Your Shannon Matthews Theories Go Here VVV

What are "Shannon Matthews theories"?

Originally Posted by Tommei-UK
This is just my initial theory, going on instinct.

I think the step-dad was abusing Shannon. The mother kept it quiet because she was afraid of him and/or was so desperately infatuated with him that she'd do anything to keep him happy. The abduction was arranged by the step-dad to punish both her and the mother for something (threatening to go kick him out; threatening to go and report his abusive behaviour; just thought Shannon was getting in the way of their cosy new life). It is possible that the mother found out about the plot at some point and had no option but to go along with it and maintain the pretense for the safety of her daughter.

http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20080314/160_matthews_080314.jpg

My one overriding theory:

All the theories, whether they prove to be true or not, are generated because / derive out of / "Shameless" plot devices.

The people had John Stalker 'backing up' the hoax theory. Well, he said they had to look at all the options but they decided to go with that one.

Oh the people at work are just full of interesting theories regarding cases like this.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.politics.misc/browse_thread/thread/808ba173b2a6142a/0e38f661ae9e9994

Asian paedo conspiracy!

Just seen Sky News in which the local police superintendant gave a
tense and edgy statement about the Shannon Matthews case. Behind him
stood three shifty looking Asians who appeared to be with him in the
role of minders. I've seen other reports where groups of Asian men
stand watchfully in the background. There's talk of growing tension
within the area though it's not specified what this is.

Just down the road from Dewsbury is Keighley where, as Channel 4
reported, Asian gangs operate paedophile prostitution rackets
involving under age white girls. Now I know the child was found at the
home of her stepdad's uncle but is there more to this business than
meets the eye?

It all seems a bit fishy to me. Anyone in Dewsbury able to enlighten
us?

http://www.batleynews.co.uk/news/Man-found-39crucified39.3815481.jp

ok wtf

they didn't confirm it was dominik diamond

end times

"It all seems a bit fishy to me."

A bit wtf when people say this talking about child abduction cases, as if otherwise the whole situation is perfectly normal.

http://editorial.jpress.co.uk/web/Upload/BATL//TH1_262200859bat%20breaking%20news%20general%20.jpg

^^^new drudgesiren.gif?

Police accident! The worst kind!

I am SO fucking glad I'm not working in Yorkshire local news anymore.

Do judges really deliver judgments by banging their gavel down on the appropriate side of the scales of justice?

not before shouting "tubular...BELLS!!!"

Viv Stanshall is a judge?
Surely he is dead? - actually maybe he is a judge (Dail Mail reader old duffer judge joke number 7)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/7326006.stm

Detectives investigating the disappearance of Shannon Matthews have arrested her stepfather on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children.

Craig Meehan, 22, was arrested after officers on the Shannon Matthews case carried out inspections on a number of computers.

Mr Meehan was arrested at the family home in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire.

Michael Donovan, 39, of Lidgate Gardens, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, has been charged with kidnapping Shannon.

West Yorkshire Police said in a statement: "During inquiries by the Shannon Matthews investigation team, the contents of a number of computers have been examined.

"As a result of this work, police have arrested a 22-year-old man from the Dewsbury Moor area on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children.

"He is currently being questioned at a West Yorkshire Police Station."

Social services

Officers said they did not believe any of the images found on the computer were those of family members.

Crikey

All the theories, whether they prove to be true or not, are generated because / derive out of / "Shameless" plot devices.

Hmmmmmm

I'm sad it was as true as it seems to be.

Still, it's now open season for the papers to get all "we can say what we like, they haven't got a "Maddy's parents style 'innocence' to them or the money to sue us, let's go" um, hat.

Hours of fun and millions of column inches ahead for the Why-Oh-Why Brigade

Yeah Tom D, those fucking Daily Mail readers disapproving of cooked up kidnap plots and child porn. Scumbags!

The Why oh Why Brigades assumptions/suspicions were right.
You've got to take it on the chin and shut up I'm afraid.

^^^ Torypinions4U

Wooooh, nooooo, I've been called a Tory!

Mr Goose asked Ms Matthews if she was confused about which versions of events she had given and she said: "everything".

She's clearly not enjoying being Goosed.

Mother guilty over Shannon kidnap

eagerly awaiting the response from insane, torture-obsessed women on Facebook

surprised ilx has so little to say about this

OK, so now the lawyere has helpfully stated that Mrs Mat is "pure evil" and the Sun has run with it.

Um, she didn't kill or rape anyone.

I'm not defending her. She's getting (or will do once sentenced) what she deserves.

Still, one more hero: the first one that beats her up in prison, right?

Unsurprisingly I have a different perspective on this from the PURE EVIL Sun (you said it, Rupert!).

The incestuous relationship between the media and the police is at root to blame - the police jumping on any case that will give them good publicity (and up their conviction rates, enabling them to meet their targets) and feeding them to a willing media ever in search of A Good Story, regardless of whether it's true (Soham) or false (Sally Clark, the whole Jersey business).

As the Good Stories become ever more gruesome to attract ever more readers, basics of morality and responsibility became lost.

So I can't excuse Mrs M for what she did but undoubtedly her simple mind was led and dazzled by all this babble about fame and money.

She deserved her sentence but she also deserves compassion, proper guidance and rehabilitation.

Instead she'll be looking over her shoulder for the rest of her life in case someone decides to do her in.

How does that protect any children?

The same with Baby P - the system was rotten and needs changing, and I'm not saying that managers who can't manage shouldn't be replaced, but it's the system (which the Government instituted in the first place, and which Haringey Social Services were only following) that needs to be overhauled. Instead people's reputations and future job prospects are ruined. How does that save any children? And Baby P's killers need to be taught basic lessons about human behaviour and re-integrated into civilised society. Vilifying them and/or beating them up isn't going to save any children in the future.

