u/Fragrant-Truth-7123

I've always wondered why the exactly the B52's chose Downtown to close their debut album. Its not the only reason but its one of the main reasons I prefer Wild Planet to their debut album as Wild Planet doesn't have a misjudgement like this in my opinion.

I could never understand what on earth they were thinking with this when they already had so much better material already written that would subsequently be included on Wild Planet. Which if you haven't guessed it already I think the track is well to put it bluntly, not very good.

I thought they were making fun of the original song, exactly why I wasn't sure but I could imagine if I'd have written the song I'd have found it disrespectful. Well we finally have the answer here is what Fred had to say about it which answers my question why they recorded it but raises more questions at the same time.

>48 HILLS Why did you cover Petula Clark’s “Downtown” on the first album?

FRED SCHNEIDER We were doing that all along. It was Cindy’s favorite song and we just butchered it. I guess [the songwriter] Tony Hatch was apparently going to sue us, but [the album’s record producer] Chris Blackwell told him, “You’re going to make a lot of money,” and he did make a lot of money.

So it was Cindy's favourite song and that's why they covered it, OK that makes sense its a nice gesture to Cindy then to record it. Why then as Fred says did they "butchered it"? I assume it was deliberate and they weren't just intoxicated or high as a kite while recording it and made a mess of it that way. Why then would you deliberately make a mess of your favourite song I don't get it?

While I wouldn't have threatened to sue like the original songwriter did as that's just petty and small time, I can understand why he wouldn't be happy about it when it feels like your work is being laughed at. I don't think the B's are bad people so I don't think they would deliberately go about mocking another songwriters work. I think something just got lost in translation here what do you think? What exactly were they going for here?

Its an interesting interview with Fred some other interesting tid bits from the interview

>48 HILLS 2008’s Funplex was one of your most successful debuts as far as charting and you’ve said that you pretty much broke even with that album. Would you ever follow it up with another?

FRED SCHNEIDER Probably not. We might do some songs, but I don’t think we’ll do another album. I can’t imagine doing another album, because we all live in different places around the country and we’d have to pay for it ourselves like we did Funplex.

It's all but confirmation Funplex is the final studio album they'll release which I guess everyone figured already but if the interview was in 2019 and there's been nothing since then it probably will turn out to be the case

There's also this

>48 HILLS What’s next for The B-52s and what’s next for you?
FRED SCHNEIDER For The B-52s, we’re starting our seven-week tour and then we’re also going to be doing shows next year. We’re going to work with Keith tentatively at the end of the year on two new songs for a box set that Warner’s is putting out.

I wonder whatever happened to this?

The thread title is very much red flag to a bull but hear me out. Let's consider her exits relative to others

1. She doesn't die unlike long standing characters like Tom and Grantly

2. She leaves with her reputation intact and isn't sacked from her position unlike Max Tyler

3. She marries the man she loves which even if you don't like Adam clearly Rachel does and the actress playing her describes it as a "Nice, Fun, Exit Storyline."

4. Unlike other characters she doesn't just drop off the face of the earth and actually gets a proper exit storyline

So on balance shouldn't Rachel Mason fans be happy with it?

I look forward to your down votes 🙂

Fans widely regard Earl Kelly as the most evil character ever to appear on Waterloo Road. I disagree and I think I can make a strong case why.

Who deserves that title is debatable and the answer depends on which ethical framework you apply, so it is worth first setting out the three main approaches in normative ethics which is the branch of moral philosophy concerned with how people ought to act.

By “evil” I do not simply mean “did the worst single thing.” I mean the combination of three elements: how seriously wrong the act was, how culpable the person was for committing it, and what the act reveals about their settled character. A character can therefore cause terrible harm and still not be the most evil, if their culpability is reduced or the act was out of character.

It is worth being clear about how my argument works. I do not need to name a single character as the most evil. I only need to show that on each of the three frameworks, at least one character outranks Earl. As a worse candidate outranks him on every framework, he loses by every available route, and it does not matter which framework you personally favour he cannot be the most evil character to have appeared on Waterloo Road.

The three major approaches to normative ethics

When it comes to normative ethics there are three major approaches these are:

Deontology: Which judges actions by whether they conform to moral duties, rules and principles, rather than by their consequences. In short, the ends do not justify the means. Key thinkers include Immanuel Kant, John Rawls and John Locke.

Consequentialism: Which holds that the morality of an action is determined by its consequences, in short, “the ends justify the means.” Key thinkers include Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill and Peter Singer.

Virtue ethics: Which asks what a virtuous person would do. Rather than focusing on individual acts, it emphasises developing good character traits such as courage, honesty, justice and compassion so that acting well becomes habitual. Key thinkers include Aristotle, Socrates, Plato and Saint Thomas Aquinas.

Moral luck: does a failed attempt count the same as success?

