DS Forums

 
 

What is worse Mick's treatment of Jay or Phil's treatment of Jay?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 27-09-2016, 09:13
Mormon Girl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 9,447

I know that people think Mick's treatment of Jay is really bad but I think Phil's treatment of Jay is worse he has known Jay longer than Mick and should know Jay didn't know the age and didn't set out to have a relationship with a 14 year old girl.
Mormon Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 27-09-2016, 09:24
priscilla
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: God didn't do this, devil did
Posts: 28,118
Phil's an asshole, then you have Mick the hypocrite acting like him and Linda just held hands at that age. Like Jay, both did not know Lindsey's real age and both know Jay would never intentionally do that but both acted like Jay was scum.
priscilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2016, 09:49
TLC1098
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,629
Both but Mick really pissed me off when he threw Jay out of the pub.
I've said it for a long time Mick is a fake. He pretends to be nice but deep down he's a sleazy little man.

That was the day I started to hate the character.
TLC1098 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2016, 10:33
vaslav37
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: London
Posts: 26,708
Jay has been treated appallingly by Phil.
vaslav37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2016, 10:57
J-B
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Winter is coming.
Posts: 13,324
Phil, but Mick is deeply, deeply stupid. He seemed to forget they he himself is a convicted sex offender.
J-B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2016, 11:06
SillyBoyBlue
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 913
Not one person questioned Linzi/Starr's age, Mick was fine with her being in the pub, they're all hypocrites.

I think what sent Phil over the edge was the fact that Louise had tried to kiss Jay. Despite the fact that Louise instigated the kiss, was rejected, and looks nineteen anyway.
SillyBoyBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2016, 11:58
kitkat1971
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,466
I think both are bad in different ways.

Yes of course Phil not being willing to give him the benefit of the doubt after knowing him for years and him being a surrogate son is appalling. But maybe it should be borne in mind how sick Phil has been all year so possibly not thinking straight and also, his main concern seemed to be Louise after learning that not only was it Star, but Jay and Louise had come close to kissing - even though Louise started it.

Mick has the excuse of not really knowing Jay but lots of people around him (including Shirley who he usually follows blindly) do and are telling him what happened. Also, his own staff, who are also his family, saw her in the Pub and didn't query her age. If they thought she looked over 18, why wouldn't Jay?
He pleaded Guilty to a sex crime he didn't commit to try and keep it quiet and spare another person pain so should know that just because Jay pleaded Guilty, it doesn't actually mean he was.

Finally, it is the hypocrisy of him behaving as though 14/15 is a child who is too young for sex when he was sleeping with Linda when she was that age - wasn't she pregnant by then?

Yes, i know Mick was the same age, not an adult which does make a difference but she was still that young and able to make an informed decision about whether to have sex or not - unless he thinks they weren't ready, and he did pressure her in some way?

I think most people's problem is not so much Mick doing this as the way he is presented as a hero when he does horrible things. Nobody is meant to fine Phil's actions honorable or likeable.
kitkat1971 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2016, 12:10
Collins1965
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,533
I think Phil because he SHOULD know Jay better than that. He loved Jay and used him as a surrogate son when it suited him but dropped him like a hot potato when trouble loomed. Horrible man.

Yes, Mick is a hypocrite but he has no emotional attachment to Jay. Phil supposedly does and that makes him worse in my book.
Collins1965 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2016, 12:15
priscilla
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: God didn't do this, devil did
Posts: 28,118
I think both are bad in different ways.

Yes of course Phil not being willing to give him the benefit of the doubt after knowing him for years and him being a surrogate son is appalling. But maybe it should be borne in mind how sick Phil has been all year so possibly not thinking straight and also, his main concern seemed to be Louise after learning that not only was it Star, but Jay and Louise had come close to kissing - even though Louise started it.

Mick has the excuse of not really knowing Jay but lots of people around him (including Shirley who he usually follows blindly) do and are telling him what happened. Also, his own staff, who are also his family, saw her in the Pub and didn't query her age. If they thought she looked over 18, why wouldn't Jay?
He pleaded Guilty to a sex crime he didn't commit to try and keep it quiet and spare another person pain so should know that just because Jay pleaded Guilty, it doesn't actually mean he was.

