View Full Version : Mitchell brothers in real-life feud?
EastEnders stars Ross Kemp and Steve McFadden have fallen out, the Sunday Mirror claims today.
The actors, better known as the Mitchell brothers, are apparently ignoring each other once the cameras stop rolling.
Kemp is said to be annoyed over claims that McFadden criticised his acting, and refuses to end the feud despite pleas from Barbara Windsor, who plays Peggy Mitchell.
"Barbara was gutted about them not speaking to each other," a source told the newspaper. "She begged Ross to sort it out, but he said he will only speak to Steve on camera."
McFadden's ex-girlfriend Angela Bostock recently claimed that he had told her, "I'm a much better actor than Ross."
Steve also allegedly slated his other co-stars for being, "queen bees, weasels and prima donnas."
eastenders mad
04-09-2005, 10:28
doe sthat mean they will be gone soon i hope so
Oh dear the atmosphere must be fun down Elstree way. Is anyone speaking to McFadden
callummc
04-09-2005, 10:47
i hope so to,why dont they grow up,ee must be like a school playground,i'm not your friend,so what,their well payed to do a job,so they should shut up and get on with it
Bad Wolf
04-09-2005, 10:49
who cares???????
i_luv_dennis
04-09-2005, 11:11
omg
well ent old babs hypercrictal, trying to make them speak, when shes called steve a pervert and isnt speaking to him herself!
.:SpIcYsPy:.
04-09-2005, 11:43
Tut tut.. kids these days!!
.:SpIcYsPy:.
04-09-2005, 11:47
This is not that much of a spoiler is it now..
This is not that much of a spoiler is it now..
No but it mentions the three of them coming back to eastenders :searchme:
.:SpIcYsPy:.
04-09-2005, 11:57
But Rach moved another one about Peggy coming back next week.. why not this?? :hmm:
Bad Wolf
04-09-2005, 12:00
ok, i'll move it, there are loads of threads on this anyway and it doesnt concern anything on screen
everyone knows they are back
Johnny Allen
04-09-2005, 12:38
Everyone needs to downsize there ego's and just get on with it, Ross Kemp is a good actor but he needs to stop playing childish games, yes Steve McFadden was wrong to say he wasn't that good as a an actor but it happens all the time, just get on with it.
Oh here we go he said she said,why don't they grow up, so they both think they are better than each other,ok its been said. just get on with what you are paid to do. I stopped all these silly games when I left school.
It is really the sort of stuff that belongs in a playground - "i'm not speaking to you anymore" etc, pathetic!!!
emma_strange
04-09-2005, 12:52
I always prefered Grant
Eastenders_4ev@
04-09-2005, 17:25
It is really the sort of stuff that belongs in a playground - "i'm not speaking to you anymore" etc, pathetic!!!
i agree :rotfl:
squarelady
04-09-2005, 17:34
Sounds like aloud of rubbish to me!
Sounds like aloud of rubbish to me!
yeah me too.
we only have his ex girlfreinds word that he said it! and anyway would two grown men really not talk over something so stupid?
thetintinbloke
04-09-2005, 18:44
if, indeed, this is true and not the sunday mirror making molehills out of mountains, then will this affect ross kemps decision to come back for more next year? hmmmm...
I get the impression that steve mcfadden is a bit jealous of all his co-stars.
Mcfadden seems to of Criticised everybody at the Elstree set he is never out of the papers,him and ross not speaking is the last thing Eastenders needs
RealityGap
05-09-2005, 15:45
this seems so childish!! but as some one has already said could be the papers just blowing it up!
pops110874
05-09-2005, 17:49
im not reading too much into this - its not like the leslie grantham case where there was proof he was slagging the cast.
