Yeah, if you look here on RU-vid you'll find video after video of idiots spouting the exact same crap that Stuart and Jonny's characters are. It's also true that kids learn this stuff at home; That's why a lot of Muslim children end getting bullied by little psychos like Sid IRL.
In fairness sake, this what is happening in this, schools and headmaster ending up in the firing line is actually an ongoing situation, only it is certain muslims picketing the school. I think it was Sky News I saw it on? A Labor politician and one of the muslims, they were debating outside the school which had been surrounded by these muslim protesters, the politician saying that it was important that children learned about the real world as it was, and the muslim man claiming suggesting kids have two mothers to be Islamophobic. So it is kind of ironic, almost, to see the opposite being depicted in this storyline. Also, frankly, a little bit stupid, since I don`t really think any right wing extremist group, operating more outside the law than within it, would have been stupid enough to object to an event where officers trained and experienced with racism and radical groups spoke about that topic to students at a school. In my opinion therefore this development makes this storyline less important and significant. To be relevant and important, both the storyline and the characters and developments included in it have to be authentic to how it is in real life. In regard to this storyline Johnny and Stuart has spent a lot of time and money to recruit Ste. Why? It has to be something pretty special they need him for, since Johnny would go as far as to pretend to be his biological half brother, and Stuart would buy a house next to the Maaliks, just because Ste was kicked out of Leela`s place. That is not a realistic and authentic depiction of how these right wing extremists recruit new followers, and therefore weakens the quality and relevance of the storyline, more than it enhances and solidifies it. So with this weird commotion involving the school, my pendulum is starting to swing back yet again in regard to this storyline. Instead of thinking it to be relevant and important (as I felt for a while after I manged to forget about that moronic development of Johnny claiming to be Ste`s brother), I now more and more (after Stuart bought a house just to place Ste closer to the Maaliks) find the storyline sensational and so over the top, it more becomes fictional nonsense than relevant current affair drama. Pity, cause both Ray Quinn and Chris Simmons have been solid additions to the cast. And certain elements to the story is very good. Home-schooled Sid being placed in a proper school, hopefully gradually to start to question his father and his mates` extreme views, when discovering the real world isn`t quite how his father told him it was. Lean, Leela and Peri worried about Ste`s gradual transformation, but not knowing how best to help him and the situation. The fact that Ste`s aggression is more linked to his anger over the unnecessary death of Tegan (which Misbah never should have gone near with a sharp object, as long as her own arm was injured and in pain - that reckless behavior caused Tegan`s life unnecessary, since if Misbah had asked Leela or one of the others to perform the procedure under her supervision, Tegan`s life very likely could have been saved. Since that arm would have been perfectly fit, and therefore being fed Misbah`s instructions from start to finish, that person could have helped Misbah save Tegan`s life, with a far less risk to Tegan`s life, than when Misbah put her dodgy arm to work.), than comes from a general hate towards muslims in general - and that Johnny and Sturat have exploited this - also is a quality element. But details matter. If Hollyoaks wants to present a storyline with current affair relevance and depth, it has to be more authentic than fake.
“Address and tackle ever issue”? Except abusive women Mercedes and Donna Marie are key example of such cases I mean for Christ sake one of them is a literal rapist and the show doesn’t condemn her like Pete Lori Finn
As much as I hate that a character like Ste is the focal point of a storyline focusing on far-right propaganda and radicalization, it is such an important issue that not many shows take the time to show just how seductive these creeps are. I suppose maybe they made a point to use Ste as an example that even a marginalized person like him can be tangled up in such an awful situation.
They should show more what Jonny and Stewart tell Ste to make it understandable that Ste is brainwashed. Things must make sense. There are too little of storytelling right now to make it trustworthy enough.
Steven, ta vie t’échappe depuis longtemps et toi et moi savons pourquoi : Brendan te manque terriblement ! Et le choix de Léah, de rester avec toi est compréhensible. Pauvre petite ! Elle te sait fragile, te voit te transformer sous ses yeux. Elle t’a vu te détruire tellement de fois, qu’elle se dit que le seul moyen de t’aider, est de rester près de toi . Touchant. Mais, je suis d’accord avec Leela, pour son bien Léah doit s’éloigner de toi et de ta bande.
The most annoying thing about this story is how everyone is so worried about ste but yet none of them have tried to reach out to brendan the one person ste listened too.
Leah is like Amy, I feel sorry for her... Taking care of her dad is gonna be a lot of hard work & scary !!! She needs help I wish John Paul Or someone else comes in to save the day. At least ste finally becomes a better person who can live on his own and take care of his own shit.
Sally nobody is allowed to call she steven but Brendan. She was right about Laurie being a rapist and working at the school though.He was just wrong about everything else.
