r/WaterlooRoad

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 🙂

SERIES 1 TO SERIES 5

View Poll

I’ve been rewatching the early Waterloo Road and started thinking about something…
Who was actually the worst bully/antagonist in Series 1–5?
And the more I thought about it, the harder it became to answer — because there are some VERY different kinds of horrible behaviour 😂
So here’s my ranking, based on how deliberately cruel they were, the seriousness of what they did, intimidation, manipulation, violence and the impact they had on other characters.
🥇 1. Lewis Seddon — the most dangerous
Honestly, the more I think about Lewis, the harder it is to put anyone above him.
He wasn’t just a school bully — he was violent, intimidating and genuinely dangerous.
He sexually harassed Kim, attacked Jack Rimmer, was involved with a gang and even attempted to set fire to Jack.
That’s on a completely different level from your typical school bully.
Lewis = most dangerous.

🥈 2. Michaela White — the ultimate traditional bully
Michaela is probably the first person most people think of when they hear “Waterloo Road bully”.
She was absolutely vicious at times.
She:
Intimidated and bullied other pupils.
Forced a younger pupil to steal.
Targeted Jasmine Koreshi and falsely accused her of assault.
Exploited Karla’s artistic ability for her own benefit.
Became heavily involved in the Waterloo Road/John Foster conflict.
Wasn’t afraid of physical confrontation.
What makes Michaela stand out is how relentless she could be.
Unlike someone who occasionally loses their temper, Michaela could actively seek out someone’s weaknesses and exploit them.
Michaela = biggest traditional bully.

🥉 3. Leigh-Ann Galloway — massively underrated
I think Leigh-Ann gets forgotten simply because she wasn’t around for very long.
But psychologically?
She was HORRIBLE.
Her treatment of Mika included:
Creating an anonymous hate campaign.
Posting an embarrassing photograph of her.
Manipulating the situation while making herself look like the victim.
Contributing to Mika becoming so distressed that she attempted to overdose.
That’s not just teasing or playground bullying.
It’s calculated psychological cruelty.
If we’re talking purely about psychological bullying, I’d honestly argue Leigh-Ann belongs right at the top of the conversation.
Leigh-Ann = most psychologically cruel.

4. Amy Porter — arguably the most disturbing individual incident
Amy isn’t really a conventional bully like Michaela.
But Series 5 Amy becomes seriously nasty.
She gets involved in the gang conflict, becomes violent, manipulates Bolton and — most controversially — falsely accuses Bolton of attempting to rape her after he rejects her.
Whatever you think of Amy as a character, that storyline has enormous consequences for Bolton and everyone around him.
That’s why I think Amy deserves to be much higher when we’re judging the seriousness of individual actions, rather than simply who bullied people most often.

5. Earl Kelly
Earl is another one who gets overlooked.
He’s aggressive, confrontational and involved in much more serious criminal behaviour than ordinary school bullying.
He doesn’t have the longevity of Michaela or Lewis, but the behaviour we see from him is considerably more serious than simply being a nasty pupil.

6. Aleesha Dillon
Aleesha and Danielle have to be mentioned together because their bullying of Karla was very much a two-person operation.
They repeatedly targeted Karla because she was different and continued despite being challenged about their behaviour.
Aleesha was particularly judgemental and nasty.
However, there’s an important distinction:
They actually changed.
Once they realised how badly Karla wanted to be accepted, their relationship developed and they eventually became genuine friends.
So I don’t think they can be judged in quite the same way as someone like Michaela or Lewis.

7. Danielle Harker
Very similar situation to Aleesha.
She was absolutely capable of being horrible to Karla, particularly as part of the duo, but she also showed considerably more development later on.
I’d put Aleesha slightly above Danielle when it comes to how nasty they were individually.

8. Brett Aspinall
Brett isn’t necessarily a traditional bully, but he’s aggressive, entitled and intimidating.
His attitude towards people he considers beneath him makes him unpleasant in a completely different way.
He’s more of an intimidator than a school bully.