This is an ex who could just trying to create a more interesting angle to the story.
callummc
05-09-2005, 23:50
i'm afraid to say its much worse than what LG did,more sordid,and LG has already said he didnt sayhalf the things but he did say some,and probanly steve has said some just like jessie wallace said somethings to,but the press put in 1 line of truth then the actor cant su cos hed have to admit what bits he did say,then the papers would rake it all up again,so their in a no win situation
i'm afraid to say its much worse than what LG did,more sordid,and LG has already said he didnt sayhalf the things but he did say some,and probanly steve has said some just like jessie wallace said somethings to,but the press put in 1 line of truth then the actor cant su cos hed have to admit what bits he did say,then the papers would rake it all up again,so their in a no win situation
Precisely - if the doggin allegations or the precis of his co-actors was untrue then why has he not sued the news of the screws - there is no szmoke without fire :hmm:
pops110874
06-09-2005, 00:05
Precisely - if the doggin allegations or the precis of his co-actors was untrue then why has he not sued the news of the screws - there is no szmoke without fire :hmm:
To sue a newspaper, you need to prove the story to be false, its very easy for the papers to print things based on the word of an individual (ie a story with no evidence whatsoever!) You would be surprised at the amount of stories that the papers know to be false just get printed anyway.
I dont imagine steve mcfadden wants to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal costs to sue a newspaper when his chances of winning arent great and he would have to discuss details of his private life in court.
I dont read the paper in question and i didnt read the story, but as far as i can tell its really just his ex spouting a load of stories - like i said im not reading too much into it.
To sue a newspaper, you need to prove the story to be false, its very easy for the papers to print things based on the word of an individual (ie a story with no evidence whatsoever!) You would be surprised at the amount of stories that the papers know to be false just get printed anyway.
I dont imagine steve mcfadden wants to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal costs to sue a newspaper when his chances of winning arent great and he would have to discuss details of his private life in court.
I dont read the paper in question and i didnt read the story, but as far as i can tell its really just his ex spouting a load of stories - like i said im not reading too much into it.
If the allegations were untru the dogger would have sued them
pops110874
06-09-2005, 00:12
If the allegations were untru the dogger would have sued them
Like i said to sue a paper you need to prove that the story is false.
How would you prove something like that?
Like i said to sue a paper you need to prove that the story is false.
How would you prove something like that?
Well if it was false then he would have no problems proving it. It would be up to the newspapers to prove the truth
callummc
06-09-2005, 08:28
Well if it was false then he would have no problems proving it. It would be up to the newspapers to prove the truthI totaly agree with you alan,he would also have made sure he got publicity saying how hard done by he is,how people are lying about him,thats what jessie wallace did,she still didnt su the papers though,just played the victim,so people had doubts and felt sorry for her,didnt work for me though,why not do a LG thrw your hands up,and move on cos mud sticks and with dogging allegations following him he'll have loads of little bitches after him now,looking for a big paycheck,but his heads probably that big that we are sure to here more car park revelations before the years out.
I totaly agree with you alan,he would also have made sure he got publicity saying how hard done by he is,how people are lying about him,thats what jessie wallace did,she still didnt su the papers though,just played the victim,so people had doubts and felt sorry for her,didnt work for me though,why not do a LG thrw your hands up,and move on cos mud sticks and with dogging allegations following him he'll have loads of little bitches after him now,looking for a big paycheck,but his heads probably that big that we are sure to here more car park revelations before the years out.
Im sorry but what you and Alan say is rubbish, how are you supposed to Prove the story is false???! u ever heard of Innocent until PROVEN GUILTY! no1 else has come out and say they have seen him doing it, its his ex who is lieing to earn a bit of money. I mean she said "he forced me to do it for 10 years" thats rubbish in itself or else she wouldnt have stayed with him for so long! He shouldnt have to come out and defend himself because people should realise it's just a jealous ex who needs to make money so has sold a "story" to the newspapers!
Im sorry but what you and Alan say is rubbish, how are you supposed to Prove the story is false???! u ever heard of Innocent until PROVEN GUILTY! no1 else has come out and say they have seen him doing it, its his ex who is lieing to earn a bit of money. I mean she said "he forced me to do it for 10 years" thats rubbish in itself or else she wouldnt have stayed with him for so long! He shouldnt have to come out and defend himself because people should realise it's just a jealous ex who needs to make money so has sold a "story" to the newspapers!
Sorry but we are not talking about criminal law here. So the maxim of innocent until proven guilty does not apply to the same extent. Mc Fadden could sue them under civil law and make them prove the allegations. Of course it is possible they may well be true and thus he is reluctant to institute proceedings.