We also need to distinguish completed actions from unsuccessful or interrupted ones. Suppose I fire a gun at someone at point-blank range, but the gun jams or someone tackles me before the shot lands. Is that morally equivalent to killing them?

Under deontology the distinction matters little, because intention and the decision to violate a moral duty are central: in both cases I deliberately attempted to kill and the same is true with Virtue ethics the act reveals the same character, whatever external circumstance prevented the harm. Therefore under these two frameworks a failed attempt can be morally equivalent to a successful attempt.

Consequentialism is more complicated. On a strict actual-outcome view the difference is decisive: in one case the victim dies, in the other they walk away unharmed and thus the successful attempt is much more morally wrong than an unsuccessful attempt.

Expected consequentialism, however, evaluates an action by the probability-weighted value of its possible outcomes given the information available at the time. When I pull the trigger the likelihood of killing is extremely high, so even if the gun jams the expected consequences remain catastrophic and the act extremely wrong whether successful or not.

What are the worst things an individual can do?

Murder is an obvious candidate for the highest level of individual wrongdoing under all three frameworks, although the reasons differ.

Under deontology, murder violates fundamental duties toward other human beings, including the duty to respect persons as ends in themselves.

Under consequentialism, murder produces enormous negative consequences: the victim's death, suffering for their family and friends, and broader social harm.

Under virtue ethics, murder is an extreme expression of vicious character traits such as cruelty, injustice, and a profound lack of compassion.

Just below this sit rape and sexual assault. Consequentialism treats them as extraordinarily serious because the harm is severe and often lifelong; deontology as extreme violations of bodily autonomy that use another person as an instrument; virtue ethics as expressions of profound viciousness, cruelty, domination and disrespect.

This raises an obvious objection which needs answering directly. If murder ranks above rape, how can anyone who has not killed outrank someone who has? The answer is that the hierarchy compares single acts, not whole patterns of conduct. Consequentialism aggregates, so one killing is not automatically worse than repeated sexual violence against several young victims. Death ends a life, but rape inflicts severe psychological, emotional and social harm that can persist for decades across a victim's entire remaining lifespan, and it also harms families, partners and friends. Multiply that by several victims and the total harm can exceed that of a single death particularly where the victims are young, so the damage compounds across the whole of their development and adult lives.

One evil act versus repeated evil acts

The three frameworks also differ in how they evaluate repeated wrongdoing:

Deontology: Each act is a separate violation of duty. Multiple violations are generally worse than one, but even a single act can be morally impermissible in itself.

Consequentialism: Repeated wrongdoing is usually much worse because the total amount of harm increases. The cumulative consequences are what matter most.

Virtue ethics: A single evil act might represent a moment of weakness, poor judgment, or failure of self-control. Repeated evil acts are more significant because they suggest that the behaviour reflects stable and deeply ingrained character traits.

Harming a young person/child versus a mature adult

Deontology: Harming a young person can be considered worse because adults have particular duties to protect children, while children generally have less capacity for fully informed and autonomous decision-making.

Consequentialism: Harming a young person may be worse because children can suffer greater long-term developmental, psychological, and social consequences, potentially affecting a much larger portion of their lives.

Virtue ethics: Harming a child is especially vicious because it involves exploiting vulnerability and failing in duties of care, compassion, and protection.

Harming a loved one versus a stranger

Deontology: Harming a family member or loved one can be considered worse because close relationships generate additional duties of loyalty, care, and protection.

Consequentialism: Harming someone close to you may produce greater overall harm because the damage can spread through families, relationships, dependants, and wider social networks. However, this is not necessarily the case if the consequences are otherwise identical.

Virtue ethics: Betraying someone you supposedly love is particularly revealing because it violates virtues such as loyalty, gratitude, love, and care. The betrayal itself can therefore tell us something important about the perpetrator's character.

Does the perpetrator's age affect culpability?

We also need to distinguish between the wrongness of an act and the culpability of the person who commits it.

Deontology: Adults are generally more culpable because they are presumed to possess greater rational autonomy and a greater capacity to understand and freely choose whether to violate a moral duty.

Consequentialism: Under a purely actual-outcome view, the age of the perpetrator might make little difference to the consequences themselves. Under an expected-outcome approach, however, treating adults as more responsible could produce better consequences through deterrence, rehabilitation, and social norms.

Virtue ethics: Adults may be more culpable because they have had more time and opportunity to develop their character. A heinous act committed by an adult may therefore provide stronger evidence of an established vicious character, whereas a child's character is still developing.

Heat of the moment versus premeditation

Finally, is an intentional act committed in the heat of the moment morally equivalent to one planned in advance?

Deontology: Premeditation can make the act more seriously wrong because the perpetrator had time to deliberate, reflect, and still consciously chose to violate the moral rule.

