I agree with all of this. I know Mick and Linda are not saints but they are better characters than Ian, Jane and Phil IMO. Ian didn't care that a innocent man was sent to prison for killing Lucy and he covered up and Jane covered up from the start and they should be punished imo.

I remember the scene when Sonia invite the carter for lunch or dinner I reckon so someone mention the pub, they struggle to volunteer to look after Sylvie until Bex volunteer herself, The carter rush out of Sonia's house like "Thank god I won't have to look after Sylvie" I understand look after Sylvie can be difficult

But the carter have poor attitude and make excuse when Tina try to ask them to watch Sylvie until last night Linda seem try to be nice and let her choose for special meal.

Soap is full of flawed people - just like in real life, but heightened - the show wouldn't be able to function if they were called out each time a flaw presented itself. But it's good to have scenes like the one with Sonia/Shirley occasionally, with more subtle acknowledgement of their flaws scattered here and there. We've had the latter with the Carters (though maybe not enough) but no big acknowledgement of their flaws by other characters until now. The Mitchells, who also seem beyond reproach much of the time, are another family who could do with a scene like the Sonia/Shirley one imo.

I can understand Mick's reluctance to get involved with Sylvie as he barely knows her and everything he has heard of her of old isn't good. I can also understand Shirley not wanting it on her plate too but they shouldn't have sat back and happily let Sonia take the burden. When they went round to Sonia's house and stuffed all that food before making off for the pub, I thought they had an absolute cheek.

I'm sure she's lovely in RL but what she's like has nothing to do with her character in EE. I'm not a fan of Linda and I know that the others have done worse things (i'm not a fan of them as well) but that doesn't mean I have to like Linda.

The Mitchells and Beales may not be portrayed as perfect families but then neither are the Carters a lot of the time, at least not since 2015, and neither the Mitchells or the Beales have recently been taken to task for their hypocritical or atrocious behaviour in the way that Shirley was last night, and actually in Whitney's more subtle dealings with Linda too. The closest the Mitchells have come to being called out in recent months was when Jay stood up to Phil in that fantastic scene in the living room, but even then he still continued to hang around the family like a kicked puppy, allowing Phil to take the moral high ground again and again. Oh, and I don't think the likes of Sharon, Ronnie, Louise etc see themselves as scumbags. From the Beales, Ian certainly doesn't; the whole point of his character is how narcissistic he is. And for all the arguments that the Carters are 'painted' as the perfect family, none of them dumped a young woman's dead body out on the common and now dish out advice to anyone who wanders in the room like some Wise Woman Of Walford. Now THERE'S a problematic portrayal if ever there was one. In fact, the only character in either of these families who probably is self-loathing enough to see himself as a true scumbag is Phil, but even with him, he still has a major superiority complex.

I'm all for people discussing the shortcomings of the Carter family, of which there are many, but I do think the forum obsession with micro-examining everything they say and do is getting a bit much at this point. Johnny last night is a classic example. He makes one naive comment about the NHS struggling to cope with nurses training on the job and then going elsewhere, a view that is exactly what you would expect an idealistic university student to have, and people on here are jumping all over it as evidence that he's a horrible person. Like I said, it's all a bit much.

I would say their actions get picked apart no more or less than anybody else. The Mitchells, Beales and Carters have all been slated for their behaviour, and deservedly so.

On Johnny, I don't think anyone has jumped on what he said nor has anyone said he's a horrible person for it. I thought the comment was typically unsubtle and it made me roll my eyes. It was like a party political broadcast and it felt preachy. But I don't think he's horrible at all.

That's what the problem is for me as well.

I have no problem with less than perfect characters. I like characters to be flawed - they are must more interesting and believable that way.

The current problem is not that they are casting more light on these flaws, it is that we are still being encouraged to think that they are wonderful people, in spite of the things they are so obviously doing wrong.

One example from recent months - when Tina confided in Mick that she had cheated on Sonia with Sophie. He then told Linda as "we don't keep secrets from each other", before you knew it, the whole family was involved in a conflab about whether Tina should leave Sonia or not.

It, to me, was presented as "oh what a lovely family, aren't they close, and honest with each other, don't they love each other so much, hugging and joking in the middle of the night". But all i could think was "poor Sonia, she's been cheated on and now all her in laws know about it and supporting the woman child that has cheated on her, and humiliated her at an Awards ceremony whilst she is completely in the dark".

It'll be interesting to see what happens with Mick during Kellie Bright's maternity leave. I think a lot of their long term future could depend on that, how successful he is during that time.

It's just something I've noticed; the Mitchells and Beales are talked about negatively in more general terms, but with the Carters it genuinely feels like every little thing they do is evidence of how terrible they are.