Finally, it is the hypocrisy of him behaving as though 14/15 is a child who is too young for sex when he was sleeping with Linda when she was that age - wasn't she pregnant by then?

Yes, i know Mick was the same age, not an adult which does make a difference but she was still that young and able to make an informed decision about whether to have sex or not - unless he thinks they weren't ready, and he did pressure her in some way?

I think most people's problem is not so much Mick doing this as the way he is presented as a hero when he does horrible things. Nobody is meant to fine Phil's actions honorable or likeable.
Exactly! I know EE present Phil as some sort of indestructible guy but he's also seen as a horrible man whereas Mick can act all hypocritical but presented as everyone's friend and a 'great guy'. Take the whole coker mess, if Phil had turned a blind a eye it would be presented as 'typical horrible philth' but with Mick & co it was brushed under the carpet only now has Linda put her foot down.
priscilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2016, 12:17
Victoria_Willia
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 43
Phil's treatment is definitely worst because he took the role of father figure then bailed. But i dont think his motives are anything to do with Louise.

i think Phil is jealous of the relationship Jay has with Ben, they arent blood related and yet have a better relationship then Phil and Grant ever did. Jay is closer to Ben then Phil, and Phil is an emotionally unstable guy.

he took on jay as an extension of his ego, i think he enjoyed taking him away from Billy. Jay for a time was everything he wanted Ben to be, until he became soiled, unpopular. then he was easily discarded because he wasnt proper family.
Victoria_Willia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2016, 12:22
Collins1965
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,533
Phil's treatment is definitely worst because he took the role of father figure then bailed. But i dont think his motives are anything to do with Louise.

i think Phil is jealous of the relationship Jay has with Ben, they arent blood related and yet have a better relationship then Phil and Grant ever did. Jay is closer to Ben then Phil, and Phil is an emotionally unstable guy.

he took on jay as an extension of his ego, i think he enjoyed taking him away from Billy. Jay for a time was everything he wanted Ben to be, until he became soiled, unpopular. then he was easily discarded because he wasnt proper family.



I could not agree more. Phil "took" Jay from Billy just because he could, to prove he was the bigger man. And Jay fell for it hook, line and sinker. It was the only time in EE history I have felt any sympathy for the loser that is Billy.

Jay was the "straight" son Phil wished he had but my goodness he couldn't get rid of him quick enough when he was accused of being a sex offender. If it had been Ben he would have fought tooth and nail to clear his name. Now he and Ben have bonded so he doesn't need Jay anymore and could not care less about him.
Collins1965 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2016, 12:27
_elly001
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,622
I assume this will need to be addressed with Mick at some point, unless they just decide to quietly drop it in the future? Jay will be back soon enough and it's hardly practical to keep him barred from The Vic forevermore (or at least for as long as the Carters are in there.) I'd like to see Jay coming back a lot more assertive and really challenging Mick's hypocrisy by pointing out all of the things pointed out above, that Mick was happy to serve Linzi alcohol and Jay could have dropped him in it for that but didn't, and also (if Jay is intelligent enough to work it out) that Mick and Linda were popping out kids when they were Linzi's age.