Consequentialism: If two actions produce exactly the same consequences, there may initially appear to be no difference between them. In practice, however, premeditation can produce additional consequences such as greater predictability, reduced deterrability, greater fear, and wider social harm, which can make it morally worse.

Virtue ethics: Both actions reveal serious viciousness, but premeditation suggests a deeper character defect. A heat of the moment act may be a failure of self-control, whereas planning to harm another person points to settled vice rather than a temporary lapse.

What reduces culpability?

A complete analysis also has to allow for factors that reduce culpability such as: provocation, self-defence, coercion or duress, a history of abuse suffered by the perpetrator, and diminished responsibility through mental illness or impaired capacity.

Deontology: Duties are owed by agents who act freely, so coercion or seriously impaired capacity reduces culpability even though the act remains wrong in itself.

Consequentialism: Mitigation matters mainly through expected outcomes. Someone who acted under duress or in response to sustained abuse is less likely to reoffend than someone who plans harm from a settled desire, so the expected future harm is lower.

Virtue ethics: An act performed under extreme pressure, or by someone whose character was formed under abuse, is weaker evidence of settled vice than the same act performed freely and by choice.

This matters for the table below. Lindsay James, for example, appears both as one of Tony James' victims and as someone who intentionally killed him. Scoring her as though her act had no context, would plainly distort the picture the same act by a stranger with no such history would tell us something very different about their character. The same is true of Kevin Chalk and is decision to go after Steve-O following the rape of Dynasty Barry by Steve-O.

One note on scope. The table records every character who caused serious harm, including those who did so unintentionally such as Chlo and Donte Charles, Coral Walker, Darius Donovan and the unnamed lorry driver. These are listed for completeness and are excluded from contention given how under all three frameworks, unintentional harm without intent, foresight or recklessness barely registers as evil at all, however tragic the outcome except under strict actual-outcome based consequentialism.

Here is the list:

Character Name	Is the Perpetrator a young person or an adult?	Outcome of actions assuming no interruption to actions	Action done to Family Member or Loved one?	Is the Victim a Young person or an adult?	Attempted or Actual Action?	Intentional or Unintentional?	If Intentional Heat of the moment or pre-meditated?
Barry Barry	Young Person	Human Trafficking (Ambiguous whether forced labour, sexual exploitation or both)	No	Young Persons	Attempted	Intentional	Pre-Meditated
Billy Savage	Young Person	Death of Boz Osbourne	No	Young Person	Actual	Unintentional	N/A
Callum Pearson	Adult	Rape of Ali Redback	Yes	Young Person	Actual	Intentional	Pre-Meditated
Chlo Charles & Donte Charles (Jointly)	Young Person	Death of Adam Deardon	No	Young Person	Actual	Unintentional	N/A
Coral Walker	Adult	Death of Chlo Charles	No	Adult	Actual	Unintentional	N/A
Darius Donovan	Adult	Death of Hope Drake	No	Young Person	Actual	Unintentional	N/A
Dylan Hodge	Adult	Rape of Jess Fisher	Yes	Young Person	Attempted	Intentional	Pre-Meditated
Earl Kelly	Young Person	Death of Maxine Barlow	Yes	Young Person	Actual	Intentional	Heat of the Moment
Evie Prior aka Alycia Cross	Young Person	Death of 5 year old cousin	Yes	Young Person	Actual	Intentional	Pre-Meditated
Gary Vale	Adult	Death of Bianka and Michael Vale, along with Rachel Mason	Yes (For Bianka and Michael Vale)	Young Person (Bianka and Michael Vale) Adult (Rachel Mason)	Attempted	Intentional	Pre-Meditated (Bianka and Michael Vale), Heat of the Moment Rachel Mason
Jed Seddon	Adult	Death of Izzie Redpath	No	Adult	Actual	Unintentional	N/A
Frankie McGregor Aka Jim Ronsley	Adult	Rape of Lenny Brown (intent to kill and any further victims unclear)	No	Young Person	Attempted	Intentional	Pre-Meditated
Kevin Chalk	Young Person	Death of Steve-O Malone	No	Young Person	Attempted	Intentional	Pre-Meditated
Kevin Hurst	Adult	Multiple Rapes of at least 4 individuals including Celine Dixon & Stacey Appleyard	No	Young Person	Actual- Celine Dixon, Attempted- Stacey Appleyard	Intentional	Pre-Meditated
Kyle Stack	Young Person	Death of Finn Sharkey	No	Young Person	Attempted	Intentional	Pre-Meditated
Lewis Seddon	Young Person	Death of Jack Rimmer	No	Adult	Attempted	Intentional	Pre-Meditated
Lindsay James	Young Person	Death of Tony James	Yes	Adult	Actual	Intentional	Pre-Meditated
Myles Massey	Young Person	Death of Danny Lewis	No	Young Person	Actual	Unintentional	N/A
Reynold Kelly	Adult	Death of Unnamed Man	No	Adult	Actual	Intentional	Heat of the Moment
Steve-O Malone	Young Person	Death of Kevin Chalk, Rape of Dynasty Barry	Yes (Dynasty Barry), No (Kevin Chalk)	Young Person	Attempted- Kevin Chalk, Actual- Dynasty Barry	Intentional	Heat of the Moment
Tony James	Adult	Rape of Lindsay James & Emily James	Yes	Young Person	Actual- Lindsay James, Attempted Emily James	Intentional	Pre-Meditated
Unnamed Lorry Driver	Adult	Death of Denzil Kelly	No	Young Person	Actual	Unintentional	N/A
Wayne Johnson	Young Person	Death of Michael Byrne	No	Adult	Actual	Intentional	Pre-Meditated

