to be the cheated wife. She might not have been perfect but she was definitely the closest thing to perfect of any soap character in history. Which is why her current behaviour is so hard to accept IMO.

The actress is not capable of carrying off big storylines.

I can buy the Kathy return plot, but I think it would have been better if she came back because Gavin died, rather than him following her. His death would have been her first chance to escape him and come home to her boys. The fact that his death was the only way she could escape his controlling ways would have heightened her reluctance a nd the severity of the situation.

Gavin slithering in and out of every storyline has been bizarre. A good plot needs direction, and his random comings and goings/ suddenly being involved with the Mitchells and Hubbards seems totally aimless. Every plot he is involved in is unanswered. His relationship with Sharon, his control over Kathy and his blackmailing of Claudette all need revisiting. Of course plots are ongoing in soap, but they need to be going somewhere. Is Gavin coming back? What was meant in his last scene with his sister? It seems to be made up as they go along.

I personally don't see anything wrong with Kathy's current position in the show. We need to see her as a mother, a friend and a market trader for a while so that she isn't just a person who is back from the dead. I also think Gillian is fine as an actress. Her work in the past was fine, and with the right material I'm sure she will do fine again.

I think that the Bobby plot has been to the detriment of Kathy's return. Shes not been back long and she's already in the midst of a murder cover up. People say DTC is leaving the show in a fantastic state. Whilst I don't think it's a terrible state, the new EP has his work cut out to wrap up this very messy plot, that will bring need to bring Bobby, Jane and Ian to justice, and Max and Lauren back to the square. Sharon, Kathy, Abi, Phil and Peter have all stood by and watch an innocent man suffer. This all needs to be addressed in my opinion.

Great post. I agree. We need more answers in regards to Gavin and Kathy's decision to fake their deaths. I would like them to do a few flashback scenes to that day in 2006. We need to see that Kathy was forced into this and didn't go along with it willingly, in order for her to be forgiven for what she did. Ben's life being threatened by the gangsters Gavin is in debt to leads to Kathy very reluctantly agreeing to Gavin's suggestion on the condition they take Ben with them. Only for Gavin to then leave Ben behind at the last minute leaving Kathy heartbroken. Her then going back for him only to realise he already been informed his mum is dead and having to walk away. That would just about provide an explanation in which we could forgive Kathy for. However at the minute the very weak explanation we have been given being "Gavin made me do it, it was an insurance scam" just makes her look awful.

She was back in the 80s. The rape as one example. I do agree she hasn't been great since her return but that might just be settling back in -it'd be interesting to see what she'd be like with something big now.

I thought you watched Hollyoaks?