To think this is a new journalistic low for even the Daily Fail...

[TheSecretCervix]

For shaming a pre-schooler for having a dummy still?

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3191650/Why-does-Harper-four-use-dummy-Experts-warn-David-Victoria-Beckham-s-little-girl-end-speech-dental-issues-continues-use-one.html

For those that don't want to click the link it's a story about David and Harper Beckham out together, looking like a really happy family, and she has a dummy in her mouth.

No matter what you think of dummy use or the Beckham's for that matter surely they shouldn't be printing stories about 4 year olds?
Makes me sad for her.

[EmeraldKitten]

Why? I doubt she reads the papers or will be aware of it in any way.

When people tut and eye roll at children with a dummy it's the parents they're judging and 'shaming' not the child - i can't see this is any different tbh.

[Bullshitbingo]

Agree. The media shouldn't print photos or stories of people's children, regardless of who their parents are. Very wrong. Best thing we can do is vote with our feet and not buy/read/click on this nonsense.

[hazeyjane]

bloody hell, a DM journo researching for a 'what do mums think....???' article about harper and her dummy, and this thread.

It is a child. Using a dummy. It is not a big deal.

(and tbh a new low for the mail would have to be pretty bloody low because they are already way down in the sewer)

[ollieplimsoles]

I had a dummy til I was 5, I used to take it to school, when I was finally weaned off it, I stated sucking my thumb, all night and day. I still do it now, apart from a slightly shrivelled thumb, I'm perfectly fine.

As usual they are making a mountain out of a molehill, trying to get a reaction from parents, and trying to invent yet another way to make parents feel like they are fucking up their children. Pay no heed.

[DadfromUncle]

Nothing the Fail does surprises me any more. I wish people didn't buy it.

[charlestonchaplin]

I'm not sure if you're being serious but I'll assume you are. I don't think you know the meaning of the word shame. I'm sure four year olds are capable of feeling shame, but not in this context. Her parents may be unhappy with the story but Harper will not care one jot, neither is she likely to hear of the article.

I don't think this is a new Daily Mail low either, they've run much worse stories.

[EmpressKnowsWhereHerTowelIs]

Look.... www.mumsnet.com/Talk/media_requests/a2445353-Children-using-dummies-aged-four-and-beyond?msgid=56040856#56040856

[Chunkymonkey79]

It has fuck all to do with anybody else but the parents.

DM is being ridiculous.

[Rhine]

My DB still had his dummy at 6! I didn't have a dummy but instead sucked my thumb, and I didn't give that up until I started secondary school!

A ridiculous non story here.

[The80sweregreat]

it was a fairly big front page picture too, if I were the Beckhams I would be furious, but I guess they are used to all this and probably doing much more fabulous things than reading the papers.

[chocolateymilkshake]

'Using a dummy is quiet ridiculous'

[Quiero]

It's a non story. Loads of 4 year olds still have dummies for endless numbers of reasons.

However, I do not believe for a second that David Beckham is a Pink Floyd fan so the real question is why was he wearing that t-shirt?

[WashingUpFairy]

The Daily Mail is a disgusting rag for horrible people to judge others and justify themselves.

Don't pay it any attention.

[Redshoes55]

I think the Beckhams seem a lovely family and nice enough people so of course the daily mail hate them.

A 4 year old uses a dummy! So fucking what. God that vile rag makes me vomit.

[TheSecretCervix]

I don't think it matter whether she sees it today or not, presumably as she grows up she will have access to google. I also don't think it matters if she feels shame today or not, to some extent that makes it worse as they are writing about someone who can't give their opinion on what has been written about them.
I don't know maybe I am being silly but I have a DS who is a similar age and imaging him being judged in a national newspaper for still carrying his blanket or rabbit just really makes me feel quite upset.

[TheSecretCervix]

quiero

[limitedperiodonly]

It's not a low, it's average for the Daily Mail.

What I'd call low would be something like Jan Moir's piece on Stephen Gately, or Richard Littlejohn's thoughts on the trans woman teacher Lucy Meadows which may have contributed to her taking her own life. Or their vicious campaign against Ed Miliband using his dead dad Ralph.

Or just everyday shit against benefit scroungers, asylum terrorists and union scum.

Why do you read it? What do you expect to find? A measured analysis of why so many people are fleeing war-torn and poverty-stricken areas for the relative safety of a precarious life in the EU and what we should do about it?

They do this all the time. Have you only just noticed?

If it offends you don't buy and don't click.

[charlestonchaplin]

Exactly. Parents can be upset by these sorts of comments and that is a valid point to make, but the children are not bothered, now or in the future probably. The way the Daily Mail see it, the parents are in the public eye and make their living by courting publicity. The Beckhams especially, it can be argued, use their children as part of their image, so they are seen as fair game.

[MidniteScribbler]

I think that writing stories about 'celebrities' is one thing, but that children should be pretty much off limits. They don't choose that lifestyle, and this girl is going to grow up one day, and will have others at school pulling up articles about her, and she may well be embarrassed. The media should consider their actions (not that I would expect the DM to do that!). What's wrong with a 'family enjoy day out' story, rather than some 'experts' who don't even know the family making a big deal out of something which is probably very common for many young children?

[limitedperiodonly]

The Daily Mail see everyone as fair game whether they're famous or not.

It's useful for them to present themselves as champions of free speech and exposers of hypocrisy. Otherwise they might have to find some real news and let's face it, that's not what their millions of readers want.

I thought they had a point with Hugh Grant, but when you look at it, he doesn't court publicity. He does piss them off though.

The Beckhams did and possibly still do, so my sympathy is less for them and this story isn't the worst the Mail can do by a long chalk.

[treaclesoda]

I thought you were going to link to the story about how everyone in Europe can use the NHS even if they've never lived here. Because my bullshit radar shot sky high when I read that one...

[FoodieMum3]

I agree but I don't understand why the Beckhams allow their kids to be photographed? Other celebrities' kids faces must be pixilated so the paps don't bother much with those families.

[limitedperiodonly]

There is no obligation to pixellate anything unless there is a court order, or the pictures are taken on private property or in a country such as France which has an actual privacy law.

In reality France is like the Wild West if the money is good enough.

Some people are hypocrites. Those pix of Kate Middleton topless were a case in point. They were taken in a private place via a long lens from a very long way on a public road.

I thought she was entitled to expect privacy under all the circumstances but it wasn't worth kicking a fuss up about it, and yet the overwhelming MN view was that she should have kept her top on

But if the picture is taken outside those areas then they might choose to pixellate for other reasons.

With children it's chiefly that the parent is litigious and might be able to argue a real or imagined case for child protection. That case would be strong if you were Jude Law and Sadie Frost and somewhat diminished if you are David and Victoria Beckham or Kanye West and Kim Kardashian.

Much as people dislike her, Gwyneth Paltrow's children are generally pixellated because she doesn't use them for publicity. Same with the hated Keira Knightley.

I don't think newspapers should routinely pixellate any images of people of whatever age taken on public property.

I do think they should take reasonable requests to desist into account and avoid publishing pictures of distress provoked by photographers - though not in all circumstances.

[Icimoi]

Isn't there something in the Press code of practice to the effect that they shouldn't print pictures of the children of celebrities without their consent if the only reason for doing so is who their children are? It's pretty clear that that's the only reason for this story, blatantly they don't give a shit about the dummy issue.