9. Philip Ryan
Another character who tends to get forgotten.
Philip’s behaviour becomes increasingly unpleasant and intimidating, particularly during the darker storylines around Series 4–5.
Not on Lewis/Michaela’s level, but definitely someone I’d include in the discussion.

10. Denzil Kelly
Denzil is complicated.
He gets dragged into bullying, criminal behaviour and the influence of the Kelly family, but unlike some of the others, he actually has a conscience and develops.
So I wouldn’t call him inherently malicious.

11. Bolton Smilie
Bolton is aggressive and gets into plenty of fights, but I wouldn’t really call him a classic bully.
He’s more of a troubled, rough teenager who gradually develops.
His relationship with Paul is a good example — he can absolutely be intimidating, but the circumstances around it are more complicated than straightforward bullying.

12. Donte Charles
Early-Series-1 Donte is violent, hot-headed and reckless.
But again, I don’t think he’s really a bully.
He’s an angry teenager who makes some absolutely disastrous decisions — particularly the joyriding storyline — but he matures enormously.

13. Paul Langley
Paul gets involved with the rougher crowd and can be aggressive, but I’d put him firmly in the troubled kid rather than genuine bully category.

14. Chlo Grainger
Not really a bully either, but definitely manipulative at times.
Her treatment of people around her can be incredibly selfish and cruel, particularly when relationships become complicated.
I’d describe Chlo as a manipulator rather than a bully.

15. Finn Sharkey
Finn gets into trouble, has a volatile relationship with Amy and does some seriously stupid things…
…but bullying simply isn’t what defines him.
He’s much more of a troublemaker/rebellious teenager than a bully.

🔥 MY OVERALL LIST
Rank
Character
What makes them stand out
🥇
Lewis Seddon
Violence / intimidation / danger
🥈
Michaela White
Traditional bullying / manipulation
🥉
Leigh-Ann Galloway
Psychological bullying
4️⃣
Amy Porter
Manipulation / serious false accusation
5️⃣
Earl Kelly
Violence / intimidation
6️⃣
Aleesha Dillon
Persistent bullying
7️⃣
Danielle Harker
Bullying alongside Aleesha
8️⃣
Brett Aspinall
Entitlement / intimidation
9️⃣
Philip Ryan
Intimidation / darker behaviour
🔟
Denzil Kelly
Peer influence / aggression
11
Bolton Smilie
Fighting / intimidation
12
Donte Charles
Violence / recklessness
13
Paul Langley
Aggression / troubled behaviour
14
Chlo Grainger
Manipulation
15
Finn Sharkey
Trouble rather than bullying
But here’s the question…
Are we actually ranking the WORST BULLETS, or the WORST PEOPLE?
Because those are two completely different lists.
Lewis probably wins most dangerous.
Michaela probably wins most recognisable school bully.
Leigh-Ann might win most psychologically cruel.
And Amy has one of the most serious individual incidents.
Then there’s Maxine Barlow, who I haven’t even properly included here…
…and I think she’s a VERY interesting contender once you start looking at how dark her behaviour becomes. 👀
So who have I got completely wrong?
Who was the worst bully/antagonist from Series 1–5?
And don’t just say Michaela — make your case. 😂
I want to hear the arguments for Lewis, Leigh-Ann, Amy, Maxine, Aleesha & Danielle, Earl, Brett and anyone I’ve completely forgotten.
Who was Waterloo Road’s REAL villain? 👇

What potential future storylines/issues would everyone like to see?

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 :)

View Poll

just wanted to say he’s so fit

Any thoughts on what would happen if rachel, or any of those who left in seires 5. STAYED for series 6

Like:

Steph (ik she returned breifly, but i mean as a teacher)

Kim (she had dexter)

Rachel

Adam (unfortunatley, since rachel is here, he has to be)

Candice

Rose (perminatley as staff)

Siobhan mailey

Jo Lipsett

I'm not talking about the cheating itself because yes, that was wrong. I'm referring to the events leading up to the cheating, and how Mike didn't exactly handle it flawlessly.

