It is also popular around the world. The longest-serving cast member is Nick Pickard, who has played Tony Hutchinson since the first episode in 1995; all the other original cast members left by 2004. Other long-running characters include Cindy Cunningham, Mandy Richardson, Jack Osborne, and Darren Osborne.
Hollyoaks is a British soap opera, first broadcast on Channel 4 on 23 October 1995. It was originally devised by Phil Redmond, who had previously conceived the Channel 4 soap Brookside. The programme is set in a fictional suburb of Chester called Hollyoaks, and features a large cast of characters primarily aged between 16 and 35. It is mostly filmed and produced in Childwall, Liverpool, although nearby locations are sometimes used.
Current producer Bryan Kirkwood originally joined the show in 2006, but left three years later to become producer of EastEnders. After he left his role in 2009, a number of producers worked on the show, resulting in a number of creative reinventions and changes in direction during this time. Kirkwood's successor Lucy Allan stepped down from her position in 2010 after twelve months;[2] her replacement, Paul Marquess, introduced a wide variety of new characters before leaving one year later, to be replaced by Gareth Philips.[3] Emma Smithwick later replaced Philips in Autumn 2011.[4]
You forgot to mention the pressure applied to Kirkwood when he left to become EP of Eastenders, certain voices claiming he would take Eastenders in a more sleazy direction, as those people saw it, with a greater number of gay characters, more nudity and so on. The fact of the matter is Bryan Kirkwood didn`t diversify too much from what his predecessors had done. I don`t recall whether there were any nude scenes during his time as EP, but can testify to such scenes having been both before and after in Eatenders - even though it has been considerably less of them on both tv and film in general, than what used to be the case. Kirkwood is back as Hollyoaks producer now, but without any nudity for at least 2 years. Luckily for him Hollyoaks viewers have a more modern view on gender and sexuality, so he doesn`t face the same unfair criticism he was subjected to after he was announced as EP of Eastenders. Whether he adjusted his goals and direction as a consequence of that pressure, he only knows himself. But as EP of Hollyoaks he has an audience less judgmental and backwards thinking, than what he faced as EP of Eastenders. The fact Gary Lucy was written out of Eastenders after about 200 viewers complained about a kiss between his 30 something Danny Pennant character and Sam Strike`s 19 year old Johnny Carter character, while considerably older Max Branning could have ongoing affairs with teens like Stacey Slater and Lucy Beale, speak volumes of the level of intolerance and prejudices against gays many Eastenders viewers hold. And it also says a lot about how cowardly and without firms principles Eastenders management have been. The rule is simple: anything you put on screen you defend and stand up for - or you don`t put it on screen at all. And you certainly don`t abandon your own, writing them out of the show, because of a few hundred complaints. That is cowardly! 200 people in a country where the capitol alone holds more than 8 millions, is not even a storm in a tea cup. When more than 3000 people complained about talk show host Fredrik Skavlan`s interview of Swedish right wing nationalist politician Jimmy Åkeson, they found it unfair he was confronted with violent acts and threats issued by his supporters and more, Skavlan didn`t bat an inch - and the supervisory board at the Norwegian equivalent of the BBC, NRK, who handled such complaints - and is composed mostly of politicians and press people - found Skavlan`s behavior and questions to be well within the guidelines for what a politician fairly could be confronted with. The total population of Norway is just above half of the population of London. Regardless both Skavlan and his people, the NRK and even the supervisory board wouldn`t allow anyone to bully them into giving an inch, all the time they felt they had justice on their side. Pity the same steadfastness and guts is not present in UK networks and production companies.