All this will do is make people more and more wary about doing any work with children. The number of teachers is steadily dwindling and who can blame people for not wanting to go into the profession? Pitiful pay, never thanked, always picked on by inspectors, and why try and discipline a class when kids know they've got a licence to misbehave on the grounds of making an accusation which might lead the teacher to prison or worse if they get punished?

Who cares if society is deteriorating into barbarism and has lost the ability to tell fact from fiction?

As long as it's A Good Story - that's ALL that matters.

There's been a lot of stuff about Social Services again, this morning.

But, in actuality, it seems they did the right thing: Stepped in when needed, stepped out when not.

It'd be easy to insist theye should have stayed ethere for ever. But theye have too much to do, and in any case, they can't stop people from coming up with chronically daft ideas.

(bloody e button)

The Sun's doing a pretty good job of making sure nobody ever trains as a Social Worker in future

And of course, for every Baby P that gets missed due to mistakes (or, as seems to have been the case in Haringey, due to understaffing, overwork and - only very slightly possibly - less than ideal management practices) there are hundreds of kids whose lives are saved by social workers on a daily basis, but since none of these is A Good Story, we never hear about them.

Might also have something to do with client confidentiality that though.

Apart from that phrase "suspended on full six-figure salary"

That's gotta attract some people, right?

I think kidnapping your own daughter, drugging her and tethering her to rope in order to make a few quid comes close to any definition of evil you care to run with other than "caused by Satan".

So you're all for rehabilitating child killers but think convicted fraudsters are beyond hope?

xxxposts

Um "Caused by Satan" is the definition of "Pure Evil" as stated, yeah?

I don't get your second sentence derivation at all.

Some words have more than one definition Mark.

e⋅vil   [ee-vuhl] Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.
–noun
6. that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct: to choose the lesser of two evils.
7. the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
8. the wicked or immoral part of someone or something: The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.
9. harm; mischief; misfortune: to wish one evil.
10. anything causing injury or harm: Tobacco is considered by some to be an evil.
11. a harmful aspect, effect, or consequence: the evils of alcohol.
12. a disease, as king's evil.
–adverb
13. in an evil manner; badly; ill: It went evil with him.
—Idiom
14. the evil one, the devil; Satan.

There was an interview with two of Mrs M's ex-friends, as from her documentary.

They were both intelligent and reasoned people (they were also that in the original doc), and for all that they felt betrayed and humiliated etc, they did also state that it was nobody elses fault but Mrs M.'s

(xpost yes, but there being scales of 'evil', it's the word 'pure' I felt was wrong)

Dudes there isn't actually a Satan.

xpost again.

This evil = 1.

Pure evil = 14.

(cigs = 10. (!))

People like the Mears know exactly what they are doing, and whatever else they might contribute to society it's clearly a mistake allowing them to go into a position where they can do the same thing again.

I'm not convinced that Mrs M ever had a clear idea what she was doing. She saw what she saw in the media and she was clearly deluded and desperate.

It doesn't EXCUSE or ABSOLVE her from what she did but she needs help not damnation.

I don't think this issue is as cut and dried as Marcello is making it out to be. Elephant in room = Madeleine McCann case which surely was front of mind in the Matthews' thinking, and the McCanns willingly played the media and made as big a story out of it as possible in order to try and get their daughter back.

Of course, the McCanns got fucked over by the media in the end as well but that's by the bye.

Of course it was.

My one overriding theory:

All the theories, whether they prove to be true or not, are generated because / derive out of / "Shameless" plot devices.

― Mark G, Monday, 17 March 2008 10:20 (8 months ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

..still applies.

She saw what she saw in the media and she was clearly deluded and desperate.

Deluded certainly, but desperate in what way?

Money and probably also "fame." Do this to make people think she's a hero and she might get ten minutes on GMTV.

The McCanns undoubtedly played the media game, but they quickly found that the media was far more adept at playing games with them.

Desperate for money and fame? O, what a terrible plight.

As we all know, getting ten minutes on GMTV is the overriding priority of the white working class.

It's either that or Jeremy Kyle.

Who cares if society is deteriorating into barbarism and has lost the ability to tell fact from fiction?

If I've said it once I've said it hundred times, society is no more barbaric than it was 10, 15, 20, 50 years ago. And certainly less barbaric than it was 100, 150, 200 years ago.

The problem is we're getting back to the levels of barbarism prevalent 600 or 700 years ago.

No we are not.

As we all know, getting ten minutes on GMTV is the overriding priority of the white working class.

People who's overeriding priority is getting on GMTV may be WClass, but the reverse is not true.

For every 1 person who would do this, there are 1000000 who would not.

I'm not convinced that Mrs M ever had a clear idea what she was doing

Exactly: I think this much is obvious. Matt: from what I understand, you're absolutely right about the McCann influence (am I right in remembering that one of the first things Karen Matthews or one of her cohort did was ring the McCanns to try to grub some of the fundraising cash?) but I don't see how that doesn't fit perfectly with what Marcello's said. You've got people of dubious education and even more dubious basic morality becoming spectacularly fixated upon a media sensation and thinking: woah, we want us some of that.

It's an awful lot of things, but I've never felt that chucking the word "evil" about does anyone any good at all. "See them? They're EVIL. Not like us. They're barely even human. Etc." Sorry: they're all too fucking human. Although it's pretty much beyond the ken of most people, this was still a crime borne out of the most base human emotions and desires: stupidity, greed, desperation (for what, Tom asks: money? Sympathy? To be noticed; on the front of the papers?) and totally, utterly fucked-up personal morality. But it would not have happened if it wasn't for what the mass media has become: Marcello is totally and utterly OTM there.