The libel laws apply to newspapers too
In any situation you are innocent until proven guilty, I do not blame him for not sueing the paper, his ex etc, its not worth it as it will cost him alot of money and time, he doesnt need to come out and say anything. Whether he has done it or not, what he does in his private life is his business as long as he doesnt hurt anybody.
With LG there was evidence as it was on camera, this woman has no pictures, video's etc, its just her word and why should we believe it, she hasnt covered herself in glory in this has she, making it all public for their kids to read, its shambolic.
I stick to my main point of his ex g/f being a pathetic piece of trash who has to get herself known by starting this sort of trouble.
callummc
06-09-2005, 12:18
i'm afraid to say his ex was arrested for taking a tape out of his house,he didnt charge her but got the tape back,now think about it,what do you think was on this important tape an episode of EE,pinky and perky,teletubbys or the teletubby himself in a car park,playing with somthing
pops110874
06-09-2005, 13:23
Well if it was false then he would have no problems proving it. It would be up to the newspapers to prove the truth
No, im sorry but thats wrong.
To sue a paper you have to prove that the story they printed is false, the paper would not need to prove the truth.
This is a common misconception - beacuse the paper supposedly have the story "on good authority" ie. his ex, mcfadden would essentially have to sue the ex - which is pointless because i dont think she had much cash to start with. He wouldnt get anything from the paper unless, he could prove that the allegations were false.
Newspapers are incredibly savvy to this and word their stories so that no there is no comeback. The most high profile cases i can think of is the beckhams - there was around five different women who were alleged to have affairs with beckham and I think only one is true. The beckhams so far havent sued apart from their nanny which was a seperate story.
(I only know about this stuff because I am in my last year of a postgrad in journalism!!)
pops110874
06-09-2005, 13:39
I totaly agree with you alan,he would also have made sure he got publicity saying how hard done by he is,how people are lying about him,thats what jessie wallace did,she still didnt su the papers though,just played the victim,so people had doubts and felt sorry for her,didnt work for me though,why not do a LG thrw your hands up,and move on cos mud sticks and with dogging allegations following him he'll have loads of little bitches after him now,looking for a big paycheck,but his heads probably that big that we are sure to here more car park revelations before the years out.
I dont blame him at all - he may be on telly but maybe he is just a guy who likes to keep himself to himself. Would you like to go to the papers pleading innocence of something as bad as that?
He is an easy target - and like i said before how could you prove your innocence? What would he have to do to prove his ex was lying?
With regards to the ex being arrested but not charged, didnt mcfadden have kids with the woman? Maybe he didnt want the mother of his kids sent to jail, can you imaging daddy getting mummy arrested? Its like real life eastenders :lol:
pops110874
06-09-2005, 13:45
Im sorry but what you and Alan say is rubbish, how are you supposed to Prove the story is false???! u ever heard of Innocent until PROVEN GUILTY! no1 else has come out and say they have seen him doing it, its his ex who is lieing to earn a bit of money. I mean she said "he forced me to do it for 10 years" thats rubbish in itself or else she wouldnt have stayed with him for so long! He shouldnt have to come out and defend himself because people should realise it's just a jealous ex who needs to make money so has sold a "story" to the newspapers!
Completely agree.
As you say, if she was so unhappy why stick around for ten years?
Its a pathetic attempt to ruin him for a bit of cash.
And there is no doubt in my mind that the whole slagging off the cast issue was completely fabricated to damage his career.
Its just all too suspicously like the lg case to me...
No, im sorry but thats wrong.
To sue a paper you have to prove that the story they printed is false, the paper would not need to prove the truth.
This is a common misconception - beacuse the paper supposedly have the story "on good authority" ie. his ex, mcfadden would essentially have to sue the ex - which is pointless because i dont think she had much cash to start with. He wouldnt get anything from the paper unless, he could prove that the allegations were false.
Newspapers are incredibly savvy to this and word their stories so that no there is no comeback. The most high profile cases i can think of is the beckhams - there was around five different women who were alleged to have affairs with beckham and I think only one is true. The beckhams so far havent sued apart from their nanny which was a seperate story.
(I only know about this stuff because I am in my last year of a postgrad in journalism!!)