Fern Alderton It doesn`t matter what Tony thought. The fact is he wasn`t there when and where Amy was killed, and therefore doesn`t know who killed Amy. Therefore his attempts to persuade/force Harry to confess to her death, in the eyes of the court would be seen as witness tampering and interference in an ongoing police investigation - possibly even obstruction of justice. Had James been any use as a lawyer, he would have used the pressure Tony (and Dianne) placed on Harry "to do the right thing," to have Harry`s confession quashed, since it is no way of knowing whether Harry confessed to something he actually did, or he just did so cause he wouldn`t lose contact with, and the respect of, his father and family. That would raise serious questions about the confession, likely making it not allowed as evidence against Harry in court. And without that confession there isn`t enough evidence to prosecute Harry, since the fact he both lived in the same house as Amy for a while, and also went to her wedding the day she later was killed, could explain why his DNA was found on her body or clothes. Harry should by right have been free weeks ago. Neither Tony, nor Ste or Sami had any business interfering when Harry wanted to retract his confession. And James proved to be totally incompetent as a defense lawyer not using that fact to Harry`s advantage, by raising questions and doubts about the confession, sufficient to have the confession be deemed inadmissible as evidence against Harry. In real life, represented by a real lawyer, Harry would have been out of jail and free of charges a long time ago. Tony on the other hand could risk being prosecuted for witness tampering, interference with an ongoing police investigation and possibly even corruption of justice, because of the pressure he applied to Harry to confess to having killed Amy and to prevent him from retracting his confession. In real life things would have looked more serious for Tony and Ste, because of their attempts and applied pressure to influence Harry`s explanation to the police, than it would for Harry - who would have been out of the woods by now, and likely not having to face any charges at all connected to Amy`s death, as the evidence stands.
Fern Alderton Yes, it is soap. But if someone had been diagnosed with a blind knee, by a doctor - or instead of eggs, someone fried rocks for breakfast, you would have thought it a little odd, wouldn`t you? So why is it okay to just ignore facts and realism, even logic sometimes, when it comes to the investigation and legal handling of crimes? There has been one thing more weird and extreme than the next. From Armstrong, the murder victim`s husband`s colleague and friend, being lead investigator on the Amy Barnes murder - in real either a different police district, or a specialist branch of the police would have handled the case. Dee Valley police station, wouldn`t have been allowed near it at all. To fresh blood - stolen from a hospital - to be planted on a trainer which had spent 4 months submerged in a pipe in a pond, and therefore the fresh blood should have stuck out like a sore thumb, the blood having been planted long after the trainer was locked inside the dry evidence room. And those are just the tip of the iceberg of all the flaws, mistakes and illogical developments which constitutes the so called Amy Barnes whodunit. Which more accurately should have been called a who the f... could have done it, all the time Ste was charged with killing Amy at an earlier time than she actually was killed, and had alibis for the much later time when Amy actually was killed - he either phoned his dealer from the woods or was with Tony and Dianne. Supposedly the killer is meant to be the victim`s husband, Ryan. But since he had alibis for the window of opportunity Ste could have had to kill Amy, he was either with his new father in law in a club, or with Kyle somewhere having sex. Ste being prosecuted for Amy`s death would either have excluded Ryan as a possible suspect completely - or Ryan being the killer would have meant Ste couldn`t have been charged with Amy`s death much earlier in the night than it actually is meant to have happened. The plot of this so called whodunit simply doesn`t add up. And the Amy Barnes murder isn`t the only example either. This week we saw Marnie receive 100 hours of community service, after - to protect her daughter, Ellie - having confessed to have pushed her husband, Mac, so he fell out a window. But that sentence is ludicrous! Cause either Marnie and James would have been believed when they claimed Marnie pushed Mac off the bed to prevent him from harming James, or the police would have found evidence suggesting Mac wasn`t just pushed off the bed and accidentally afterwards stumbled and fell through the window as well, but that how he landed, and the distance from the wall and the spot where he landed was, proved he had to have been pushed directly through the window with force. In the latter case scenario not only would Marnie have received a custodial sentence, because her actions proved intent, James would most likely afterwards either have been charged with perjury, or worse - as a co-conspirator in the assault, or attempted murder, of his father. But if the court had found Marnie acted because it was the only way she could protect James from being attacked by his father, neither she nor James would have been convicted of any crime at all, Marnie`s actions being ruled to have been to protect James, and therefore the actual bodily harm caused was justifiable. But if intent had been found by the court to have been proven, Marnie would not have been charged and convicted of actual bodily harm (ABH), but the stricter charge of grievous bodily harm (GBH) or even attempted murder, since it would be unlikely a deliberate push out that window would have left Mac unharmed when he landed. Most likely he was lucky to survive. Community service in this case is ridiculous! Since the outcome of the case would have depended on whether Marnie and James would have been believed when claiming