What about Earl Kelly and is he the most evil?

With the criteria set out lets look at Earl Kelly. The case for him being the most evil character to have appeared on Waterloo Road rests on his killing of Maxine Barlow his classmate and love interest in the heat of the moment. That is undoubtedly an extremely serious act: Maxine was a young person, someone Earl cared about, and her death was the direct result of his intentional actions, which makes the killing serious under all three frameworks.

Even so, Earl does not score maximally under any of the three frameworks.

Deontology: Earl deliberately violated a fundamental duty not to kill, and Maxine being someone he loved arguably makes the betrayal worse. Other characters, however, committed equally fundamental violations and planned them in advance. Premeditation matters here because it shows the perpetrator had time to deliberate, recognise the rule and violate it anyway; Earl's killing of Maxine occurred in the heat of the moment.

Consequentialism: Maxine's death represents an enormous harm, particularly because she was young and because her death affected everyone who cared about her. But consequentialism also weighs the total harm a person causes, and a character responsible for multiple deaths, multiple sexual assaults or prolonged victimisation has a stronger claim than someone responsible for one killing, however terrible.

Virtue Ethics: Earl's actions reveal serious defects of character: violence, possessiveness, poor self-control and a willingness to kill someone he supposedly loved. Yet virtue ethics also asks whether an act reflects settled character, which is where the distinction between heat of the moment violence and premeditation matters most. Someone who repeatedly plans and carries out atrocities demonstrates a more deeply rooted vice than someone whose worst act occurs during an extreme loss of self control.

There is a further point which the case against Earl usually ignores entirely, and it is arguably the strongest one in his favour. Earl was a young person; Characters such as Reynold Kelly, Gary Vale, Callum Pearson, Kevin Hurst, Jim Ronsley and Tony James were all adults. This matters under every framework. Deontology treats adults as more culpable because they are presumed to have fuller rational autonomy and a greater capacity to understand and freely choose whether to break a moral rule. Virtue ethics treats an adult's atrocity as stronger evidence of established vice, because an adult has had decades to form their character, whereas a young person's character is still developing. Even consequentialism, on an expected-outcome view, has reason to treat a young person as more amenable to rehabilitation and therefore as posing less expected future harm. Earl is thus not only compared against worse acts, but is himself less culpable for the act he committed.

One objection has to be met head-on: Earl actually killed, whereas say Gary Vale only attempted to. Does that not settle it in Earl's favour? Only on a strict actual-outcome consequentialism, and this is exactly why the moral luck argument was set out earlier. Gary decided to kill his own children and took steps to do it; that the attempt failed was down to intervention, not to any change of heart. Deontology and virtue ethics both hold that this counts against him almost as heavily as success would, because the intention, the deliberation and the character revealed are identical. Earl, by contrast, did not decide in advance to kill anyone.

Where do other characters rank?

Before ranking anyone, I should state that characters are judged only on acts the show establishes, not on acts it merely implies. On that basis I discount Frankie McGregor/Jim Ronsley. We can reasonably conclude that he attempted to rape Lenny Brown which is serious enough to place him high on this list, but not enough on its own to top it. Whether he also intended to kill Lenny, or had other victims, cannot be determined with enough certainty based on what was presented onscreen.

Here is who in my opinion, the character who shows the most severe deficits under each of the frameworks:

Deontology: Gary Vale tops this list. He is an adult who deliberately planned to kill both of his own children. Intentional, premeditated harm to a young person who is also a loved one is among the gravest wrongs under deontology, because it breaches not only the general duty not to seriously harm another person but the additional duties of loyalty, care and protection owed by a parent to a child.