As long as Laurie neither has been charged, nor is under investigation - but his wife is, there is nothing Sally can do. In the eyes of the law Sinead is the suspected criminal now, since the police believes she lied about both rapes, after they discovered Laurie had an alibi for the first one. In my opinion Hollyoaks is stretching reality when depicting the police to have concluded like that. I strongly believe that even though there wouldn`t have been strong enough evidence against Laurie to keep him locked up while the case was being investigated, the fact both Tony and Diane - independently of each other - told the police Laurie apologized to SInead when she accused him of rape, and did so because he got "carried away." The last being confirmed by Tony and Diane in independent testimonies - and even admitted to by Laurie - even though he had a slightly different understanding/version of what he claimed to have meant - in itself should merit sufficient reasonable suspicion for the case to be investigated as a potential rape. I also believe a mix up of two dates so close to each other as the first and second of April, would have been enough to conclude Sinead had been lying, had she just left at saying she got the dates mixed up, and not given such an elaborate explanation to why she deliberately not only lied, but continued that lie, until she realized it was bound to be discovered. A mix up of two dates so close to each other, would not have destroyed her credibility. But admitting to a calculated lie as she did - and even worse, in a public place to threaten the life of the man she accused - would have landed her behind bars on remand almost regardless. Cause should something have happened to Laurie, and Sinead was free, the judge agreeing to set her free would have had it on his/her conscience forever. If you are accused of crime, but innocent, the smartest thing you can do is to act innocent. Not appear threatening, angry or crazy. But leave both the talking and what to do to your lawyer. Don`t answer questions by the police you fear could implicate you further, just say you don`t remember. If you are innocent they cannot accuse you of holding back evidence, if if you talked that would mean you could be charged instead of the person or persons guilty. Don`t share information about the case, or anyone involved in the case, with ANYONE except your lawyer. Even people you believe to be family or friends could have reasons to bring key information that could hurt you to the police, either to protect themselves or to protect someone they care more about than you. And most important of all NEVER tell a lie to the police. Cause if you are caught in one, both the police, the court and everybody else is more likely to think the rest you say are lies to, increasing the risk you could be convicted despite being innocent.
@@Tvjunkieful12 It´s easier said than done to stay calm if someone tells you are a liar in front of other people when you know you are the victim in a horrible crimestory and that you know that the other person manipulates you and others. The reaction of anger is real but Sinead is not a smart or especially sensible/reasonable person and she shows that when she get in to the shop. She is not so nice. I can understand that she got angry but she should have gone out of the shop after she has expressed the anger that she felt but not hit Laurie or throw a bottle of wine into the wall and then threathen Laurie the way she did. The problem could be if she had been calm and quiet and just had walked out of the shop, people may have thought that she was a liar. Laurie´s anger felt trustworthy in the shop at least at the beginning as he is a good liar and manipulator and that is why the police believed him more than they believed Sinead I think as they took her in to the policestation. The storytelling isn´t completetly well made or trustworthy but there are interesting things going on here. I remember the Danish film "The Hunt" when the accused person of sexual abuse towards a young girl tries to act like a sensible human being knowing that he is innocent and people don´t believe that he is and later on he can´t hold his anger inside of him anymore. He was just lucky that the girl admitted that she had lied about the sexual abuse so he could walk free.
@@ann-christinenilsson4046 I understand what you mean. But she could just have said: "How can you live with yourself?" Shook her head and walked away. Had Laurie followed her and confronted her, he would have been the attacker, and in danger of being placed behind bars for threatening her instead. Had he remained stood still in the shop, he would have had to face the eyes of Martine and Walther, looking to see his reaction - and he would have been the one who had to convince them he was the innocent victim of him and Sinead. Consequently he would have been forced to spill more detailed lies of the incident to convince them he was the victim. Which again, if it was in conflict with his police statement, could constitute grounds for him to be held on remand, since it could be argued - because of the discrepancies between what he told Martine and Walther, and what he had said in his police interview - there was a danger he both could attempt to obstruct the investigation by manipulating witnesses with misleading information so they would take his side (that is both a full explanation, as well as the legal justification), and potentially also destroy or manipulate evidence. By manipulating people with lies into taking his side, and as consequence they either lie for him, or neglect to inform the police about relevant facts to Laurie`s disadvantage. Had Sami been a good lawyer, he would have briefed Sinead, after the charges against Laurie had been dropped, about what she shouldn`t do, and how she shouldn`t behave, not to aggravate the situation further, and worsening her case even more. He would also have advised her about what Laurie should not say or do to land himself back into trouble, and that she therefore should avoid seeking contact with him, or address him in anyway. To avoid that being used against her, and so that he would have been the one in trouble, should he seek her up, or talk about her to others. The former than could be used to suggest he attempted to threaten or manipulate her - which would constitute either witness intimidation or attempted witness manipulation - even could be seen as an attempt to corrupt justice. Depending on how Laurie had worded himself, in regard to what extent he tried to influence SInead to change her statement. The latter, talk about her to others, could