(Sorry, many xposts there: Marcello has already made the "money and probably also 'fame'" point, I see.)

Being desperate for money and to get on the front of the papers does not elicit much in the way of sympathy from me

Compare the desparation factor: Fame and money.

For one set of people, they go on a quiz show with the answers supplied by scam methods.

For another, it's 'finding' a lost daughter and gaining the reward money.

I'm comparing the 'thinking' here, not the method.

I thought Matt was joking.

Being desperate for money and to get on the front of the papers does not elicit much in the way of sympathy from me

It comes back to what we were talking about on the jobs thread the other day: you're an educated dude who (I assume!) doesn't wake up every morning with a sense of crushing hopelessness weighing down on you. No, I'm afraid I can't sympathise with Karen Matthews or anyone else involved in this vile little affair. But nor can I simply write them off as "evil" and as some kind of aberration operating outside society, rather than as a horrifically distorted part of it.

We can 'understand' it.

But it would not have happened if it wasn't for what the mass media has become: Marcello is totally and utterly OTM there.

I have to disagree. The actual event wouldn't have happened the same way but people have not suddenly tried to fuck over their relatives (or friends or complete strangers) because of the mass media.

It comes back to what we were talking about on the jobs thread the other day: you're an educated dude who (I assume!) doesn't wake up every morning with a sense of crushing hopelessness weighing down on you.

Errrrrrrr, an awful lot of assumptions going on there!

Again, viewpoint:

The Working classes will always look down on someone who gets money without having earned it. (exception: Competition wins e.g. lottery), so they get angry at people on the disability/sick as opposed to company tax evasion.

The Media will look down on anyone who does wrong that could conceivably write a book about it and earn 'millions', despite nobody earning millions from any book. except JKR.

Obv. describing this woman as "pure evil" is complete bollocks

Let's look at few others who have been described as "PURE EVIL". Shipman? The Wests? Myra Hindley? None of these did what they did because they wanted to be famous.

Incidentally.

xpost my point exactly, thankyou. xpost again.

Errrrrrrr, an awful lot of assumptions going on there!

Ha! Two: the former is a given; the latter ... well, OK. We do all post here, I suppose.

The actual event wouldn't have happened the same way but people have not suddenly tried to fuck over their relatives (or friends or complete strangers) because of the mass media

Exactly! It's "the actual event" we're talking about, isn't it? Not "OMG, people are fucked up in general".

Let's look at few others who have been described as "PURE EVIL". Shipman? The Wests? Myra Hindley? None of these did what they did because they wanted to be famous

And none of them did it because the devil rocked up on their shoulder and said: "Hey, you know what'd be a good idea ..."

Very true.

Yes, you could argue that the media has created another way of being "evil" - for want of a whole load of better words. But human beings are amazingly imaginative when it comes to this as we have seen over the last 10,000 years.

But also the media has not "become" this. It was always interested in "evil" and wrongdoing because going back to the first mass produced sheets the things that sold were descriptions of hangings or confessions of murderers or witches.

I think I'm arguing the toss here because overall I think mass media is A Good Thing and sometimes you have to accept that some people are going to try and exploit it for their own nefarious ends. That is not though an argument that we are all going to hell in a h.c., or that that is happening thanks to the media.

This adds to my theory of "Total Knowledge"...

On share dealing, it means that if you sell shares at slightly higher than market price, no-one will buy because they can get it cheaper at the next dealer.

Whereas if Smiths sell something for slightly higher than Tesco, they will still sell. Maybe less, but not 'none'.

Mass Media is making this more plain, so "Total Knowledge" involves many people knowing what's going on, in close detail.

Etcet.

So, more people find out what human nature is all about by seeing the extreme manifestations of it.

Paedos, murderers, sadists, etc, have all existed, but suddenly theree is more visibility. And it seems that all is going downhill, whereas it's always been there.

Q: What was the biggest mountain in the world before Everest was discovered?

There's a difference betwen seeing the extreme manifestations of human nature and deliberately provoking them.

guyz, shannon matthews' mum is not working as an agent of the media here, not in any form nor by any remove.

she wanted money, so decided to chance her arm at a fake child abduction. the child doesn't seem to have been particularly well treated during this abduction, adding another needless layer to the whole sorry mess. who knows though, maybe the child is normally shackled at home anyway, eh?

sometimes people are just responsible for their behaviour. i know that's not a particularly fashionable viewpoint either. it doesn't make them 'sun EVIL', but certainly they're a lot closer to that than martyrs to the media or victims of our modern society.

haven't seen the papers today but i presume the independent has john pilger in to blame this all on israel

And, for balance, David Aaronvitch or Nick Cohen to blame it all on Muslims

i bet the portuguese cops had a file on the mccanns for it.

Q: What was the biggest mountain in the world before Everest was discovered?

Mauna Loa, and it still is. Oh god I hate myself.

...and some scottish guy to blame it on rupert murdoch xxp

The big question is where exactly was Peter Mandelson when Shannon Matthews went missng

niall quinn wants to stress that he doesn't hold any hard feelings for roy keane over it though.

guyz, shannon matthews' mum is not working as an agent of the media here, not in any form nor by any remove

What on earth is "an agent of the media"?

sometimes people are just responsible for their behaviour

This argument has nothing to do with "responsibility": let's just agree now that KM et al are responsible for their own behaviour, however you want to define responsible. It's about influence; about the two-way interaction between what people perceive to be going on around them, and how they act/react.

martyrs to the media

For fuck's sake. Once again: nobody for one second has suggested THE MEEJA has some kind of mind-control ray aime at Karen Matthews's head ...

or victims of our modern society

... but you genuinely don't think that Karen Matthews was in any way influenced by what she perceived to be going on around her; what she'd read in the papers about Madeleine McCann; by the (not necessarily modern, but qualitatively different in the modern-media age) desire to "be someone", be talked about?

let's just agree now that KM et al are responsible for their own behaviour, however you want to define responsible. It's about influence; about the two-way interaction between what people perceive to be going on around them, and how they act/react.

i'd like to define 'responsible' as it doesn't matter a damn how you can be 'influenced' into doing something like that to your daughter for cash, attention or any other reason.

you genuinely don't think that Karen Matthews was in any way influenced by what she perceived to be going on around her;

see above.