Consequentialism: Kevin Hurst tops this list. Because consequentialism judges actions by their consequences, the total amount and severity of harm matters most, and Kevin's offending involved multiple young victims rather than a single incident including the rape of Celine Dixon and the attempted rape of Stacey Appleyard and other victims, both intentional and premeditated. Sexual assault can cause severe and potentially lifelong psychological, emotional and social harm, and because both victims were young that harm compounds across the whole of their development and adult lives, spreading further to their families and friends. Aggregated across multiple victims, and taking into account that a man who offends twice is likely to offend again, the expected harm exceeds that of a single killing committed without planning. The attempt matters on the same reasoning: it was a serious source of actual and potential harm, and the premeditation shows that further victimisation was neither accidental nor unforeseeable.

Virtue Ethics: Tony James tops this list. Virtue ethics asks what actions reveal about underlying character: a single terrible act may be a moment of weakness or a failure of self-control, whereas repeated, premeditated wrongdoing is stronger evidence of settled vice. Tony's offending combines repetition, premeditation, intent, vulnerable victims and the closest possible relationship he raped Lindsay James and attempted to rape Emily James, both his daughters and both young people. A parent-child relationship should embody love, care, compassion, loyalty and protection; instead Tony deliberately exploited his daughters' vulnerability and subjected them to serious sexual harm, revealing not an isolated vicious act but a profound failure of character.

The Verdict

Framework	Who tops it?
Deontology	Gary Vale
Consequentialism	Kevin Hurst
Virtue Ethics	Tony James

Earl Kelly, then, does not come top under any of the three frameworks: Gary Vale outranks him on deontology, Kevin Hurst on consequentialism and Tony James on virtue ethics. That is the whole case, and it deliberately does not depend on you agreeing with me about which of those three is worst overall. Whichever framework you favour, someone else stands above him and Earl is additionally the only one of the four who was a child rather than an adult, and the only one who acted without planning. He remains one of the most evil characters on Waterloo Road, but "one of the most evil" is not "the most evil", and on balance he is not the most evil character to have appeared on the show.

I look forward to your thoughts on this topic :)

What kind of B52s song do you prefer?

I think i can subdivide them into 5 main categories. Yes some songs might overlap slightly between categories and you could have more than 5 categories but I think these categories nicely capture most of the songs in their discography.

Here are some of the songs I feel fit into each category

1. Sci-Fi & Surreal- Planet Claire, Rock Lobster, Quiche Lorraine, 53 Miles West of Venus, Song for a Future Generation, Mesopotamia

2. Party Anthems- Love Shack, Wig, Party Out of Bounds, Private Idaho, Good Stuff, Whammy

3. Dreamy & Wistful- Topaz, She Brakes for Rainbows, Deadbeat Club, Roam, Dreamland

4. Desire & Longing- Give Me Back My Man, Dance this Mess Around, Dirty Back Road, Lava, Hero Worship, Strobe Light

5. Political & Environmental- Channel Z, Bushfire, Juicy Jungle, Tell It Like It T-I-Is, Revolution Earth

How do I think the poll will go? Well I'd be shocked if Political & Environmental won. I feel categories 3 and 4 will split votes between them so either category 1 or 2 will win.

Let me know your thoughts 😀

View Poll

Please humour on an idea that won't come to pass but if you were to make a biopic of the B52s what eras would you include? Do you include the main beats of their story or do you just focus on a narrow time period?

I think almost everyone would have the movie end with Cosmic Thing being a massive success and saving their careers while its tinged with sadness over Ricky not being there to experience it with them

Question 1- Would anyone end a biopic of them at a different time? I'd be surprised if anyone thinks afterwards but would like to hear your reasoning. If before what time period would it end at e.g. releasing their debut album?

Question 2- When would the movie start?

I have two schools of thought on this

Option 1- At the very beginning prior to them forming as a band which would be the standard biopic format you see them form, experience success, popularity begins to decline and Ricky sadly passes away, Cosmic Thing. The advantage of this is that you get a more rounded view of their story but the downside is there isn't enough time to go into detail during any one era.

Option 2- It focuses on a very specific time period such as the period immediately following Ricky's death through to the success of Cosmic Thing or you could do the very early years from pre band formation to their debut album coming out. The advantages and disadvantages from Option 1 are flipped.

Its honestly refreshing and good on them about how much of their lives they've managed to keep private. Outside a very tight knit group I don't think its public knowledge at all as to the identity of any boyfriends/partners that Ricky had for example.

We all know Brian intended for Heroes & Villains to be the center piece of Smile and to be the single that would top Good Vibrations.

My question is very simple, why?

What did Brian hear in Heroes & Villains that I don't that made him think Heroes & Villains was the song most suitable for this task?

It's a great album track for sure but I just can't see how it was ever going to come anywhere close to Brian's expectations.

While Good Vibrations is made up of lots of discrete segments it flows very naturally unlike Heroes & Villains which always seems disjointed in every format we've heard and whose lyrics are far less relatable than Good Vibrations.