As for whose behaviour is worse, I think there are arguments on either side of the spectrum. Phil's concerns were arguably more valid as he was trying to protect his daughter who he sensed had an attraction to Jay, even if Jay himself wouldn't go there. Phil is essentially an undeducated thug who reacts on a very instinctual level so you can see that in his mind the easiest way for him to keep Louise 'safe' was to cut Jay out of their lives. But it is appalling that he did this to a young man who has essentially looked on him as a father for years now. As for Mick he has no ties to Jay and doesn't know the full story, but by refusing to even listen to Jay he has acted pretty terribly and deserves to be called out on it.
_elly001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2016, 12:31
Victoria_Willia
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 43
[/b]
It was the only time in EE history I have felt any sympathy for the loser that is Billy.
.
Even more so when considering Jay did return to Billy, but broken due to the scandal and mimicking Phils coping mechanisms. Escapism, drugs.
Victoria_Willia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2016, 13:09
Superstar99
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,079
Jay will be back soon enough
Is anyone actually 100% sure about this though? I have heard one or two people claim they've seen the actor outside the studios, but this doesn't mean to say he's been filming. All the hints on instagram between him and Harry suggests that they don't work together much, such as the picture of them recently saying wherever we are we'll always be brothers. The only time they've been together recently has been for other reasons than work, such as Michael Leaders funeral, Danny Dyers wedding, then Harry posted pics and videos. Before that and since that theres been nothing to suggest they've been together filming.

I think its more in hope that he returns than absolute certainty. And if he were to return I get the feeling it was be a brief stint before exiting permanently.
Superstar99 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2016, 13:22
_elly001
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,622
Is anyone actually 100% sure about this though? I have heard one or two people claim they've seen the actor outside the studios, but this doesn't mean to say he's been filming. All the hints on instagram between him and Harry suggests that they don't work together much, such as the picture of them recently saying wherever we are we'll always be brothers. The only time they've been together recently has been for other reasons than work, such as Michael Leaders funeral, Danny Dyers wedding, then Harry posted pics and videos. Before that and since that theres been nothing to suggest they've been together filming.

I think its more in hope that he returns than absolute certainty. And if he were to return I get the feeling it was be a brief stint before exiting permanently.
I suppose I don't know for sure, I just can't believe that if that was Jay's final exit that more wasn't made of it online. Usually you'll get a spokesperson confirming if it was someone's final episode but that didn't happen after Jay's exit. The DS article on it was very speculative which also implies it wasn't final.

I don't actually care all that much, I like Jay well enough but I was bored with all the misery porn they were heaping on him before his exit. However I can't see this being the end for him.
_elly001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2016, 13:29
Lady Voldemort
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: here
Posts: 4,814
Phil without a doubt. Mick is just ignorant and simply knows the verdict and gossip. Phil knows Jay like a son and also knows the full story, he just chooses not to believe it.
Lady Voldemort is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2016, 13:40
Lady Voldemort
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: here
Posts: 4,814
Although kitkat makes a good point about Mick knocking an underage girl up twice. So yes, Mick is a hypocritical dick, however I still think in the specific circumstances of knowing Jay so well, Phil is a bigger one.
Lady Voldemort is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2016, 13:52
kitkat1971
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,466
I assume this will need to be addressed with Mick at some point, unless they just decide to quietly drop it in the future? Jay will be back soon enough and it's hardly practical to keep him barred from The Vic forevermore (or at least for as long as the Carters are in there.) I'd like to see Jay coming back a lot more assertive and really challenging Mick's hypocrisy by pointing out all of the things pointed out above, that Mick was happy to serve Linzi alcohol and Jay could have dropped him in it for that but didn't, and also (if Jay is intelligent enough to work it out) that Mick and Linda were popping out kids when they were Linzi's age.

As for whose behaviour is worse, I think there are arguments on either side of the spectrum. Phil's concerns were arguably more valid as he was trying to protect his daughter who he sensed had an attraction to Jay, even if Jay himself wouldn't go there. Phil is essentially an undeducated thug who reacts on a very instinctual level so you can see that in his mind the easiest way for him to keep Louise 'safe' was to cut Jay out of their lives. But it is appalling that he did this to a young man who has essentially looked on him as a father for years now. As for Mick he has no ties to Jay and doesn't know the full story, but by refusing to even listen to Jay he has acted pretty terribly and deserves to be called out on it.
I completely agree with the second paragraph - that is my reading of it as well.

Re other comments - I agree that Phil has only ever used Jay and discarded him as soon as he has 'displeased' or it was a case of him or one of Phil's biological children.
He took him on, to get at Billy and also because he was more the type of son he wanted and expected to have. But look how he intimidated Jay into keeping quiet about Heather's death and then not only allowed him to take the full blame for the cover up (legally and socially) when in fact Phil was the person that actioned most of it but threw him out.