OK, you don't give a shit. Your world is black and white. Awesome: it must be wonderful to be so simple.

that's bollocks! sorry, but it really is.

the world isn't always black and white, but c'mon?

by extension, is anyone ever responsible for anything?

or is living in a council estate a get out of jail free card for everyone better off to pat their heads and say, "they don't know what they're doing, poor thing"? which is more damaging, patronising?

Find some middle ground, pat their heads with a long-armed baton.

some middle-class ground, surely

the (not necessarily modern, but qualitatively different in the modern-media age) desire to "be someone", be talked about?

Grimly you're broadly OTM but this is the bit where we start getting into realms of projection - I don't think we'll ever know the answer to this.

by extension, is anyone ever responsible for anything?

or is living in a council estate a get out of jail free card for everyone better off to pat their heads and say, "they don't know what they're doing, poor thing"? which is more damaging, patronising?

― darraghmac, Friday, 5 December 2008 12:22 (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

^ can we have this at the top of all ile bruk britain threads.

or just ban everybody for being a tory

Banning's too good for 'em

strange that marcello's care for the simple minded doesn't extend to the woolies employee taking too long to weigh out his pick n mix.

by extension, is anyone ever responsible for anything?

I don't have the time or the inclination (or, to be honest, the depth of understanding) to get into an argument about "free will"/epiphenomenalism/unconscious determinants; if you really want a thought-provoking answer to that question, I suggest you read Soon, Brass, Heinze and Haynes (2008).

But somehow I don't think you do. I really don't know what you want, Darraghmac: reassurance that these people AREN'T LIKE YOU; that the actions of anybody who might harm someone else have nothing to do with the cosy world you and your loved ones live in; that the fact the poor, or the morally bereft, or the mentally ill, or those who don't conform to societal norms have always been with us gives you carte blanche to ignore them; to separate them completely from your idea of society?

I can't offer you that. You seem to be doing a good job of convincing yourself, though: like I say, I dearly wish I could be that reductive. It would make my life a lot easier.

or is living in a council estate a get out of jail free card for everyone better off to pat their heads and say, "they don't know what they're doing, poor thing"? which is more damaging, patronising?

That would be an astoundingly patronising thing to say. But nobody's saying it. This is about the individuals involved in the case *and* the context in which the case happened. Personally, I think the two are so tied up with each other that it's almost impossible to extricate them. For you, though, it's obviously all about the individual.

^^^ why is this guy unemployed

Because what began as a safety net has become a way of life for these people

why is this guy unemployed

Oy, I'm not *yet*. But it looms.

Because what began as a safety net has become a way of life for these people

What, newspaper journalism? :)

sick's a sort of m'taffer for the way these people lead their lives

But somehow I don't think you do. I really don't know what you want, Darraghmac: reassurance that these people AREN'T LIKE YOU;

yes, that's all. thanks. sterling levels of projection there, and a further play on the (straw) man and not the ball. because i'm an upper-middle class daily mail reading solicitor from hertfordshire or somewhere, and have never even met anybody that's poor, mentally unstable, has issues with substance abuse or any other problems- obviously, if this weren't the case then i'd absolutely agree with everything you say.

how about a viewpoint that 'these people' are exactly the same as anyone else, incuding me or you? that their sense of right and wrong is as equally developed as yours and mine, and that making excuses based on the latest sociology textbook you may have read may be comforting, but is much more along these lines-

reassurance that these people AREN'T LIKE YOU;

than anything i've had to say on the matter.

how about a viewpoint that 'these people' are exactly the same as anyone else, incuding me or you? that their sense of right and wrong is as equally developed as yours and mine, and that making excuses based on the latest sociology textbook you may have read may be comforting, but is much more along these lines-

Well durr. Last time I looked mothers on council estates weren't kidnapping their own children in their droves.

well durr indeed. you can't expect me to know that, i'm not leaving my living room in hertfordshire to find out. they're all feral out there, you know.

No middle class parent has ever mistreated their children. Simply doesn't happen.

GREAT POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

clearly not- they're not stupid enough to let the sun make them, see?

http://www.davidosler.com/sun%20wot%20won%20it.jpg

xpost
That's not fair. Most of us here do not learn about the misfortune of others through sociology texts.

Uneducated, mendacious people with deluded Cunning Plans have always walked among us and in the absence of stockades we have tabloid media to pillory them. At the same time, the broadsheet mentality was keen to let the viewer or reader know "much comment was made of the seven children to five different fathers" so there is this sort of mass rubbernecking which serves to reassure the participants that there is a difference between THESE people and THOSE people. Obviously I couldn't begin to propose what to do with people who are from generations of jobless who can't or won't work BUT from my limited exposure, filling out social-services paperwork for self and seven children might well be a full time job for someone with skills that poor. Nobody's asking Karen Matthews what her own parents were like....

BTW when the middle classes do something mendacious, it usually involves an elderly relative.

how about a viewpoint that 'these people' are exactly the same as anyone else, incuding me or you? that their sense of right and wrong is as equally developed as yours and mine, and that making excuses based on the latest sociology textbook you may have read may be comforting ...

It's an interesting point, and -- if I didn't get the impression you were bashing that post out in a pissed-off frenzy -- I'd be interested in hearing you articulate it.

