Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Walford Web, the online home of EastEnders' discussion since 1997. We cover EastEnders news, discussion and spoilers. Join the discussion and make your voice heard! We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're wondering what EastEnders is, click here to see what all the fuss is about.

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
Ronnie - is she past her sell by date?
Topic Started: 8 Sep 2015, 16:32 (7,037 Views)
Ross
Member Avatar
I'm in the kitchen eating a biscuit
SamWomackFan1
9 Sep 2015, 16:38
Ross
9 Sep 2015, 16:35
100% not, I'm afraid. Carl was about to take that car and leave with Phil's money. Ronnie, being the psycopath she is, could not help herself. Her screaming of "bastard" just shows that her anger reached boiling point in that moment, not that she was protecting herself.
Ok your view is completely different to mine and many others. However it was meant to be portrayed as if he was going to rape her. I saw that and saw that she was defending herself.
He was going to rape her in his flat, not in the garage.
Massive thanks to NickM for this wonderful signature! :)

Posted Image
Online Profile Goto Top
 
SamWomackFan1
Member Avatar

Ross
9 Sep 2015, 16:40
SamWomackFan1
9 Sep 2015, 16:38

Quoting limited to 2 levels deep
He was going to rape her in his flat, not in the garage.
He didnt end up raping her in the flat so he thought he would try in the garage. Completely she was petrified so she defended herself as would anyone!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
alisonx
Default Avatar

If you watch the clip, he still had his hand gripped onto her arm when he put the bag into the boot. Two seconds previous he had his mouth all over her and was completely aggressive towards her. Whether he did plan to go further after this point or not, Ronnie would have been scared shitless and would have believed that he was going to go further. Hence her next action, made in self defence.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Jade
Member Avatar

I think some don't understand the law. Had she killed him and called an ambulance in her flat the self defence theory may stand the garage one does not.
I do not think anyone would stand and watch someone's dead body whom the killed be crushed. That's pretty twisted. Then when his family try to get justice have his brother beaten to a pulp and threaten his mother plus the rest of the family. Try getting a jury to believe self defense to all those factors if you want to bring the past actions into it.
Don't forget she does play victim too remember when she on purpose lied about Damien trying to rape her?

I still think a route where she becomes inappropriate with Roxy would not only be believable but interesting on that darker Ronnie. DTC said she was a villain so we don't need to pretend she isn't. That's his vision for her and her psychopathic traits defiantly fit that. I actually love some soap villains not everyone needs to be a saint.
Your approval is neither desired nor required.

Julia Smith "We decided to go for a realistic, fairly outspoken type of drama which could encompass stories about homosexuality, rape, unemployment, racial prejudice, etc., in a believable context. Above all, we wanted realism".

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Jade
Member Avatar

Ross
9 Sep 2015, 16:39
I also know full well that statistics show the correlation of abusers being victims of abuse themselves. But stating, as a fact, that "abuse victims become abusers" - without expanding the point or explaining that it's a huge generalisation - is wrong. I feel quite offended by that comment and I'm sure a good few others do too.
I understand where your coming from and like I said I cant not speak for others but I clarified it as it is relevant and just factually true. Many people get offended as they think of if someone is a victim your saying they are likely to be an abuser and of course nobody means that at all, most do not. But those who are abusers almost always have had some sort of abuse in their past. In our world many like to see people who do evil things as monsters but its more complicated then that, many themselves have suffered big part of why they became as twisted as they did.
Phil is a great example of being a product of his abusive upbringing. He even admitted he wished Ben had been a girl as he didn't want to end up like his father who was an abusive violent drunk. Doesn't make it any better but it does make it very realistic.
Your approval is neither desired nor required.

Julia Smith "We decided to go for a realistic, fairly outspoken type of drama which could encompass stories about homosexuality, rape, unemployment, racial prejudice, etc., in a believable context. Above all, we wanted realism".