Marnie hadn`t acted with intent, or if the court had landed on the conclusion they had conspired to attempt to harm or kill Mac. Therefore Marnie either would have been found not guilty - or she would have faced a custodial sentence, and the latter also would have been the outcome for James, after he had been charged with either perjury or even conspiracy to attempted murder as a consequence of the verdict against his mother. To have the ruling be community service in this case, is just as stupid as if a character by a doctor or optician should have been issued contact lenses for a poor knee! It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and is totally out of touch with reality. The sad thing is, in itself this Mac pushed out of the window story line could have made an excellent court room drama. And had it been presented realistically could have educated the viewers of both the letter of the law, and how it can be bent and twisted by skilled lawyers for both good and bad. Leaving both the victims and the accused as helpless bystanders with little or no influence over the case and it`s outcome. But Hollyoaks doesn`t seem to take matters of law, police procedures and similar seriously. Instead of anchoring such story lines in a realistic foundation, Hollyoaks take them anywhere they want without any consideration neither for logic nor authenticity. Not only does that make the story lines extremely poor, it misinforms the viewers about important matters of law and legal procedures, investigative procedures, forensic procedures and more. In real life, the way the story line was presented, Nick Savage`s confession to rape would likely not have been found admissible in court. Not only was the interview where Nick confessed made in the home of one of the 2 alleged victims, one of the victim`s stepfathers, who also was Nick`s uncle and the only relative he still was in contact with, not only was present when the confession was made, but also had applied pressure to make Nick confess. The latter alone would have given Nick`s defense the foundation to have Nick`s confession ruled inadmissible in court, and as a consequence it couldn`t be used as evidence against him. And what would the police then have been left with? One alleged victim who it could be claimed reported nick for rape because he humiliated her in front of everybody in the local pub, and one alleged victim who couldn`t remember if she even had sex the night in question. In fact doesn`t remember anything more than that she and the accused "somehow got inside the pub," yet the alleged rape supposedly took place in her bedroom upstairs, where she likely must have brought him. How else could he even have known which of the rooms upstairs was her`s, having never been in the falt above the pub before? Or why, if he intended to rape her while she was unconscious, would he even have bothered to bring her upstairs? It would both have been easier and safer for him to take advantage of her downstairs, had she been unconscious and he intended to exploit that fact. The only reason they would have gone upstairs to her bedroom, was if she brought him there. And why would she have done that, unless she wanted to have sex with him? There was both chairs to sit on, and alcohol to enjoy, downstairs, if her only intention had been to chat with him. The story line, as it was presented, was not a consent story line at all! But a drunken night which led Ellie to believe she had to have been raped, cause she herself found it unthinkable she could have slept with someone voluntarily the same night as she earlier had broken up with her boyfriend. But that isn`t evidence of rape. And because of the choice of venue - Ellie`s bedroom - and the fact Nick had never been in her home before, the circumstances surrounding the incident did not support the conclusion we, as viewers, were meant to draw. So to convince us of Nick`s guilt, Hollyoaks painted him out as one of the most misogynistic and sex crazed control freaks of a psychopath I ever have come across. There barely was a single scene with him in it, where he didn`t display some kind of misogynistic or psychopathic attitude or behavior. Making both Holly and Tegan appear stupid not to realize what type of monster he was meant to be, a long time before they did. But worse, instead of bringing attention to the topic of consent - which could have been achieved if an eager to have his sexual debut Prince went all the way despite Lily`s reluctance, or if Nick, instead of in Ellies bedroom and staying until the next morning, had taken advantage of a drunken Ellie downstairs in the pub - Hollyoaks made it appear only misogynistic sex monsters breach consent. Which is absolutely not true! Most consent cases either involves younger accused not taking no for an answer, people who have taken advantage of people being asleep or couples (or even people just met) where one party wants sex and the other is less keen - but where sex still happens. The way Nick behaved - after the not very convincing incident with Ellie after the Traffic light party - suggests more a serial rapist of a misogynistic disposition. By painting Nick as such an extreme type of deviant, the value the consent story line otherwise could have had to enlighten certain people their seduction technique might be a little too decisive or forceful to fall within the boundaries of consent, is lost. Simply because very few males can identify with someone as extreme as Nick was depicted to be. As a consequence, males who should have adjusted their chat up approaches and closing techniques, could be led to think they are well within the borders of consent, since they don`t recognize themselves in how Nick was depicted to be. So instead of preventing breaches of consent, which I assume was the purpose of the story line, because Nick was depicted as extreme as he was, people who regularly breach consent can be continuing to do so, simply because they feel reassured they are nothing like Nick, and therefore their seduction technique and approach is of a consensual nature.