I'm sure I saw quite a few negative comments about Johnny last night after that comment but maybe I misread. Also I think part of the problem is that people use the term 'Carters' as a generic term on here; sometimes it just means Mick and Linda, other times it's the whole family. So when people say 'The Carters are hypocrites', as they often do, I'm never quite sure if they mean all of them when it's usually in response to something Mick or Linda have done.

That scene really was atrocious, as is Mick's enabling relationship with Tina, which has been the case ever since they both arrived. But I think last night's episode hopefully showed that the new producer will be objective enough to see that a family who sit around essentially encouraging cheating really isn't a great example to be setting.

I think it's possibly because, as I said earlier, the writers want us to see the Carters as this loving, close, happy, perfect family. So when their behaviour doesn't live up to this standard it is magnified. Of course their actions are not anywhere near as bad as the Mitchells or Beales, but those families aren't portrayed in idealistic terms like the Carters usually are.

I also do understand the confusion when using terms like "the Carters". For example, I would say that generally I am a fan of "the Mitchells" even though on a personal level I don't like at least half of the people with the surname Mitchell.

Aside from Shirley I think they are all very weak characters and I think this is aided by the fact no one thinks they would work outside The Vic. This mean they are one dimensional. Again that highlights how weak they are. Mick has played the same scenes over and over every episode now for a year. He has had zero character progression. They also feel forced as a family. None of their scenes flow like natural scenes should. All the luvvie duvvie stuff is sooo damn false. Its tedious. You can tell its all acting and make believe. I think this is down to the fact their entire history is retconned.

Linda probably could be a decent character in her own right. I think the last one standing out of all the family will be her and Johnny. I really don't see Danny Dyer being on the show in two years time. I can picture Linda and Johnny sharing a flat on the Sq when all the rest have gone.

I've also noticed this.

Whilst other characters are criticised for their flaws, it's only the behaviour itself that is criticised, their presence on the show is not questioned/made out to be a huge problem as Mick's is whether he's presented as flawed or perfect.

I take your point. I don't want the Carters to be put up on a pedestal, as they were frequently under DTC, so if last night's episode is any sort of example then hopefully we're moving away from that now. I'd really like to see Mick become a much darker character, as I think Danny Dyer would own that sort of performance, and we might just get that if his behaviour is challenged in upcoming months.

Re Jonny's comments last night. From an ideological point of view, i actually agree with him. I have a problem with the NHS paying to train Doctors and Nurses and then them leaving for the Private sector as soon as they can. But then i am vehemently opposed to Private medicine (and education come to that) in the first place. But I also know that the World is not a perfect place and sometimes Doctors and Nurses just can't continue with the work they are expected to do for the NHS, for the money they are paid. The problem is not with them being greedy, but the lack of money given to the NHS.

The problem was not so much what Jonny said in a general way, but the fact that it was about a woman who has been being taken advantage of during her time away from her job so badly by his family. Just what has Jonny been doing to help with Sylvie? Of course he is studying Law, one of the most difficult subjects which requires a lot of time on top of lectures but it has been Vac for the past 3 months. I suspect Linda has probably shielded him, doesn't want her little sausage involved so he probably has no idea how hard it is looking after Sylvie, and how much Sonia has been doing for them on top of her Nursing. Which is, as Elly says, naive but also believable.

But what it did (quite cleverly in my view) was show the selfishness and ignorance of the Carters again, even though I'm sure Jonny won't have known he was being selfish or ignorant with regards to attacking Sonia for 'betraying' the NHS and the 'poor' people.

I also liked, that it was kind of a 'straw that broke the Camel's back' situation. The Carters, Mick, in particular, has been slagging Sonia off behind her back for weeks. Finally, she overheard oe of them doing it and snapped. But arguably, it was the one that least deserved it as he was speaking more generally than specifically about her.

I don't think its true the Carter's get criticized more than anyone else. Jane Beale is hated on here at a level which shocks me tbh. Everything she does she is blasted for. I don't see that with Mick or Linda.

I like the Carter's and wish Johnny would get more limelight but if its time for them to quit the Vic so the show can move into a new fresh era I'm all for it. Change is always good. I don't think the Carter's have any right to the pub, they have had a solid 3 years running the place now. If its time to test a new person in there bring in on.

Re Johnny's comments last night. I love Johnny but was defo annoyed at what he said more because they were having a go at Sonia for not looking after Sylvia which was the thing what peed people off.

Maybe it comes down to them still being the relatively new 'big' family on the block? When the likes of the Mitchells, Beales and Slaters were established, the internet wasn't really a thing and so every single action of theirs wasn't examined in fine detail. I can imagine the Slaters being absolutely, well, slated, if DS, Twitter and FB had been a thing back then.