Why Jay went back after that i don't know but he did. Now, when it has, in Phil's mind, come down to 'protecting' Louise or sheltering a 'Nonce', blood has won again. I also suspect there might be an element of shielding his own image within his associates - protecting or being related to a Nonce is probably only one step worse than actually being one. Guilt by Association and not for something that could help his reputation as a hard man like having a Psycho younger brother on a leash.

I don't think that he is jealous of Ben and Jay's closeness or that they are closer than Phil and Grant ever were. By chance i came across Sam first episode on an old tape the other day, so a few months after Grant and Phil joined and they were tight. Not just because they needed to be but they actually got on and that is how I remember the early days. That is why Sharon was such a big thing, they had been so close and even if they'd 'competed' for women before (like Julie) it was all quite light hearted and they'd both walk away rather than risk their relationship. Until Sharon, and that is what broke them apart and it has never really healed since.
kitkat1971 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2016, 14:27
FusionFury
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,914
If I was Jay id be suicidal right now as every door is shut on him
FusionFury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2016, 14:56
SecretLifeoBees
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Dorothy Fish Common Room
Posts: 31,209
Phil is worse in my opinion. For years Billy was the one who looked after Jay. Then because Phil hated the fact his real son wasn't the person he wanted him to be he decided to turn his attentions to Jay and make him into the son he wished he had. Jay even changed his name to Mitchell at one point ffs. Then we had phil constantly telling Jay he was now Ben's 'brother' and to look out for him etc. Look how much Jay has stood by Ben and the rest of the Mitchell's through. This is what grates on me the most, they have known Jay since boyhood but were still prepared to believe Star/Linzi over him. Not once did they consider his innocence or encourage him to prove he was innocent. Didn't Jay end up only saying he was guilty because of how his 'family' assumed guilt and also to protect Star/Linzi (which I thought was ridiculous)

With the crimes the Mitchell have ACTUALLY committed I don't think they are in any position to judge. The way they have dropped Jay is sad, but to be honest what I expect from them.

At least Mick has the excuse he has known Jay a relatively short period of time compared to Phil.
SecretLifeoBees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2016, 15:11
Littlegreen42
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Under The Ivy
Posts: 16,586
Phil is a homophobic, racist, sexist, alcoholic potato head. He has basically been a father figure for Jay the last decade, to treat his "son" with such contempt is both heartless and wickedly cruel.

Mick is just a bystander so he has every right to his own views.
Littlegreen42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2016, 15:13
vald
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 31,001
Phil has behaved far worse than Mick.

Mick hardly knows the lad and he has his business to think of. Jay's case would have been in the local rag and he admitted to sex crimes against a minor. That's all his customers are going to know. It was either ban him or risk customers staying away. As for Shirley reassuring him that he's a nice lad really...he heard all that before with Dean.

I do feel sorry for Jay but what he did was a crime and he's only got himself to blame.
vald is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2016, 15:22
Nefersitra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 728
What got me most was that Mick banned Jay because The Vic "is a family pub" but was happy to serve Ben, who has served time for manslaughter, Ronnie the convicted kidnapper and Stacey who killed a former landlord.
Nefersitra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2016, 15:35
SecretLifeoBees
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Dorothy Fish Common Room
Posts: 31,209
What got me most was that Mick banned Jay because The Vic "is a family pub" but was happy to serve Ben, who has served time for manslaughter, Ronnie the convicted kidnapper and Stacey who killed a former landlord.
Let us not forget Aunt Babe the baby farmer.
SecretLifeoBees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2016, 16:45
J-B
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Winter is coming.
Posts: 13,324
What got me most was that Mick banned Jay because The Vic "is a family pub" but was happy to serve Ben, who has served time for manslaughter, Ronnie the convicted kidnapper and Stacey who killed a former landlord.
Or Mick himself, the violent, lying, convicted whoremongerer.
J-B is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:01.