Fern Alderton Enjoy your Star Trek, and sorry for writing so long. But it is just the way I am, I`m afraid. I write pretty fast, so it really doesn`t take that long. it is more a question of my fingers keeping up with my thoughts, cause subjects and sentences just follow automatically one after another - until I reach a point where I feel, this is a good place to stop. It is also great writing practice - English not being my native tongue. I guess it is a question of what you are used to? Writing extensively and detailed, and also digesting page after page of information, is something I do almost every day. It is being short, precise and to the point I find boring and hard. And usually often find inadequate, to be honest. An opinion without a reasoning of why someone think like they do, is a pretty meaningless statement in my opinion. I am more interested in why people think what they think, or hold the opinion they hold, than what the opinion actually is. Since only if you know how and why people have landed on the opinion they hold, you are in a position to say whether their claim or position is valid - or not. But you dislike long comments, so I`ll stop myself here, so you can get back to Star Trek. There is a new series with that show on Netflix now, isn`t it? I think I have seen some clips here on YT. Maybe I`ll check it out myself? The original series with William Shatner and more, never aired on tv here in Norway.
Is it just me or was there another Finn in hollyoaks who was Diane’s son that raped Jon Paul now is this him but replaced by a different actor like they did with glen or is this just another character with the same name and wouldn’t they be more creative with names if they had two
That was funny when Milo saying (come on, Marilyn! There's a good girl) to a toy robot dog he even named.
I bet Finn figures out who milo really is
i just want milo to get caught for all the things he's done lmao i hate him
It is also popular around the world. The longest-serving cast member is Nick Pickard, who has played Tony Hutchinson since the first episode in 1995; all the other original cast members left by 2004. Other long-running characters include Cindy Cunningham, Mandy Richardson, Jack Osborne, and Darren Osborne.
I'm laughing so hard at HEY I KNOW U
WHAT
POLICE
YES
No not you
Massey Man 😂😂
Finn is gna find out who milo really is
Time 4:28AM Tues 2/27/18. Another day of Hollyoaks.
Hollyoaks is a British soap opera, first broadcast on Channel 4 on 23 October 1995. It was originally devised by Phil Redmond, who had previously conceived the Channel 4 soap Brookside. The programme is set in a fictional suburb of Chester called Hollyoaks, and features a large cast of characters primarily aged between 16 and 35. It is mostly filmed and produced in Childwall, Liverpool, although nearby locations are sometimes used.
I'm starting to think that he knows about Milo. 🤔
So Finn is gonna find out about Milo
Current producer Bryan Kirkwood originally joined the show in 2006, but left three years later to become producer of EastEnders. After he left his role in 2009, a number of producers worked on the show, resulting in a number of creative reinventions and changes in direction during this time. Kirkwood's successor Lucy Allan stepped down from her position in 2010 after twelve months;[2] her replacement, Paul Marquess, introduced a wide variety of new characters before leaving one year later, to be replaced by Gareth Philips.[3] Emma Smithwick later replaced Philips in Autumn 2011.[4]
You forgot to mention the pressure applied to Kirkwood when he left to become EP of Eastenders, certain voices claiming he would take Eastenders in a more sleazy direction, as those people saw it, with a greater number of gay characters, more nudity and so on. The fact of the matter is Bryan Kirkwood didn`t diversify too much from what his predecessors had done. I don`t recall whether there were any nude scenes during his time as EP, but can testify to such scenes having been both before and after in Eatenders - even though it has been considerably less of them on both tv and film in general, than what used to be the case. Kirkwood is back as Hollyoaks producer now, but without any nudity for at least 2 years. Luckily for him Hollyoaks viewers have a more modern view on gender and sexuality, so he doesn`t face the same unfair criticism he was subjected to after he was announced as EP of Eastenders. Whether he adjusted his goals and direction as a consequence of that pressure, he only knows himself. But as EP of Hollyoaks he has an audience less judgmental and backwards thinking, than what he faced as EP of Eastenders.