If we basically agree that there's no fundamental qualitative difference between Karen Matthews, you and me, then surely we're interested in exactly the same question: what led to her carrying out such a fucking appalling act on her own daughter? At least, I'm assuming you're interested -- if, as some of your earlier posts suggest, you just want to file this away under "appalling aberration" and never think about it again, I don't see why you'd still be posting about it :)

As I said: my (naive, poorly informed) notion is that this was an act of morally bankrupt desperation for a) money and b) some twisted, fucked-up form of social standing. What makes it so worrying from a sociological point of view is what Marcello suggested earlier: that the entire thing is a warped, fucked-up reflection of the modern media "taste" for such crimes, for want of a better word. At base: if it hadn't been for Madeleine McCann and the hysterical tabloid reporting of the case, would Karen Matthews have done anything so desperate/desperately wrong?

I'm guessing you think she would, and I'm really intrigued to know why; what peculiarly individual motivation she had that can be completely and utterly dissociated from her environment/society and her perception of it.

I don't like the continuing use of the word "desperation"

Don't you think it was a pretty desperate thing to do?

I can downgrade it to "desire" if you like, although ... that doesn't feel right, somehow.

"Desperation" makes it sound like an end-of-your-tether act, somehow worthy of some understanding and sympathy. There's no evidence that Karen Matthews was at the end of any tether.

I agree with Tom.

There's no evidence that Karen Matthews was at the end of any tether

You're right; perhaps (as Darragmac might or might not be suggesting) I simply want to believe she was, as part of trying to explain how she could do something so vile.

But even if she wasn't desperate and was just greedy: it doesn't negate my suggestion that what she did looks very like it was both fed and facilitated by how she imagined the media would react.

Fucking hell, Darraghmac: sorry.

Also it seems utterly mental to be separating the role of the media from all this because Karen Matthews could not even have attempted this without using the media as a tool.

If you wave a shiny thing in front of people, they'll do some mad shit to try and get hold of it. They might kidnap their daughter, they might create one of the greatest works of art in history, it depends entirely on the individual. No one here is disputing that. This is fairly obviously caused in part by the culture created by the media in this country, but it's a new and particularly nasty mutation of an age-old phenomenon.

I don't even believe that it is that new

By new I really mean 'could conceivably have happened at any time over the last 50 years'.

This is fairly obviously caused in part by the culture created by the media in this country, but it's a new and particularly nasty mutation of an age-old phenomenon

Yes. Absolutely.

As I suggested to Ned upthread, though: there's something so "new" about this particular case as to be horrifically fascinating.

could conceivably have happened at any time over the last 50 years

Oh: you think? Nah, I can't see this particular case having happened all that long ago; I mean, newspapers were nowhere near as hysterical and willing to fling cash around even 20 years ago.

The newest aspect is the Feral Underclass You Wouldn't Believe How These People Actually Live aspect, which is only new in the sense that it hasn't been this strongly in evidence since the Victorians

I didn't get the impression you were bashing that post out in a pissed-off frenzy

completely guilty, true. mostly fuelled by jibes and assumptions like

if, as some of your earlier posts suggest, you just want to file this away under "appalling aberration" and never think about it again.

If we basically agree that there's no fundamental qualitative difference between Karen Matthews, you and me

well i think we do, and i'm sure to go further into that aspect would only require another clusterf*ck thread anyway- i think there's a decent thread on some of the crossover matters (long term unemployment, etc) going on at the moment anyway.

At base: if it hadn't been for Madeleine McCann and the hysterical tabloid reporting of the case, would Karen Matthews have done anything so desperate/desperately wrong?

I'm guessing you think she would, and I'm really intrigued to know why;

i can see the link between the mccann case, and yes- more specifically the media reporting of that case.

there's a link to where the idea came from. i just really don't believe that where the idea came from is the fundamental issue. i'm sure it's very intellectually stimulating, but it's not a real issue. the real issue is that a woman kidnapped her daughter in order to make money, regardless of what caused the lightbulb to appear over her head.

the jump between seeing where she got the idea to do this and saying that nothing like this could have happened without the media reporting of the mccann case is one i just can't make, so

I'm guessing you think she would, and I'm really intrigued to know why

yeah, i'm pretty sure that all wasn't well in camelot before this happened, and that this was waiting to happen, rather than caused in any way by reporting of the other case.

sorry, that's too long.

Grimly - yeah okay, this scam could have happened for as long as third parties have been offering silly rewards for returning missing shit.

what peculiarly individual motivation she had that can be completely and utterly dissociated from her environment/society and her perception of it.

well, the desire for lots more money is one we can all share. the media attention/drama/lots of sympathy is probably more individual. like you've said up above, individual motivations to perform any act are impossible to delve into from outside someone else's skin.

but in lots of cases (child kidnapping is probably one of the good, juicy ones) isn't it a good thing that we don't really look to hard at motive when deciding whether they're BAD THINGS TO DO, regardless of whether the person is dumber/poorer/smarter/richer than us?

I suppose the next logical step for the tabloids will be to try and get to Shannon herself - get her to tell her side of the story for the rest of her life, say they'll pay six-figure sums which she'll never see, pester her relentlessly, fuck her life up totally.

So what if someone's life is fucked up? It's A Good Story!

she only has herself to blame, imho.

fuck her life up totally.

Her mum stole a march on the tabloid press there

karen matthews looks a bit like sean ryder, imo.

but in lots of cases (child kidnapping is probably one of the good, juicy ones) isn't it a good thing that we don't really look to hard at motive when deciding whether they're BAD THINGS TO DO, regardless of whether the person is dumber/poorer/smarter/richer than us?

Darragh, sorry: I really did want to respond to this yesterday but I got caught up with other stuff and it slipped my mind.