So what you are basically saying is that the tabloids can publish what they want with impunity. What happened to he who alleges must prove. There are numerous cases were the tabloids, broadsheets and magazines have published blatant lies and were successfully sued. There are plenty of legal firms who would take him on on a no win no fee basis.
Sorry but I feel there is some substance to these allegations concerning McFadden and no doubt the truth will out
i'm afraid to say his ex was arrested for taking a tape out of his house,he didnt charge her but got the tape back,now think about it,what do you think was on this important tape an episode of EE,pinky and perky,teletubbys or the teletubby himself in a car park,playing with somthing
We don't know what was on the tape, it could have been anything, it may be what u suggest it could be nothing and just a PR stunt by this stupid woman. She seems a bit nutty to me, it could be anything.
all i shall say and ever say on the steve mcfadden rumours is that what he did or allelegdy did was part of his private life, and no-one should be able to disclose this information, he is being deprived of one of his human rights, the right to privacy, its digusting that the press are aloud to print such things, be them true or not, rumours like that can ruin a persons career, and even if they are true who gives them the right to disclose it and ruins a persons career or even life, a classic example is Christopher Paker (Spencer Moon) the press acussed him of being gay, and the star almost committed suicide beacuse of these untrue allegations, when will people learn not to read or believe this tripe! I suggest the tabloids should be banned, and instead be actyally have newspapers that provide us with news rather than prefbarictaed lies and sordid sex tales! :thumbsdow :mad:
that's my rant over and done with! :wall:
all i shall say and ever say on the steve mcfadden rumours is that what he did or allelegdy did was part of his private life, and no-one should be able to disclose this information, he is being deprived of one of his human rights, the right to privacy, its digusting that the press are aloud to print such things, be them true or not, rumours like that can ruin a persons career, and even if they are true who gives them the right to disclose it and ruins a persons career or even life, a classic example is Christopher Paker (Spencer Moon) the press acussed him of being gay, and the star almost committed suicide beacuse of these untrue allegations, when will people learn not to read or believe this tripe! I suggest the tabloids should be banned, and instead be actyally have newspapers that provide us with news rather than prefbarictaed lies and sordid sex tales! :thumbsdow :mad:
that's my rant over and done with! :wall:
Completely agree. I don't wanna know about such things, but I just feel McFadden has been hard done by and his ex needs to get a life and stop trying to ruin his career. :angry:
pops110874
06-09-2005, 14:29
So what you are basically saying is that the tabloids can publish what they want with impunity. What happened to he who alleges must prove. There are numerous cases were the tabloids, broadsheets and magazines have published blatant lies and were successfully sued. There are plenty of legal firms who would take him on on a no win no fee basis.
Sorry but I feel there is some substance to these allegations concerning McFadden and no doubt the truth will out
That is exactly what im saying - the papers can print absolute rubbish as long as they have a fall guy....in this case, the ex.
She is the one making the allegations and she would be the one that mcfadden would sue for libel - the only way he could get money from the paper is if he could prove he didnt do it, which is considerably difficult i would think.
I was completely shocked when I found this stuff out in my first year, but the tabloids have been doing it for years and journalists are well educated as to what they can and cant write. We are taught to write things in a certain way so that the story can be published without any comeback.
pops110874
06-09-2005, 14:32
all i shall say and ever say on the steve mcfadden rumours is that what he did or allelegdy did was part of his private life, and no-one should be able to disclose this information, he is being deprived of one of his human rights, the right to privacy, its digusting that the press are aloud to print such things, be them true or not, rumours like that can ruin a persons career, and even if they are true who gives them the right to disclose it and ruins a persons career or even life, a classic example is Christopher Paker (Spencer Moon) the press acussed him of being gay, and the star almost committed suicide beacuse of these untrue allegations, when will people learn not to read or believe this tripe! I suggest the tabloids should be banned, and instead be actyally have newspapers that provide us with news rather than prefbarictaed lies and sordid sex tales! :thumbsdow :mad:
that's my rant over and done with! :wall:
Exactly! Another case of cant sue without proof! How is someone supposed to prove they arent gay?
Whether he is or not, isnt it his right to have a personal life without the daily rags publishing rumours?