The fact Gary Lucy was written out of Eastenders after about 200 viewers complained about a kiss between his 30 something Danny Pennant character and Sam Strike`s 19 year old Johnny Carter character, while considerably older Max Branning could have ongoing affairs with teens like Stacey Slater and Lucy Beale, speak volumes of the level of intolerance and prejudices against gays many Eastenders viewers hold. And it also says a lot about how cowardly and without firms principles Eastenders management have been. The rule is simple: anything you put on screen you defend and stand up for - or you don`t put it on screen at all. And you certainly don`t abandon your own, writing them out of the show, because of a few hundred complaints. That is cowardly! 200 people in a country where the capitol alone holds more than 8 millions, is not even a storm in a tea cup.
When more than 3000 people complained about talk show host Fredrik Skavlan`s interview of Swedish right wing nationalist politician Jimmy Åkeson, they found it unfair he was confronted with violent acts and threats issued by his supporters and more, Skavlan didn`t bat an inch - and the supervisory board at the Norwegian equivalent of the BBC, NRK, who handled such complaints - and is composed mostly of politicians and press people - found Skavlan`s behavior and questions to be well within the guidelines for what a politician fairly could be confronted with.
The total population of Norway is just above half of the population of London. Regardless both Skavlan and his people, the NRK and even the supervisory board wouldn`t allow anyone to bully them into giving an inch, all the time they felt they had justice on their side. Pity the same steadfastness and guts is not present in UK networks and production companies.
am i the only one that feels bad for milo hes clearly got some problems and needs help
Jennifer Dobbie Oh trust me you're not alone.
i hate harrys dad for kicking harry out
Caitlin Smith he's in jail
Caitlin Smith hi caitlin
Fern Alderton It doesn`t matter what Tony thought. The fact is he wasn`t there when and where Amy was killed, and therefore doesn`t know who killed Amy. Therefore his attempts to persuade/force Harry to confess to her death, in the eyes of the court would be seen as witness tampering and interference in an ongoing police investigation - possibly even obstruction of justice. Had James been any use as a lawyer, he would have used the pressure Tony (and Dianne) placed on Harry "to do the right thing," to have Harry`s confession quashed, since it is no way of knowing whether Harry confessed to something he actually did, or he just did so cause he wouldn`t lose contact with, and the respect of, his father and family. That would raise serious questions about the confession, likely making it not allowed as evidence against Harry in court. And without that confession there isn`t enough evidence to prosecute Harry, since the fact he both lived in the same house as Amy for a while, and also went to her wedding the day she later was killed, could explain why his DNA was found on her body or clothes. Harry should by right have been free weeks ago. Neither Tony, nor Ste or Sami had any business interfering when Harry wanted to retract his confession. And James proved to be totally incompetent as a defense lawyer not using that fact to Harry`s advantage, by raising questions and doubts about the confession, sufficient to have the confession be deemed inadmissible as evidence against Harry.
In real life, represented by a real lawyer, Harry would have been out of jail and free of charges a long time ago.
Tony on the other hand could risk being prosecuted for witness tampering, interference with an ongoing police investigation and possibly even corruption of justice, because of the pressure he applied to Harry to confess to having killed Amy and to prevent him from retracting his confession.
In real life things would have looked more serious for Tony and Ste, because of their attempts and applied pressure to influence Harry`s explanation to the police, than it would for Harry - who would have been out of the woods by now, and likely not having to face any charges at all connected to Amy`s death, as the evidence stands.
Fern Alderton Yes, it is soap. But if someone had been diagnosed with a blind knee, by a doctor - or instead of eggs, someone fried rocks for breakfast, you would have thought it a little odd, wouldn`t you? So why is it okay to just ignore facts and realism, even logic sometimes, when it comes to the investigation and legal handling of crimes? There has been one thing more weird and extreme than the next. From Armstrong, the murder victim`s husband`s colleague and friend, being lead investigator on the Amy Barnes murder - in real either a different police district, or a specialist branch of the police would have handled the case. Dee Valley police station, wouldn`t have been allowed near it at all. To fresh blood - stolen from a hospital - to be planted on a trainer which had spent 4 months submerged in a pipe in a pond, and therefore the fresh blood should have stuck out like a sore thumb, the blood having been planted long after the trainer was locked inside the dry evidence room. And those are just the tip of the iceberg of all the flaws, mistakes and illogical developments which constitutes the so called Amy Barnes whodunit. Which more accurately should have been called a who the f... could have done it, all the time Ste was charged with killing Amy at an earlier time than she actually was killed, and had alibis for the much later time when Amy actually was killed - he either phoned his dealer from the woods or was with Tony and Dianne. Supposedly the killer is meant to be the victim`s husband, Ryan. But since he had alibis for the window of opportunity Ste could have had to kill Amy, he was either with his new father in law in a club, or with Kyle somewhere having sex. Ste being prosecuted for Amy`s death would either have excluded Ryan as a possible suspect completely - or Ryan being the killer would have meant Ste couldn`t have been charged with Amy`s death much earlier in the night than it actually is meant to have happened.