Again, that's an interesting point. I guess what you're saying is there are some crimes that are so abhorrent that they should just be condemned for what they are, and that's final. It's not an argument I've ever even considered myself (not least, I guess, because of the nature of both my dying journalistic career and what I'm back at university studying now) but it does of course feed back into the basic point I've been trying to illustrate: ie if the whole OMG-CRIME-CRIME-CRIME/"good story" culture didn't exist, would this case have happened?

Despite that, I'm going to say no, I firmly believe that trying to understand motivation is hugely important in order for any of us to progress as individuals; to understand more about society/societies; and subsequently for those societies to develop in a positive way. I guess that what I would like is a less hysterical take on the reporting and analysis of such stories. And fundamentally I'm optimistic enough to think that this will eventually happen -- particularly as the death of the British newspaper as we know it is pretty much round the next bend.

Odd but interesting piece about the case, and the concept of "evil", by the psychologist Ian Stephen in yesterday's Sunday Herald.

I firmly believe that trying to understand motivation is hugely important in order for any of us to progress as individuals; to understand more about society/societies; and subsequently for those societies to develop in a positive way.

i think anyone would find it hard to disagree with this, in fairness. but i think where we're parting ways here is positing 'motivation' of any type that mitigates the behaviour in this individual case, or in any case so extreme.

and i do think that the motivation in this particular case is pretty clear cut- wealth, fame and massive public sympathy. yes, you can delve deeper to ask where those motivations come from, and the media coverage of the mccann case would definitely be part of that, but is it really an important factor?

the description of the woman as being evil as if that answers all questions of motivation/motive is pointless enough, i'm with you there.

Let's save evil for Mugabe or something?

Motivation never mitigates unacceptable behaviour towards a child; selfish and stupid go together like scratch cards and White Lightning. Whatever that makes Karen Matthews, I think it was wrong for the police to characterize her as 'evil' in their lap of victory (winners, where?) but then DUH POLICE, hardly the people you'd go to for a prepared opinion on anything.

don't get me wrong, she should still be publicly beaten though.

Odd but interesting piece about the case, and the concept of "evil", by the psychologist Ian Stephen in yesterday's Sunday Herald.

Shannon was obviously in a place of safety compared to where she was before in the family home.

That's right - being drugged and tethered by a noose for almost a month is safer than being plonked in front of your telly. Her Mum was only looking out for her best interests.

"She is basically someone of low intellect" - "Karen Matthews was an extremely deprived individual who wasn't very bright" - "impressionable people" - "If Matthews had been a more intelligent person" - "You can compare Matthews to children, who are not capable of standing trial"

Stupid people can be bad people too. There's no way this woman is like a child incapable of standing trial.

I'm sick of people pointing out that Shannon wasn't raped, like that means she isn't an abused child, abused by the people she trusted most.

"She is basically someone of low intellect" - "Karen Matthews was an extremely deprived individual who wasn't very bright" - "impressionable people" - "If Matthews had been a more intelligent person" - "You can compare Matthews to children, who are not capable of standing trial"

again, this is much more blatant dehumanisation of matthews than simply saying 'she's stupid, but an awful person'

Shannon was obviously in a place of safety compared to where she was before in the family home

Yes, this is a really fucking odd line, which -- had I been editing the piece -- I'd have rung him to discuss. Deeply, deeply bizarre comment.

again, this is much more blatant dehumanisation of matthews than simply saying 'she's stupid, but an awful person'

Eh? I don't see why it's "dehumanising" at all; and certainly don't see why it would be any more or less so than your second statement.

essentially, the difference is that one angle claims the woman is too stupid to effectively tell right from wrong.

I can't tell right from wrong sometimes either.

xpost

Ah, right: I see what you mean. Only I don't agree that this is Ian Stephen's point (or mine); again, I'm looking at this in shades of grey while you're taking a much more black-and-white approach. So just because you're saying (and I don't think I'm misrepresenting your argument here!): "She's an awful person, and that's that", I'm not saying: "She's too stupid to tell right from wrong, and that's that"; rather, I'm saying that there are all manner of contextual factors, as well as individual ones, that should be taken into account here.

taken into account when doing what?

(serious question)

When discussing the case!

Or, less pertinently to this thread but of rather more importance in the wider world, when cobbling together absurd front-page newspaper stories with the word "EVIL" splashed across them. Or making ill-thought-out comments in your role as a senior policeman. Etc.

I would say "sentencing" and "rehabilitation".

I'm looking at this in shades of grey while you're taking a much more black-and-white approach

and i accept this. and i'm wondering why 'shades of grey' is necessarily a good thing, or a necessity at all. it just seems that you can edge towards infinite uncertainty, when you start to move away from the events and start to delve into the reasons/reasoning behind them.

Or, less pertinently to this thread but of rather more importance in the wider world, when cobbling together absurd front-page newspaper stories with the word "EVIL" splashed across them. Or making ill-thought-out comments in your role as a senior policeman. Etc.

ok, we can agree that people directly involved in reporting or investigating the case are under obligation to maybe hold themselves in a bit more professional reserve (or not, in the case of tabloids).

EVIL sells tabloids, stupid buys them...

Blaming the underclass for their stupefying behaviour is an own-goal all around as we are all implicated by dehumanization. I think the bit that foxes me about the local social services is the report I saw where neighbours reported Matthews to child welfare because her children were often found not in nappies, but in carrier-bags-as-substitute. It's kind of a WHOA SHIT line you'd think that if known to be crossed, action should be taken.

It is like telling everyone I have lost my dog and someone else putting up a reward, when, in fact, the dog isn't lost and on his return I try to claim the reward,

ok, that's as far into that article as i got. sorry.