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Jade
Member Avatar

Desdemona
9 Sep 2015, 17:46
Jade
9 Sep 2015, 16:00
As for sexism it is on here often. People saying women who kill or shoot men are strong. Women who treated men like shit should be championed. Reverse the sexes see who thinks if Phil shot Shirley they would consider him strong for such an act. Who would laugh had it been Alfie punching Kat in the face then the other way round? I akin sexism to any other form of bigotry like racism, homophobia etc. I am a humanist I care for human rights not one selected class of people.
Women and girls are most affected by sexism as is obvious in the outrage about Ronnie killing a rapist. Clearly, his life matters so much more than her fear and humiliation.
What would you consider an appropriate reaction to male sexual violence? Ronnie dropping her knickers like a good girl? or maybe she should have waited and given Carl a chance to get his 'act' together? Hey, let's not discriminate against a slow rapist.


How dare you say that to me. What a disgusting post.
Like a few I am sick of your bigotry and just because I don't like violence regardless of the sex doesn't mean I believe women should drop their knickers to get raped. I have been trolled in the past, called names etc. But this is another level. Seriously I don't care if this gets me banned your as bad as any racist, homophobe or other bigot.
Oh and in any civilised society vigilante justice is not considered acceptable.
Edited by Jade, 9 Sep 2015, 17:59.
Your approval is neither desired nor required.

Julia Smith "We decided to go for a realistic, fairly outspoken type of drama which could encompass stories about homosexuality, rape, unemployment, racial prejudice, etc., in a believable context. Above all, we wanted realism".

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
MrSunshine
Member Avatar

Mrs Peel
9 Sep 2015, 12:28
MrSunshine
8 Sep 2015, 23:33

Quoting limited to 2 levels deep
Actually, he was putting the hold-all with Phil's money in the boot when she killed him.

As Sharon said, "everyone" wants to blackmail Ronnie, and "everyone" seems to want to sexually abuse her.

She killed a man and crushed his body. That doesn't empower her, and anything she does now doesn't either. She shat herself and ran after killing Carl, leaving Phil to clean up a massive mess. She cut and run when he discovered her gun, again, leaving the item in his house. And she chose deportation over imprisonment in Ibiza when she assaulted an off-duty policeman whose intentions she totally misunderstood.

All of that makes her a massive coward. She isn't some superwoman who challenges the accepted role dynamic of women in soaps. She is a bully, and as everyone knows, bullies are cowards.

People harp on about how these so-called strong women are man-dependent, and so is Ronnie. She now needs a man to do her dirty work, and she'll do anything, including sleep with a fool, to accomplish this and then leave him neck-deep in shit.

You talk the talk, you walk the walk, and Ronnie doesn't.
I agree. Ronnie is a coward but she's not a rapist.
Online Profile Goto Top
 
MrSunshine
Member Avatar

This topic has got a bit out of control. It shows a great deal of passion about such sensitive subjects but remember it's difficult to read tone so lets not attack each other.
Online Profile Goto Top
 
Mrs Peel
Member Avatar

Desdemona
9 Sep 2015, 13:32
SamWomackFan1
9 Sep 2015, 12:23


I think Samantha Womack is such a talented actress who deserves so much more than the crap they have been given her. She doesn't get enough credit at all.

However some of the comments on here are so so rude and disrespectful. Slate Ronnie all you want but when it comes to Sams looks that is too far and is disgusting. She is absolutely gorgeous inside and out. She has a pure heart of gold so generous and caring. I just hate it seeing people calling her an alien face and had too much botox and stuff its awful.




You have a point.
Discussions about Ronnie are often tainted by a misogynistic tone (the local rapist gets more sympathy than the survivor of sexual abuse) that rubs off on Sam Womack. Quite disturbing and disappointing.
I have no sympathy for either Ronnie or Dean. One has killed, the other has raped. BOTH are control freaks. Rape is all about control, and Ronnie seeks to control Roxy to the point that Ronnie picks and chooses Roxy's sexual partners and determines when her sister's affairs begin and end, with Roxy always returning to Ronnie in the end and always regressing to child-like behaviour. Roxy's recited mmantra of "No man will ever come between us" now takes on a creepy tone, because it doesn't apply to the men she's shared with Ronnie, it means any man. The sapphic-quasi-incestuous scene when a drunken Roxy climbed into the hospital bed with Ronnie wasn't a throwback to 2 innocent kids of 10 and 7 sharing a cuddle, it sent out a very nuanced message, especially about Ronnie.