The plot of this so called whodunit simply doesn`t add up.
And the Amy Barnes murder isn`t the only example either. This week we saw Marnie receive 100 hours of community service, after - to protect her daughter, Ellie - having confessed to have pushed her husband, Mac, so he fell out a window. But that sentence is ludicrous! Cause either Marnie and James would have been believed when they claimed Marnie pushed Mac off the bed to prevent him from harming James, or the police would have found evidence suggesting Mac wasn`t just pushed off the bed and accidentally afterwards stumbled and fell through the window as well, but that how he landed, and the distance from the wall and the spot where he landed was, proved he had to have been pushed directly through the window with force.
In the latter case scenario not only would Marnie have received a custodial sentence, because her actions proved intent, James would most likely afterwards either have been charged with perjury, or worse - as a co-conspirator in the assault, or attempted murder, of his father. But if the court had found Marnie acted because it was the only way she could protect James from being attacked by his father, neither she nor James would have been convicted of any crime at all, Marnie`s actions being ruled to have been to protect James, and therefore the actual bodily harm caused was justifiable. But if intent had been found by the court to have been proven, Marnie would not have been charged and convicted of actual bodily harm (ABH), but the stricter charge of grievous bodily harm (GBH) or even attempted murder, since it would be unlikely a deliberate push out that window would have left Mac unharmed when he landed. Most likely he was lucky to survive.
Community service in this case is ridiculous! Since the outcome of the case would have depended on whether Marnie and James would have been believed when claiming Marnie hadn`t acted with intent, or if the court had landed on the conclusion they had conspired to attempt to harm or kill Mac. Therefore Marnie either would have been found not guilty - or she would have faced a custodial sentence, and the latter also would have been the outcome for James, after he had been charged with either perjury or even conspiracy to attempted murder as a consequence of the verdict against his mother.
To have the ruling be community service in this case, is just as stupid as if a character by a doctor or optician should have been issued contact lenses for a poor knee! It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and is totally out of touch with reality.
The sad thing is, in itself this Mac pushed out of the window story line could have made an excellent court room drama. And had it been presented realistically could have educated the viewers of both the letter of the law, and how it can be bent and twisted by skilled lawyers for both good and bad. Leaving both the victims and the accused as helpless bystanders with little or no influence over the case and it`s outcome.
But Hollyoaks doesn`t seem to take matters of law, police procedures and similar seriously. Instead of anchoring such story lines in a realistic foundation, Hollyoaks take them anywhere they want without any consideration neither for logic nor authenticity. Not only does that make the story lines extremely poor, it misinforms the viewers about important matters of law and legal procedures, investigative procedures, forensic procedures and more. In real life, the way the story line was presented, Nick Savage`s confession to rape would likely not have been found admissible in court. Not only was the interview where Nick confessed made in the home of one of the 2 alleged victims, one of the victim`s stepfathers, who also was Nick`s uncle and the only relative he still was in contact with, not only was present when the confession was made, but also had applied pressure to make Nick confess. The latter alone would have given Nick`s defense the foundation to have Nick`s confession ruled inadmissible in court, and as a consequence it couldn`t be used as evidence against him. And what would the police then have been left with? One alleged victim who it could be claimed reported nick for rape because he humiliated her in front of everybody in the local pub, and one alleged victim who couldn`t remember if she even had sex the night in question. In fact doesn`t remember anything more than that she and the accused "somehow got inside the pub," yet the alleged rape supposedly took place in her bedroom upstairs, where she likely must have brought him. How else could he even have known which of the rooms upstairs was her`s, having never been in the falt above the pub before? Or why, if he intended to rape her while she was unconscious, would he even have bothered to bring her upstairs? It would both have been easier and safer for him to take advantage of her downstairs, had she been unconscious and he intended to exploit that fact.