This clearly wasn't the song to be the lead single from Smile while it charted relatively highly when actually released I think any release by The Beach Boys as a follow up to Good Vibrations would have done the same. I'll forever be perplexed that Brian chose this to be the lead single and didn't try and write something with more obvious hit potential the lyrics didn't have to be boy girl stuff but it did definitely have to sound less fragmented.

It'll always be kind of wild to me that Mike's main problem with Smile seems to be Cabinessence which was never going to be a single and whose lyrics are no more out there than Heroes & Villains and which Brian spent far less time on. While on Heroes and Villains Brian roughly spent 50% of the Smile sessions working on it and arguably doomed the entire project.

What am I missing that Brian heard what are your thoughts?

While I was researching my post on who is the most evil Waterloo Road character I turned to AI to try and capture any characters I had forgotten about. This went very badly wrong as it turns out AI frequently hallucinates about Waterloo Road.

Why might this be the case you ask? Well in comparison to other topics, with Waterloo Road there is relatively less information available about it and thus when AI predicts the next token on a probabilistic basis it tends to hallucinate a lot more compared with other topics given the lack of available data.

My question was who are some of the other most memorable single-episode villains or guest antagonists in Waterloo Road? This is how AI answered 😂

Gary Vale (Series 2, Episode 10)

Played by Ian Puleston-Davies, Gary Vale is arguably the most infamous single-episode antagonist in the show's early history.

The Plot: He is a paranoid, highly unstable father who kidnaps his daughter, Chloe Grainger, after losing custody. He takes Chloe to Waterloo Road and proceeds to hold Headteacher Jack Rimmer, Tom Clarkson, and several students hostage at gunpoint inside a locked classroom.

Why He’s Memorable: The episode essentially turns into a high-stakes psychological thriller. His breakdown and willingness to point a loaded firearm at teachers and kids made him genuinely terrifying.

2. Jem Allen (Series 8, Episode 16)

Played by Lorna Fitzgerald, Jem appears during the Rochdale/Scotland transition era in a story centered around grooming and human trafficking.

The Plot: Jem is a runaway teenager who aggressively targets and befriends Dynasty Barry. She uses charm and manipulation to drag Dynasty into a dangerous subterranean world of illegal underground parties and older, predatory men.

Why She’s Memorable: Jem functions as a predatory "scout" for adult abusers—using the guise of a teenage peer to trap vulnerable girls. The sheer coldness with which she attempts to hand Dynasty over to dangerous men makes her one of the dark highlights of Series 8.

3. Sarah Evans (Series 6, Episode 3)

Played by a pre-Killing Eve Jodie Comer, Sarah is a prime example of a student guest antagonist whose malicious choices nearly destroy a teacher's life in under 60 minutes.  

The Plot: Sarah becomes obsessed with her teacher, Ruby Fry. When Ruby tries to maintain professional boundaries and pushes her away, Sarah turns vindictive, making a false allegation that Ruby physically hit her.

Why She’s Memorable: Comer plays the transition from sweet, needy student to cold, calculated liar with chilling precision—showing how easily a single student’s malice could ruin a career.

4. Eugene Garvey (Series 6, Episode 8)

Played by Nico Mirallegro, Eugene is a volatile, heavily armed former student who returns to the school to settle a score.

The Plot: After being expelled, Eugene smuggles a firearm into Waterloo Road. High on adrenaline and anger, he terrorizes the school grounds, culminating in a tense standoff in the playground where he recklessly fires a shot that tragically hits English teacher Sambuca Kelly.

Why He’s Memorable: Although Eugene wasn't a "mastermind" villain like Earl Kelly, his extreme volatility and the lasting consequences of his actions (which set off Sambuca's emotional final arcs) make his single appearance unforgettable.

5. Craig O'Leary (Series 7, Episode 1)

Played by Rory Fallon, Craig is a sinister guest figure whose brief arrival exposes the dark underbelly of student exploitation.

The Plot: Craig is an older, predatory acquaintance who lures vulnerable student Rose Kelly (and attempts to pull in other students) into illegal, highly dangerous street racing and scamming operations.

Why He’s Memorable: He represents the real-world menace of older criminals preying on struggling, working-class teenagers who just want quick cash, showing zero remorse when the kids get caught in the police crossfire.

Ah yes vulnerable student Rose Kelly :) You can see where AI is getting the pieces of information from its just hillariously jumbling them up because its predicting what to say next on balance of probabilities rather than having real understanding of what its saying.

Perhaps a good benchmark for AI would be to see when it stops hallucinating about Waterloo Road. Do you have any funny AI hallucinations about Waterloo Road?

This can be both musically and lyrically. Of course what is a typical Paul Simon song given the breadth of his career? All that said my choice would be Quiet from You're the One. There's a moodiness that I don't find elsewhere in his work.

While I'd like to imagine that they're going out for dinners and alike very often I know that's not realistic when you live so far apart from each other and 3 out of the 4 still tour and he doesn't, plus they have their own spouses and other friends.