be seen as both an attempt to corrupt justice and witness manipulation (depending on whether those he spoke to, were actual witnesses in the case or so close to potential witnesses in the case that what Laurie said could reach them). In real life both Sinead and Laurie`s legal representatives should have informed each of them of these dangerous pit falls. Often also both family and close friends gets a similar warning, that attempting to approach or influence the other side in any way could seriously harm the case for the one they are concerned about - even could land themselves in jail for either witness intimidation, witness manipulation or corruption of justice. People who are involved in sensitive and potentially explosive legal or criminal cases must never give in to the temptation of allowing themselves a little slack to vent out there frustration, or to make them feel better either physically or verbally attack the other party. Cause the law and the courts are not willing to give them that slack. The law will fall down on them like a tun of bricks, just like it did for Sinead - and justly so, I might add - cause no judge in the world should someone roam free who both lays into, and threatens to kill, someone else in public place. What would have happened had it not being a public place with other people around? Had the police had a murder to investigate now, is the worry that legitimizes Sinead being held on remand. Personally, instead of these brainless confrontations real lawyers are so persistent in making sure their clients restrict their temptation for, because they make the job of representing them so much harder and more difficult, I think the suspense of the storyline had benefited from both Sami and James give heed warning to their respective clients - so both they and the viewers would be aware of why confronting the other party would not only be a bad idea, put a potentially very dangerous one for them. So the focus and suspense of the storyline would be more to see if the two of them manged to constrain themselves when accidentally being confronted with each other, or which one of them would be the first to blow the safety valve and do or say something which potentially could ruin their entire case. Just imagine how on pins and needles we as viewers would have been, if Martine and Walther - instead of trying to, quite helplessly in my opinion, inform Sinead that Laurie was in the shop (why didn`t Martine just discretely walk up to Sinead, tell her Laurie was in the shop, so maybe she should wait a little before entering?), they had not discovered her entering until it was too late, and she already was inside the shop, and Laurie had seen her - and she him. But instead of confronting each other directly, the two tried to get on with their shopping, remembering the - in flash backs, perhaps - the warnings issued by Sami and James, both of them therefore well aware of what could be at stake. Martine and Walther exchanging worried, but also questioning quick glances between them - worried about a confrontation, but also curious to why there hasn`t been one. Just imagine that scene. All that can be heard is the sounds of Sinead and Laurie awkwardly and tensed moving around the shop picking groceries from shelves, making sure to keep their distance the whole time. Having finished there respective shopping lists, but non of them daring to walk up to the counter to pay, fearing the other could come after, and instead continue to pick groceries at random. Martine and Walther standing almost as frozen observing it all. And exchanging a glance when one of the two shoppers puts into the shopping basket something which already is there. Imagine that scene, and then Diane to walk in... Could even have made a good cliffhanger that. As much as I sympathize and understand the reasoning behind your thinking, what to do - and absolutely not to do - when facing a potential trial is very similar to wanting to cross a road when you are in a hurry. It might be tempting, and also feel better to rush into the road and getting a feeling of satisfaction from reaching the other side. But the less dangerous, more wise and less chaotic approach, is to wait for the green light. In legal cases, the green light doesn`t come on until you are in court. And since this presumably is the first time the person ever has crossed a road like this (been to court), he/she would be wise to be lead by hand by their lawyer, and do as he/she told them every step of the way. If you need to vent out frustration, jump on the bed, scream inside your pillow while hammering on the mattress, but never ever confront the opposite party. That, as Sinead should know, could seriously cost you.
@@Tvjunkieful12 I don´t give advices but just trying to explain that reality isn´t so easy to deal with and if it was me I would have been angry and felt a need to defend myself for my own self-respect which is a natural reaction like Sinead did but not causing more trouble. She went too far which is easy to do if you´re in an emotional state and to stay away from Laurie in such a small village like HO is not easy. In real life I think that Laurie would have left the village by now if he hadn´t accused Sinead for what she did to him. He wouldn´t get any good references from Sally which can be needed to get a new job though.
T. Tadzee what if Muslims ppl do to the white ppl like ste did every Muslim gonna be killed or Jill but if white did it that’s cool ..... the unfair is that u do nothing and watch ppl like Johny win
The only thing I hate about this show is Ste is portrayed as an idiot. And his temper is always, I mean always explosively out of control. Has there been an episode where Ste wasn't doing something screamingly crazy. Whoever writes this crap needs to be replaced.
this storyline is kinda boring also ste always needs saving they made him this one-dimensional character that always needs people in other to live always in need of a boyfriend, a mother, a brother, a husband, a family..I know this an issue that should be tackled on this not the way and this is not the character they should've picked
Perhaps his need for someone to give him stability and meaning in his life (and constantly losing them or getting sidelined when he finds one) is why the writers keep picking on him like karma with a contract on poor Ste. Maybe it's because of that moment where he's called out whether or not he's read the Quran, and despite looking as if the headmistress has punched him in the stomach, he holds back from saying that he's dyslexic. Afterthought. How did Holloyoaks end up in my notifications?