The only reason they would have gone upstairs to her bedroom, was if she brought him there. And why would she have done that, unless she wanted to have sex with him? There was both chairs to sit on, and alcohol to enjoy, downstairs, if her only intention had been to chat with him.
The story line, as it was presented, was not a consent story line at all! But a drunken night which led Ellie to believe she had to have been raped, cause she herself found it unthinkable she could have slept with someone voluntarily the same night as she earlier had broken up with her boyfriend. But that isn`t evidence of rape. And because of the choice of venue - Ellie`s bedroom - and the fact Nick had never been in her home before, the circumstances surrounding the incident did not support the conclusion we, as viewers, were meant to draw. So to convince us of Nick`s guilt, Hollyoaks painted him out as one of the most misogynistic and sex crazed control freaks of a psychopath I ever have come across. There barely was a single scene with him in it, where he didn`t display some kind of misogynistic or psychopathic attitude or behavior. Making both Holly and Tegan appear stupid not to realize what type of monster he was meant to be, a long time before they did. But worse, instead of bringing attention to the topic of consent - which could have been achieved if an eager to have his sexual debut Prince went all the way despite Lily`s reluctance, or if Nick, instead of in Ellies bedroom and staying until the next morning, had taken advantage of a drunken Ellie downstairs in the pub - Hollyoaks made it appear only misogynistic sex monsters breach consent. Which is absolutely not true!
Most consent cases either involves younger accused not taking no for an answer, people who have taken advantage of people being asleep or couples (or even people just met) where one party wants sex and the other is less keen - but where sex still happens. The way Nick behaved - after the not very convincing incident with Ellie after the Traffic light party - suggests more a serial rapist of a misogynistic disposition.
By painting Nick as such an extreme type of deviant, the value the consent story line otherwise could have had to enlighten certain people their seduction technique might be a little too decisive or forceful to fall within the boundaries of consent, is lost. Simply because very few males can identify with someone as extreme as Nick was depicted to be. As a consequence, males who should have adjusted their chat up approaches and closing techniques, could be led to think they are well within the borders of consent, since they don`t recognize themselves in how Nick was depicted to be.
So instead of preventing breaches of consent, which I assume was the purpose of the story line, because Nick was depicted as extreme as he was, people who regularly breach consent can be continuing to do so, simply because they feel reassured they are nothing like Nick, and therefore their seduction technique and approach is of a consensual nature.
Fern Alderton Enjoy your Star Trek, and sorry for writing so long. But it is just the way I am, I`m afraid.
I write pretty fast, so it really doesn`t take that long. it is more a question of my fingers keeping up with my thoughts, cause subjects and sentences just follow automatically one after another - until I reach a point where I feel, this is a good place to stop.
It is also great writing practice - English not being my native tongue.
I guess it is a question of what you are used to? Writing extensively and detailed, and also digesting page after page of information, is something I do almost every day. It is being short, precise and to the point I find boring and hard. And usually often find inadequate, to be honest. An opinion without a reasoning of why someone think like they do, is a pretty meaningless statement in my opinion. I am more interested in why people think what they think, or hold the opinion they hold, than what the opinion actually is. Since only if you know how and why people have landed on the opinion they hold, you are in a position to say whether their claim or position is valid - or not.
But you dislike long comments, so I`ll stop myself here, so you can get back to Star Trek. There is a new series with that show on Netflix now, isn`t it? I think I have seen some clips here on YT. Maybe I`ll check it out myself? The original series with William Shatner and more, never aired on tv here in Norway.
Who is milo really?
Hmmm... Interesting!!
❤️❤️❤️💙💙💙
Is it just me or was there another Finn in hollyoaks who was Diane’s son that raped Jon Paul now is this him but replaced by a different actor like they did with glen or is this just another character with the same name and wouldn’t they be more creative with names if they had two
Disney Shipper nah this Finn is different he used to be in Hollyoaks later
1stttttttttt ly hollyoaks
3rd
Ist
Second 💓💓
4th