Make no mistake - Ronnie is as filthy dirty as Dean, and neither one has any right to sit in judgement of the other. The people who make excuses for Dean and the people who make excuses for Ronnie might want to think about their common ground.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mrs Peel
Member Avatar

SamWomackFan1
9 Sep 2015, 16:38
Ross
9 Sep 2015, 16:35
100% not, I'm afraid. Carl was about to take that car and leave with Phil's money. Ronnie, being the psycopath she is, could not help herself. Her screaming of "bastard" just shows that her anger reached boiling point in that moment, not that she was protecting herself.
Ok your view is completely different to mine and many others. However it was meant to be portrayed as if he was going to rape her. I saw that and saw that she was defending herself.
Your second sentence contradicts your first. If this is subjective, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Self-defense is Janine killing Michael, who had plotted to kill her and would have done so, had she not stabbed him. Self-defense was New Year's Eve, when Carl did attempt to assault Ronnie; but attacking someone from behind when they are in a near-supine position is neither self-defense nor justified.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Holly
Member Avatar

MrSunshine
9 Sep 2015, 21:04
This topic has got a bit out of control. It shows a great deal of passion about such sensitive subjects but remember it's difficult to read tone so lets not attack each other.
Agreed. It's a question that can't really be answered, we all have such different viewpoints and now we're just bickering and going round in circles. Some like her, some don't, that's fair enough, but now we're at the point where people are criticising others points of view and it's getting insulting. Let's just agree to disagree.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Jade
Member Avatar

I am usually happy to agree to disagree on most debates but that disgusting post directed at me was far beyond something ANY member should have to be spoken too. I have had many debates on here even mini quarrels never in my time have I found a post quite as vile and disgusting as that one. So I wont be told off and usually I stop once it gets derailed being told that I should suggest a woman takes her knickers off to get raped is far beyond a little insulting, libellous and basically hate speech. There was no excuse or defense for it. I am usually one of the first to say lets move on or agree to disagree but that wasn't a debate that was something different.

Sorry to anyone else who wasn't involved but I am rightly furious.
Edited by Jade, 9 Sep 2015, 21:50.
Your approval is neither desired nor required.

Julia Smith "We decided to go for a realistic, fairly outspoken type of drama which could encompass stories about homosexuality, rape, unemployment, racial prejudice, etc., in a believable context. Above all, we wanted realism".

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mrs Peel
Member Avatar

Desdemona
9 Sep 2015, 17:46
Jade
9 Sep 2015, 16:00
As for sexism it is on here often. People saying women who kill or shoot men are strong. Women who treated men like shit should be championed. Reverse the sexes see who thinks if Phil shot Shirley they would consider him strong for such an act. Who would laugh had it been Alfie punching Kat in the face then the other way round? I akin sexism to any other form of bigotry like racism, homophobia etc. I am a humanist I care for human rights not one selected class of people.
Women and girls are most affected by sexism as is obvious in the outrage about Ronnie killing a rapist. Clearly, his life matters so much more than her fear and humiliation.
What would you consider an appropriate reaction to male sexual violence? Ronnie dropping her knickers like a good girl? or maybe she should have waited and given Carl a chance to get his 'act' together? Hey, let's not discriminate against a slow rapist.


Ronnie has NO right to sit in judgement of Dean. They are as bad as one another, and it's a pretty warped view to say someone should take the law into their own hands and mete frontier justice. Dean deserves to be imprisoned for what he did, but Ronnie has no moral authority to decide whether he lives or dies. Stacey used that excuse of killing Archie because he raped her to Luke, who told her she still had no right to take his life. Oh, wait. Luke was a man.

Dennis Rickman killed a very bad man in an execution-style killing, but he had no more right to do so than Danny Moon did, acting on Jonnie Allen's orders.

Dean needs punishment, but so does Ronnie. I'm not defending either of them. I hope they both get their just karma.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
SamWomackFan1
Member Avatar

Mrs Peel
9 Sep 2015, 21:39
SamWomackFan1
9 Sep 2015, 16:38

Quoting limited to 2 levels deep
Your second sentence contradicts your first. If this is subjective, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Self-defense is Janine killing Michael, who had plotted to kill her and would have done so, had she not stabbed him. Self-defense was New Year's Eve, when Carl did attempt to assault Ronnie; but attacking someone from behind when they are in a near-supine position is neither self-defense nor justified.
In my opinion it was self defence like many other people think.