Exactly! Another case of cant sue without proof! How is someone supposed to prove they arent gay?
Whether he is or not, isnt it his right to have a personal life without the daily rags publishing rumours?
these laws and rules are ridiculous, as that case so well highlights
everyone is entitled to a private life, what they do and who they do it with is between them and that person and nobody else!
i cannot stand these countless number of kiss and tell stories in the papers, have they no diginity? describing their sordid sex lives to the nation just to get some money? that is just as bad as soliciting themselves, and should be illegalised!
pops110874
06-09-2005, 14:44
these laws and rules are ridiculous, as that case so well highlights
everyone is entitled to a private life, what they do and who they do it with is between them and that person and nobody else!
i cannot stand these countless number of kiss and tell stories in the papers, have they no diginity? describing their sordid sex lives to the nation just to get some money? that is just as bad as soliciting themselves, and should be illegalised!
tell me about it - whats even worse though.....celebrities who actually arrange for kiss and tells to be placed in the tabloids to increase their profile!!
its unbelievable, some people have no shame. whoever said fame is a drug, hit the nail on the head.
That is exactly what im saying - the papers can print absolute rubbish as long as they have a fall guy....in this case, the ex.
She is the one making the allegations and she would be the one that mcfadden would sue for libel - the only way he could get money from the paper is if he could prove he didnt do it, which is considerably difficult i would think.
.
But surely the newspaper :rolleyes: which published the article if liabellous would be jointly liable
pops110874
06-09-2005, 19:23
But surely the newspaper :rolleyes: which published the article if liabellous would be jointly liable
You would think so, wouldnt you?
But theyre not. An editor can publish a story as long as they believe it to be true - in this case they its an editors dream because its from the ex. So they can run with it and just say thats where the story came from.
Like i said, mcfadden would firstly have to sue his ex and then the paper.
But too sue either of them, he must have sufficient proof that the story is false. The newspapers do not have to prove the story is true. (which in my book is kinda ridiculous!)
How is he supposed to prove it didnt happen?
Mr Humphries
07-09-2005, 19:04
Phil Mitchell's character is dead and buried. Grant was always the better brother in the early days it was good but like EE do as usual they squeeze everything out of a character which they did to Phil. Quite frankly I hope he leaves for good in a pine box. It is such a awful feeling know that the watts are going for good and the mitchells are coming back to rule the square again. Going to be very boring and a big case of Du Veja
I think what happened is that after Gwant left for his superhero role saving the world from the bad guys the folk down in Elstree thought to promote Phil to resident gangsta.
Unfortunately Phil is as scary as a tellytubby
pops110874
07-09-2005, 22:25
Phil Mitchell's character is dead and buried. Grant was always the better brother in the early days it was good but like EE do as usual they squeeze everything out of a character which they did to Phil. Quite frankly I hope he leaves for good in a pine box. It is such a awful feeling know that the watts are going for good and the mitchells are coming back to rule the square again. Going to be very boring and a big case of Du Veja
I kind of agree with you about phil - i always preferred grant as a character - he was always more interesting.....
well, it wouldnt be that difficult in those days we only ever saw phil getting blotto, running around the square in a drunken rage and the hangover effect - phil mopping about telling everyone "just leeeve it wil ya!???"
:D
pops110874
07-09-2005, 22:27
I think what happened is that after Gwant left for his superhero role saving the world from the bad guys the folk down in Elstree thought to promote Phil to resident gangsta.
Unfortunately Phil is as scary as a tellytubby
Dont you think hes a teeny bit scary when he does that red faced, eyes bulging, hands around some unfortunate victims neck thing? lol :D
Dr. Tangliss
08-09-2005, 08:15
Dont you think hes a teeny bit scary when he does that red faced, eyes bulging, hands around some unfortunate victims neck thing? lol :D
Whose neck is normally, Ian's.:rotfl:
Well that's what you get for offering people blank cheques. Big headedness and up their own backsides. I used to like Steve McFadden and Phil was the only Mitchell I still had any time for and was looking forward toseeing on screen again. However if this is true then he should be fired, others have been "axed" for less.