What do you think a couple of times a year, once or twice? The B's are a basically family and super tight so I imagine they all have good relations still. There's a group whatsapp I know that much where they still talk to each other.

Presumably they see each other at least once a year right? If only to discuss business matters then perhaps once or twice more for a social visit. Does Keith ever come and watch any of their shows?

Maybe its a question people don't know the answer to unless you're really part of the tight knit circle but I'm interested nonetheless. I've given up on ever seeing them all get together on stage again as Keith is well and truly retired now but it would be nice to hear about them meeting up and doing stuff as a group.

In a previous discussion there were several comments about how AI could be discussed on the show whether through a pupil using it for plagiarism purposes or forming an unhealthy attachment to the AI and it was agreed this would be a new storyline for the show if the writers went with it.

Which led me to think what are some other relevant storylines yet to be done on the show? No not aliens landing on the roof of Waterloo Road but something that could reasonably happen.

To start off extremely darkly there hasn't been a mass casualty event on the show like a mass school stabbing you could have a pupil be radicalised by the manosphere or ideology of your choice and go on a rampage against certain groups of students. Perhaps this would be too dark to air but it would be something the show has never aired before.

On storylines they may feel more comfortable airing I'm not sure a student with selective mutism has been on the show, whether a surrogacy storyline has been done. They could also show a student suffering with long covid.

What are some ideas for storylines not yet done that you have?

When it comes to academic ability I think you can roughly divide pupils into four groups.

1.There are those very able students who could teach themselves the course and still do well academically without really needing a teacher.

2. There are those able students not quite at the level of the first group but will do well with some support from a teacher.

3. There are then those who could do well but would need a lot of support from a teacher to do well academically

4. There are then those who even with a lot of support from a teacher are probably not going to do well academically

I've listed some of the pupils who I think belong in each group. Let me know if you agree/disagree with my choices and for pupils of your choice which group they belong in.

Those that would do well without really needing a teacher	Those that would do well with some support from a teacher	Those that would do well with a lot of support from a teacher	Those that wouldn't do well even with a lot of support from a teacher
Kevin Chalk	Jonah Kirby	Jodie (Scout) Allen	Rhiannon Salt
Ros McCain	Mika Grainger	Lenny Brown	Lewis Seddon
Ruth Kirby	Dynasty Barry	Conor Mulgrew	Phoenix Taylor
Brett Aspinall	Philip Ryan	Denzil Kelly	Janeece Bryant
Karla Bentham	Marley Kelly	Kenzie Calhoun	Paul Langley
Gabriella Wark	Vicki MacDonald	Josh Stevenson	Kyle Stack

In this hypothetical scenario you are treated to a live performance by any singer you choose living or dead but unfortunately you don't get to choose the song they'll sing for you.

The genie will choose the song completely at random it could be anything from an old folk song to the Tin Pan Alley era, 50s Rock, 2010s Hip Hop, 2020s Pop etc.

The singer won't talk to you they'll simply perform the song and that's your lot. Who do you choose that is most likely to give a good performance when the style of song could be any genre?

I would choose Sam Cooke I think he just has it all as a vocalist the purity of tone and intonation to sing a jazz standard like Ella Fitzgerald could, while also being able to handle something much heavier in a way perhaps Ella couldn't. Who would your choice be?

I'll give an example Karla is initially put in the bottom sets. In class Eddie sees she has outstanding ability in mathematics and wants her moved to all top sets. So Eddie takes her to see Grantly about moving her up.

Eddie "She's clearly been put in the wrong set her maths ability is outstanding"

Grantly "What's that got to do with her English ?"

Its a completely fair comment just because someone is outstanding in one subject doesn't mean that necessarily translates across to another subject.

What are some other examples of this trope that come to mind?

Why am I asking this question?

Well I'm currently writing a post on who the most evil character to appear on Waterloo Road is based on evil actions they did or attempted to do and Frankie McGregor aka Jim Ronsley is by far the most ambiguous as to what his intentions were.

Who is this character you ask? He is a character who appears in Season 9 Episode 9 initially as a first impressions would have it as a supply teacher called Frankie McGregor. It turns out however that the real Frankie McGregor is seriously ill in a hospice and the person people believed to be Frankie McGregor is in fact his brother in law Jim Ronsley who is not a real teacher and whom Frankie took in when Jim Ronsley's marriage broke down.

When he is at Waterloo Road he notices that Lenny Brown is very lonely and a bit vulnerable and offers to take him fishing to which both Lenny and Christine agree. Rather than take him to the pier to go fishing he takes Lenny to an isolated Reservoir.

He shows Lenny how to fish by guiding his arms he has his arms around Lenny. Lenny then catches a fish and he puts his arms round him again and offers to cook it with Lenny back at Frankie McGregors house.