Since then, many new families have tried and failed to become 'legacy' families - the most recent example being the Masoods () So maybe there's just this weight of expectation that the Carters will be the same, and people are more resistant to simply enjoying watching them in the way they do the Mitchells, who feel like part of the furniture at this point?

For the record, i actually quite like the Carters as characters and was pleasantly surprised by Danny Dyer. I never agreed with those people that complained that the Carters were dominating, especially in their first year, citing the large amount of screen time given to the Beales due to Lucy's death, Dot and the Mitchell's due to Charlie and Nick, the Jackson due to Carol's Cancer to name just a few plotline of 2014 which weren't Carter related.

But, i really don'( think people complain about Mick's very presence in a way they don't other characters. There are loads of people that think Jane and Ronnie should have gone long ago. Alfie used to get a lot of "why is he even here" as well. There are lots of 'secondary' characters who are constantly called deadwoodand people call for them to be axed.

There was an issue that the Carters, especially Mick, seemed to be onscreen a lot during their first year and they were used a great deal (although not in my opinion over used or at the expense of other characters) and i think that still feeds into a lot of people's "oh God, not again" when they appear on screen.

But we had exactly the same thing with the Branning a few years ago, the Mitchell's straight before then and even the Slaters 15 years ago.

To be fair to Johnny, he didn't mention Sylvie at all, or Sonia no longer looking after Sylvie. That seems to be entirely Mick, Linda and Shirley's bugbear; even Tina has conceded that it wasn't Sonia's job to look after her, I think. Johnny was simply talking about the NHS and Sonia leaving it, which was a whole other subject entirely. I'm not really sure what the point of putting that view in was, as I think it complicated the subject slightly, but I guess it could be to show that Johnny is becoming more 'socially' minded which may be the direction they're going to take his character (especially after his conversation with Colin about there always being more to do when it came to injustice) and also as Kitkat says, as a kind of 'straw that broke the camel's back' moment for Sonia.

As you say, the Internet wasn't around in such a major way, but i can confirm that amongst my Social and Work groups, the Slaters were complained about a lot. Most people recognised that most of the stories were good and we'll acted, but many people believed that they dominated and it had completely changed the show to its detriment and became sick of the sight of them.

I have several friends that had watched from 1985 who switched off, stating they wanted to watch EE, not the Slater show, and they've never switched back on.

I want someone to tell Ian and Jane hometruths as well. I know people are cross with Mick about treating Jay the way he has in the Pub but what about Phil he has known Jay for years longer than Mick has and he has tread Jay worse.

Yes I think for some there's an element of 'they haven't earnt their stripes yet', although one can't help but get the impression sometimes that they'll never be allowed to, and that only the founding/long-established families will ever matter to those making that argument.

I agree that if the internet had been around/widely used in the Mitchells and Slaters early days they too would've been criticised as being unworthy of the screentime they were getting.

Although Ronnie & Roxy (more so in the former's first stint) were a hit online, and it's important to not lose sight of the fact that the Carters have had a lot of praise too. The show can't please everyone.

Did you like Linda in October 2014 when she was raped? Who would you rather have in the show Linda or Tanya? Linda is not evil so why do people on here hate her? He was raped in 2014 and struggled with Dean being around last year and last month Dean was found not guilty for attempted rape? Haven't you felt sorry for Linda at all? Do you want to see my Meet and Greet Photos?

A lot of viewers (and posters) are absolutely furious and disgusted with Ian, Jane and Phil (plus Kathy, Sharon and several other characters) over the Bobby cover up and Jay situations. Also Ronnie about vincent/Fatboy.

I think half the Square have a lot of people thinking they are horrible people and badly need to be given more of a comeuppance than they have had and that they are not completely unsympathetic.

Yes, that's been my view on it.

Shirley is horrible but she doesn't pretend otherwise. Re the Sylvie situation, she has been straight up from the start that she despises her Mother and she doesn't see why they should have to look after the woman that mistreated and then abandoned them. She doesn't want to do it, she's been honest about that.

For all that, she has tried. True, she'll have been doing it for Tina's sake and she's been pretty crap at it (there just isn't the patience or love for the victim to cope with such a difficult illness) but she has at least made time to try.

Mick has done nothing and hasn't even had the guts to come right out and tell Tina that he won't be involved and he doesn't want his wife or children to be either. He just skirts round the issue, finding excuse after excuse when begged for help. Meanwhile, he vilifies the woman (sonia) who is actually doing most of the work.

But he's still the 'nice, family man'.

Posters have talked about their disgust for these characters actions, nearly everyone wants them to be punished.
People are allowed to criticize Mick, just because others have done worse doesn't mean his questionable actions are exempt from critcism.