Yeh, that dog thing was also a bit O_o.

and i'm wondering why 'shades of grey' is necessarily a good thing, or a necessity at all

Well, for me it comes back to the "understand more, condemn less" thing I tried to outline above (ie a society that does the former is one I'm happier being a part of).

well, me too, theoretically and generally!

specifically, and realistically i can't see much point in this case in trying to 'understand' this woman, and not because i'm trying to pretend she doesn't exist, or that she's inalienably different to me as a species- i just can't see the useful outcome that might arise.

(and i'm aware that's kinda the type of response that sent you off on one several times already on this thread- it's not designed to, it's just my knee jerking again)

i mean, i can see why it's interesting when discussing the case, as you've said above.

but if i was, ah let's make it hollywood and say i'm on a jury, for instance- then i'll listen to this analysis, and yes, i'll understand it- but if i'm asked to make my own judgement on how it should affect sentencing/guilt, i'll discount it entirely.

In the Sun: references to "SHANNON FREAK" and "FREAK OUT" and, apropos Baby P/Haringey, lots of GOTCHA!-type crowing over Shoesmith losing her job.

Never mind that social services in general will find it harder to attract workers and thus more children will die as a result.

Condemn, vilify, smear, crow.

And circulation and therefore profits go up.

Because that's what it's all about - nothing to do with the genuine welfare of children, and everything to do with it being A Good Story.

eight years.

might as well get it over with and vote nazi.

racism.

DG killin it on this thread.

a sad day for british justice

Eight years? A bit stiff, compared with the six years the men who tortured and raped that girl with learning difficulties received.

Two years suspended and a caution would have been more than adequate, with some psychiatric/social services follow-up in the community.

But the judge preferred to bow to tabloid mentality (cf. Boy George) and make an example of a woman who was clearly stupid and deluded but not "evil." Since, as we all know, the worst crime anyone - but especially a vulnerable and easily impressionable woman - can commit in Britain in 2009 is to make the media look stupid.

How long before the Shannon Matthews In Lesbian Relationship With Fellow Prisoner stories start?

six years the men who tortured and raped that girl with learning difficulties received.

dyou mean they were sentenced to this (which would be light) or they got this (depressingly par for the course)? she probably won't do eight, is the thing.

"Number Six" joke in five... four...

It's that whole mentality of "abhorrent action by a mother" which seems to be the biggest crime imaginable.

"the biggest crime imaginable"

^^ who says it's this?

talk about hysterical reactions to 'hysterical reactions'.

"abhorrent action by a mother" or just "abhorrent action by a woman", remember Maxine Carr?

I think the ringleader got eight years but the other two got six years each - it was their sentence (xxxp).

All other considerations aside, anybody convicted of kidnap, false imprisonment and perverting the course of justice is unlikely to receive a suspended sentence I'd've thought.

If the victim is kidnapped by her mother (and neither has gone abroad) does that technically count as kidnapping?

Absolutely yes. In law it clearly does, and I agree. Children ought to be afforded the same protection by the law as anybody else, and being related to the offender shouldn't really be a consideration as far as I can see.

um marcie that's kind of 'is it really rape if they're married?' territory.

horrible case of neglect/abuse locally has made the news in Ireland this past few days, a mother again getting heavy sentence (7 years). Details are sketchy but very WTF so far (Health Boards aware and involved for 16 years, right wing catholic organisations funding high court appeals against removal of custody).

The whole presumption that kids are always better off with their parents is very difficult. It feels to me like it's become an unquestionable orthodoxy within social services, but I only obliquely have any dealings with those guys nowadays so I accept I could be wrong. I'm aware of enough cases where you just think "for fuck's sake, better off anywhere other than with the parents" to believe that issues revolving around children's best interests - and I think it's only the child's best interests that matter, really - need some deep and serious reassessment.

when your parents/parents friends are kiddie porn fans who give you temazepan and kidnap you, you can see why the presumption falls down sometimes.

And yet here we still are. I've known other cases nearly as head-fucked.

It's complicated, yanking children out of families willy-nilly isn't exactly great for the children either

Like I said, yeah it's complicated and the alternatives aren't generally brilliant but condemning children to spend their lives with fuckwits and worse because you're worried about the psychological harm of taking them away needs more thought than it's currently getting.

The care system having such an unblemished record when it comes to child protection an' all

This needn't be an either or between family molestors and institutional molestors. The point isn't that children aren't removed because the alternatives are so terrible, but because there is an almost unexamined belief in the importance of the relationship between a child and its biological parent/s.

Blame psychology for that one

i'd assume that the costs involved are prohibitive, more than any ideology problems with it.

completely agree with NV- some of the most disputed the issues surrounding the case in ireland are to do with the unquestioned assumption that the family unit had to be maintained regardless of the demonstrable harm being done to the kids involved.

This still doesn't address the question of whether this was, legally, "kidnapping."

Unlawful imprisonment? Undoubtedly. Abuse? Debatable. But not, technically, kidnapping, and therefore carrying different penalties.

Abuse? Debatable.

What?

http://www.insidesocal.com/prepsports/coin%2520flip.jpg

if she was found guilty of kidnapping, i'm going to go ahead and just assume that it falls under whatever category they needed.

Which is why we have laws - things which define crime that has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, rather than things which are "assumed." A process which takes due note of reasoned evidential argument, as opposed to pandering to whipped up baying mob hysteria.

We also have a jury system, where people can make up their own minds

Unfortunately juries can be swayed by populist opinion. When you have a situation where the chief police officer investigating the crime describes Karen Matthews as "pure evil" and a media shrieking in pseudo-righteous outrage for Justice then it's hard to stay objective.

This is getting silly

Not at all, Tom.

That she committed an awful crime and should have been punished in some way or another is not in question.

Stupid? Yes. Deluded, greedy, craven, naive, obtuse, cruel? Yes. "Pure evil"? No.