To me its quite clear he had something nefarious planned for Lenny isolating a vulnerable pupil like that, the way he was handsy with him, he was taking Lenny somewhere with no witnesses and then not returning him as promised to school after they'd been fishing. I think its clear he had ill intent towards Lenny but I can't decide exactly what as its quite ambiguous.

I've listed what I think the most probable outcomes are can you let me know what you think is most likely please? I also wonder if he'd done something like this before masquerading as a teacher while is brother in law was in the hospice?

View Poll

As an example Simon Lowsley was very nearly played by a different actor. The actor that played him couldn't attend the original set of auditions as he had norovirus (poor guy) fortunately for him when he recovered the producers still hadn't found the right person for the role and asked him to audition again and he got the role.

The actress that plays Sue Spark/Lowsley is blonde in real life it wasn't a choice by her to dye her hair red the producers insisted on it for some unknown reason perhaps they figured the show didn't have enough red heads or something

I believe Christmas has never been mentioned in the show nor has there been any evidence of Winter existing in the Waterloo Road universe like snow on the hills being shown

Until I did a rewatch of the whole series I'd completely forgotten that Jack Rimmer has kids.

I'd just assumed he was childless like Michael Byrne given his kids were never shown on screen for a single second.

With him appearing in the reboot do you think we'll ever meet them?

View Poll

Let me start Grantly Budgen. He's a jerk but he's our jerk and is all around a fun watch. All credit to Philip Martin Brown for achieving that balance however the episode where he was outright mocking Bolton for his military service left me wanting Bolton to clock him one it was truly despicable stuff.

What are some of your examples? I imagine Tom Clarkson and his non acceptance of Josh's homosexuality will be a common one.

What do you think happened to characters from the original series who survived the original series and have yet to appear in the reboot series? So no Donte, Jack, Mika or Steph for example.

This isn't an exhaustive list so feel free to add in your own ideas of what happened to people. For example I felt Rachel Mason's future was very up in the air which made it quite hard to predict what she'd been doing now.

Philip Ryan eventually got over his issues with women and to his and everyone's surprise is now happily married

Harley Taylor joined the family business after attending University, he began by cleverly sidelining Phoenix and his dad into roles which feel important but where they can't make any important decisions after which he set about transforming the business into a nationwide success story

Bolton Smilie it was decided not to be in the public interest to prosecute him and he spent some time being sectioned under the mental health act. Since being released and with a lot support he has managed to rebuild his life and now works as a youth worker supporting vulnerable youths.

Kyle Stack the trauma he suffered in prison and from Tom's death were too much for him to bear and he sadly committed suicide shortly after Tom's death.

Daniel Chalk became the mastermind behind several leading games and now runs his own successful indie games company

Lorraine Donnegan has added more millions to her bank account. Work has continued to be her whole identity and her personal life continues to be largely non existent.

Kevin Chalk & Dynasty Barry stayed together for awhile after school before amicably separating. Dynasty is now rising through the ranks of Merseyside Police and received a police medal for bravery. Kevin moved to America to complete his PhD and has stayed there and is now a millionaire living in California after selling his AI startup company to a big tech firm for whom he now works.

Maggie Budgen continues to work as a teacher in Greenock and is looking forward to retirement shortly and seeing more of her sisters she hasn't remarried since Grantlys passing

Connor & Imogen Mulgrew are still together and living in London where Connor works as a chef and Imogen as a drama teacher along with their two children. They're not super wealthy but they are financially comfortable and most importantly are happy with their lives.

Christine Mulgrew- Has largely maintained her sobriety and now works in London as an English teacher having moved there to be close to Conor and Imogen and her young grandchildren. While she's had a series of relationships since moving to London none have lasted, nevertheless she is happy playing the role of doting grandmother.

Audrey McFall- Is now retired and still living in Greenock she remains active in her local church and undertakes lots of charity/voluntary work in her retirement along with being a keen rambler and member of a local history group

Michael Byrne- Subsequently became head teacher at a failing school in the East End of Glasgow which has a very high child poverty rate. Michael's leadership dramatically improved the life chances afforded to the pupils and he has recently been named in the New Years honours list for services to education for his work there at Waterloo Road and the other schools where he has taught.

Brett Aspinall- Attended a Russell Group University where he met his now wife, he is now a senior official in the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office

Earl Kelly- Was never the big fish behind bars like he was at school. His impulsive nature meant he always got into fights with other inmates. One day he messed with someone he shouldn't of and started something he couldn't finish and Earl paid the ultimate price.

Rose Kelly- If she didn't think she was cursed before she does now. She feels a mixture of guilt for how Earl turned out and her role in it, grief as whatever Earl's crimes he was still her son and relief that Earl can't hurt anyone else anymore. She redoubles her efforts to ensure Prince never turns out like Earl.