Samantha Womack was amazing in those scenes! She is one talented woman who deserves more credit!!
:D
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Jade
Member Avatar

In legal sense it was not self defense. Had she killed him in the flat and called an ambulance that would be different but what we saw was not legally self defense. Now I am someone who doesn't even want Ronnie axed just different direction to what we are getting but she did commit more that one offense that day.
Your approval is neither desired nor required.

Julia Smith "We decided to go for a realistic, fairly outspoken type of drama which could encompass stories about homosexuality, rape, unemployment, racial prejudice, etc., in a believable context. Above all, we wanted realism".

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Kirsty
Member Avatar
Eyes up, Guardian.
Can we keep it civil please, and try and be aware that this is a sensitive subject and people are likely to have strong opinions - the less volatile we can keep the discussion, the better.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
MrSunshine
Member Avatar

I do think Ronnie commited a crime but murder wasn't it. She could have ran from Carl but this is a woman who holds so much anger over her incredibly shit life that she reacted to his sexual advances by smashing him with a car boot lid. It was quick. Afterwards she sobbed and then shat herself and got rid of the body. She then planted evidence on Phil. So I do agree that she is a coward but she is not a murderer. As I've always said her guilt lies in disposing the body instead of calling the police.
Online Profile Goto Top
 
alisonx
Default Avatar

If she had phoned an ambulance after killing him in the arches, she could have easily claimed self defence. A good barrister would be able to successfully convince the jury that she used reasonable force in the circumstances as she believed them to be. Given what had just happened seconds previous when he got physical with her, her mistake would be regarded as a reasonable mistake to make in the circumstances would it not?
The whole car crushing incident afterwards is obviously a completely different story, which even I can not defend. That comes down to the choice of the writers who wanted to open up the villainous side to the character. It makes the whole killing somewhat ambiguous - whilst the actual killing will always be in my opinion an act of self defence, what she did to the body afterwards cannot be excused. But that's Ronnie for ya.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mrs Peel
Member Avatar

Here's the same situation in reverse. I just watched Steve's killing of Saskia from 1999.I recommend people who are justifying Ronnie's killing of Carl as self-defense. This was totally a killing done initially in self-defense. Saskia had walloped Steve over the head with - what else? - a champagne bottle. It was Saskia who initiated physical violence and took advantage of Steve's weakened state to try to strangle him with his tie. Why? Because he had split with her and moved on, and she refused to let go. When Matthew Rose entered the room and pulled her off Steve, she attacked Matthew with a metal kettle. Steve grabbed the first thing to hand - a marble ashtray - and whacked her. Did he mean to kill her? No.

Had he called the police then, there would have been enough witnesses and forensic evidence to prove self-defense. But he didn't. He put her body in a bin bag and coerced Matthew into helping him dispose of the body. At that point, the deed transcends into something else.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
MrSunshine
Member Avatar

Mrs Peel
9 Sep 2015, 22:51
Here's the same situation in reverse. I just watched Steve's killing of Saskia from 1999.I recommend people who are justifying Ronnie's killing of Carl as self-defense. This was totally a killing done initially in self-defense. Saskia had walloped Steve over the head with - what else? - a champagne bottle. It was Saskia who initiated physical violence and took advantage of Steve's weakened state to try to strangle him with his tie. Why? Because he had split with her and moved on, and she refused to let go. When Matthew Rose entered the room and pulled her off Steve, she attacked Matthew with a metal kettle. Steve grabbed the first thing to hand - a marble ashtray - and whacked her. Did he mean to kill her? No.

Had he called the police then, there would have been enough witnesses and forensic evidence to prove self-defense. But he didn't. He put her body in a bin bag and coerced Matthew into helping him dispose of the body. At that point, the deed transcends into something else.
Yes it does but it's not murder.
Online Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · EastEnders Current & Future · Next Topic »
Locked Topic