I believe in proper justice. I also believe in the due process of fair trials and verdicts arrived at through reason and precedent, not to satisfy slavering newspaper editors hungry for a Good Story.

fuck sake

no, no, hear him out.

http://www.thesuperheroquiz.com/villain/pics/two-face.jpg

Pure evil? No

One stupid policeman said this, who else did? The trial judge even dismissed this comment as bollocks

how is this 'not' kidnapping? seriously i want you to tell me.

I'd like someone to tell me how it is kidnapping, when she was never actually separated from her immediate or extended family.

As I said, book her for unlawful imprisonment and whatever child abuse-related crimes apply, but kidnapping?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping

shut up

thanks dan

Interesting that it's still a common law in the UK rather than a statute.

Unfortunately because there has been so much projection, speculation and fabrication surrounding this case - on both sides - it's never going to become clear what actually did happen. And the only person who could know for sure what actually happened - the child herself - was not called to the witness box.

What I do know is that the sentence is out of all proportion regardless of what did happen and that a silly woman who needs help and rehabilitation is going to get none. And I propose that the sentence would have been nowhere near eight years had the media not been screaming for a "result."

"a silly woman who needs help and rehabilitation is going to get none"

^this. and her six other kids? goes back to what was said upthread. but where did they figure when she was sentenced to eight years?

There's silly and there's, uh, silly

Marcello should write a David Peace style novel about this.

Or maybe David Peace should write a novel about Marcello.

I could coach Michael Sheen on Marcello's accent and mannerisms

Damned Utd style tale of his time at Uncut.

And the only person who could know for sure what actually happened - the child herself - was not called to the witness box.

yeah, the kid obviously knew the ins and outs of the whole thing.

NOT!!!!

I heard she masterminded the whole thing

woah, maybe shannon has munchausen's

trying to make her maw look psycho

her six other kids? goes back to what was said upthread. but where did they figure when she was sentenced to eight years?

― yungblut, 27 January 2009 15:14 (1 hour ago) Bookmark

that they'd be better off, probably.

And the only person who could know for sure what actually happened - the child herself - was not called to the witness box.

― Ben E Gesserit (Marcello Carlin), Tuesday, 27 January 2009 15:05 Bookmark Suggest Ban

"Sorry your honour, I'm afraid was out of my fucking skull on temazepam and tethered by a noose to the ceiling so I might have missed a couple of the finer points..."

If you look at the police reports they variously state the following:

a) Shannon wasn't harmed;
b) Shannon was drugged;
c) Shannon was taken out of the house regularly;
d) Shannon was tied up;
e) Shannon was just staying with her relatives and wasn't worried;
f) Shannon suffered a "terrible ordeal."

Some of these conflicting points would go together, but not all of them.

Possible explanations:
a) The police were telling the truth as they initially believed it at the time and for obvious and entirely understandable reasons it took Shannon a while to disclose the whole story;
b) The events were, um, embellished a little in order to achieve a fast conviction, meet police/CPS targets and satisfy the media.

As I say, we're probably never going to know the full story, but this doesn't detach from the fact that eight years is out of proportion to the crime that was actually committed.

Far easier and far more convenient to make an example of the shambolic, devious and gullible "chav" mother rather than offer her the psychiatric help that she clearly needs.

perhaps instead of wasting your time here you could more profitably set up an appeal fund?

Proper thread

:D

iirc this is where the 'darragh is the earl of limerick' tory shit really took hold

Im neither ftr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping

shut up

― Barack You Like A Husseincane (HI DERE), Tuesday, 27 January 2009 14:31 (4 years ago)

decontextualised this is a wonderful post

The same with Baby P - the system was rotten and needs changing, and I'm not saying that managers who can't manage shouldn't be replaced, but it's the system (which the Government instituted in the first place, and which Haringey Social Services were only following) that needs to be overhauled. Instead people's reputations and future job prospects are ruined. How does that save any children?

And of course, for every Baby P that gets missed due to mistakes (or, as seems to have been the case in Haringey, due to understaffing, overwork and - only very slightly possibly - less than ideal management practices) there are hundreds of kids whose lives are saved by social workers on a daily basis, but since none of these is A Good Story, we never hear about them.

In the Sun: references to "SHANNON FREAK" and "FREAK OUT" and, apropos Baby P/Haringey, lots of GOTCHA!-type crowing over Shoesmith losing her job.

Never mind that social services in general will find it harder to attract workers and thus more children will die as a result.

Condemn, vilify, smear, crow.

And circulation and therefore profits go up.

Because that's what it's all about - nothing to do with the genuine welfare of children, and everything to do with it being A Good Story.

Marcello Carlin very otm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04n6sm0/baby-p-the-untold-story

http://i.imgur.com/NHmxo7X.jpg

so probably happened

one detail about this case I totally missed at the time was that Michael Donovan, the deeply unpleasant looking dead-eyed Shannon Matthews abductor from Batley, was originally born Paul Drake and had changed his name by deed poll in tribute to a fictional character he strongly related to (Mike Donovan - heroic leader of the human resistance, lol) from 80's lizard alien invasion sci-fi series V.

I'd completely forgotten that June Chadwick (Jeanine from This is Spinal Tap) was in V! I'd also forgotten about Shannon Matthews, the entire family I hope are currently residing in the "where are they now?" file.

A couple of weeks back on a Sunday afternoon, a large part of Dewsbury town centre was cordoned off and I had to get off the bus in Savile Town, it wasn't going any further. The police were searching the Calder for human remains, some random bloke told me and I said: suicide, is it? and he shook his head quizzically. Asda was almost empty and unusually library quiet. I thought Dewsbury is back, baby! (it's only ever back when something shit happens here)