Well that's what you get for offering people blank cheques. Big headedness and up their own backsides. I used to like Steve McFadden and Phil was the only Mitchell I still had any time for and was looking forward toseeing on screen again. However if this is true then he should be fired, others have been "axed" for less.
Very true. And there are so many of them in all the soaps who think they are so important. They think they are bigger than the soap itself :angry:
pops110874
08-09-2005, 11:46
Very true. And there are so many of them in all the soaps who think they are so important. They think they are bigger than the soap itself :angry:
Maybe it has something to do with the number of major characters who are leaving the show?
I know that no actor is bigger than the show but after january, ee will have undergone a huge number of exits and entrances.
Maybe the producers are reluctant to sack a well established character purely because there wont be that many of them left.....?
Maybe it has something to do with the number of major characters who are leaving the show?
I know that no actor is bigger than the show but after january, ee will have undergone a huge number of exits and entrances.
Maybe the producers are reluctant to sack a well established character purely because there wont be that many of them left.....?
This may be true but theyu should not be allowed to blackmail them
pops110874
08-09-2005, 12:32
This may be true but theyu should not be allowed to blackmail them
but i dont think mcfadden is blackmailing them :confused:
the story that broke has not been proven - unlike leslie grantham where he was shown and heard slagging cast members and being lewd :eek:
but i dont think mcfadden is blackmailing them :confused:
the story that broke has not been proven - unlike leslie grantham where he was shown and heard slagging cast members and being lewd :eek:
Sorry you maybe picked me up wrong there. I mean NO soap actor is so big or popular that they should be allowed to blackmailing bosses into ridiculous salaries. ITV refused to give into Suranne Jones demands and let her go and she was ten times better than Mc Fadden
pops110874
08-09-2005, 18:04
Sorry you maybe picked me up wrong there. I mean NO soap actor is so big or popular that they should be allowed to blackmailing bosses into ridiculous salaries. ITV refused to give into Suranne Jones demands and let her go and she was ten times better than Mc Fadden
Oh sorry got the wires crossed there :cool:
did mcfadden make any demands? or was it just that he was jealous of ross kemps contract?
:)
Oh sorry got the wires crossed there :cool:
did mcfadden make any demands? or was it just that he was jealous of ross kemps contract? probably jealous of his contract and his superior acting abilities
Even though I don't want Grant to return because (a) it has been too long and (B) the Mitchell era is over and to reinstate it is a mistake it will spoil the memory of their reign during which they were great, I do like Ross Kemp and think that he is a very good actor. You can see this in Ultimate Force which has become a huge success and Ross has been offered another series. This I feel could be part of the problem, Steve McFadden has "Professional" Jealousy syndrome. Thing is though Steve McFadden is "Self Destructing" he is destroying his credability by carrying on the way he is and eventually he will be finished as an actor.
There are a huge number of exits coming up most being very popular and central characters, however there are a number of new characters already in the soap and new ones coming into the soap and providing they are used in the right way and given good strong storylines they will fill the "gap". They are the ones who now need to be concentrated on but not OTT, the right combination is going to be vital.
At the mo things are going in the right direction with regards to the "Mix".
im looking forward to the new characters and new storylines they will hopefully bring, but i am goiing to miss the ones who are leaving
oh i know what you mean i am really going to miss some of the people who are leaving god knows what im going to do when he moons are gone until i find a new fav familly
oh i know what you mean i am really going to miss some of the people who are leaving god knows what im going to do when he moons are gone until i find a new fav familly
kat and alfie are my faves and they are off, nana moon is going she a fave nad then all the other main charcaters who are going to leave a huge gap!!!
oh i know what you mean i am really going to miss some of the people who are leaving god knows what im going to do when he moons are gone until i find a new fav familly
We'll still have Jake and you never know more Moons may be brought in, I.E Jake's family. I adore the Moons too and they are my fav family along with Jim/Dot and the Millers. I will miss a lot of the character who are going too, there will be a gap for a while but I'm sure it will soon be filled.
im looking forward to the new characters and new storylines they will hopefully bring, but i am goiing to miss the ones who are leaving
Me too. They need to focus on Joe and Naomi more so that we can "Get to Know" them, as we are Jake.:wub:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.