People love to act like Mike was completely blameless and like Joe cheated on him for no reason, but the thing is that Joe and Mike were becoming incredibly distant over fostering Schuey. Joe was the one trying the gentle approach, which I personally think is what Schuey needed after everything he had been through. Mike however, was constantly coming to blows with Joe over Schuey's behaviour.

Yes, Schuey was incredibly homophobic towards Mike at one point and that's not okay, but Mike should've known that Schuey spent pretty much all of his life without a positive role model, and Mike wanted to throw him out almost immediately after that instead of trying to talk to him. He should've also sussed out that Tyler, Schuey's friend, who I'm sure Mike would've known was deeply religious, was the one feeding him all that bad information about gay people. All Mike was signalling to Schuey is that he was going to give up on him the second he messes up, so it's not surprising that it caused tension between Joe and him, given that Joe really wanted it to work.

It's actually kind of ironic that Schuey ended up living with Mike out of loyalty after Joe's affair, even though it was Mike that nearly caused Schuey to run away in the middle of Series 16.

This isn't me absolving Joe of his unfaithfulness, I'm just pointing out that it wasn't exclusively Joe's fault like a lot of people say it is, and that Mike should've handled the Schuey situation better than he did.

1. ⁠Cheryl/Poppy should’ve stayed with John & Ruby with all 3 of them staying on series 7 and moving to Scotland.
2. ⁠I think Janeece would’ve stayed in Scotland if she didn’t have Cheryl.
3. ⁠Tom & Rose shouldn’t have broken up, as rose, Tom, Denzil, Sambuca, Prince and Josh could’ve been a great extended family.
4. ⁠Sambuca and Denzil shouldn’t have died, they should’ve been written out.
5. ⁠Tom & Grantly shouldn’t have died and stayed until the end of series 10.
6. Vaughan shouldn’t have joined the show as Tom & Christine would’ve been better as head and deputy head.

HM: Steph should’ve stayed when she came back in Series 6 and shouldn’t have just been a guest.

Hey y’all, I was just wondering what peoples opinions were on S3E4. Namely on Steph. I was watching a few clips of this episode on YouTube the other day and a lot of people in the comments were saying that Steph should have been fired for not telling the entire staff team about the boy’s (I forget his name, apologies) condition. And even watching the episode for the first time, I always thought it was unreasonable for Jack and Matt to have expected Steph to have told them.

It’s a massive breach of student confidentiality and in most schools if not all, policies exist that protect that limiting those who know to key pastoral staff to the specific child. Mind you Steph failed to even do that, but as far as we know Matt nor Jack (Though I would argue he probably has some level of case for this being headteacher) were pastorally relevant to the pupil.

Im not maliciously judging Matt with this, and I understand his urgency as the boy was bleeding from the head which obviously requires immediate medical attention however with that in mind it’s vastly important to get PPE before handling injuries regardless of any cuts/openings you might have on your own skin. Gas literally why PPE exists, to stop the transmissions of pathogens and to allow for student confidentiality.

Because I’m sure rhat if Steph had told everyone, there would almost definitely be a lawsuit.

They just really botched fully showing Emily's grief and the consequences randomly lashing out and pushing people away truly had for her, whereas with Izzy it feels like they're doing a great job showing how her grief causes her to lash out, whilst still generating sympathy for her.

I've heard some rumours about where Izzy's story could potentially be going, and whilst I would be happier with a happy ending for her, she could potentially have one of the most impactful character journeys if the writers do go in the rumoured direction.

In the first episode, Donte and Chlo cause a car crash that kills one of their best friends. Subsequently to that, Donte is in police custody for the rest of Series 1, and there's a big plot line about Chlo trying to claim full responsibility for the crash to try to get him off.

I feel like this high-stakes situation was a big part of what caused the intensity of their relationship. If that hadn't happened, might their relationship have just been a bog-standard teenage crush that they both grow out of?

Another thing is that I think Donte probably became a nicer person as a result of that. In the first episode he was more like Lewis Seddon - violent, aggressive, confrontational and bullying. You could just put that down to the fact that the writers hadn't fully figured out his character yet, but I think you can explain that in-universe as well. In that first episode he did something that really had terrible consequences for both him and a lot of other people, and he was never quite the same again after that.