To feel a programme dramatising Shannon Matthew's disappearance is in poor taste?

[Annie592]

I watched it. I quite enjoyed it. (I think Sheridan Smith is amazing.). But it doesn't sit quite right with me. I want to be able to say why, but I can't explain it. Maybe because a real life case of a nine year old's abuse doesn't feel like something that should be used for entertainment? Wondering if anyone agrees and can articulate it better? Or whether it's actually an important topic to talk about and I'm being stupid. I honestly don't know. Would appreciate mumsnet thoughts!

Dixie that's the point of the title. The working class are demonised and one of the ways they are demonised is by being called chavs.

I live on a social housing estate Dixie and believe me i know all about stereotypes. Im childfree by choice and EVERY article about women like me that ive read or item ive seen on the news infers that women who make this choice are high flying career women. Im a full time carer to DH.

People cant see that some of us lower down the socio economic scale can make similar life choices that those further up it do. Or dont want to see it because it interferes with the stereotype.

Chavs is a book critiquing the very fact that the term is used to derogatise the working classes. It's an excellent book. So you're jumping to the wrong conclusions dixie.

The BBC massively overstepped the mark. And becausebecause its more complex than 'having children for benefits' That's just a dismissive evaluation used so people don't spend too much time trying to get to grips with and underdstand the underlying real issues and motivations. I personally felt the case was sad for everyone concerned. The level of education Shannon's mother had was extremely lacking for one thing. It seemed obvious she had real needs that had themselves never been addressed. And having a lot of children gives you lots of contact with professionals like midwives, healthvisitors, doctors, teachers etc, so what happened there?

Oh I understand the underlying motivations alright Antique, cash for her slob lifestyle - something no other strapped resident of that estate so low for.

From Karen Mathews sister - ""Where Karen Matthews is concerned, if it was the money or Shannon the money would always have won," said Det Supt Brennan.

Matthews's own sister, Julie Poskitt, said the successive pregnancies were a way of increasing her benefit claims. She described how Matthews would tape carrier bags to her babies' bottoms "because she never bought nappies" www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/shannon-matthews-trial-dysfunctional-family-children-equalled/

Forgive me if I don't join your bleeding heart liberal need to understand the deeper soul of this cretin. My DH was briefly married to such a woman and I know for a fact there was no underlying trauma or mental illness. Some evil bastards are just that, evil bastards.

No forgiveness necessary! I'm afraid I don't subscribe to the simplistic view that people simply are 'evil'. They become so through a range of familial, and societal pressures. Many seemingly 'good' people have found themselves capable of doing some very wicked things when thrust into circumstances that made being 'good' less expedient for some reason. 99% of the time, when one looks into the background of some of the worse criminal offenders, one finds a pattern of childhood abuse and neglect. As for Matthews sister, why did she not do something re nappies- tell the authorities for eg?

I'm not defending Shannon's mother, was she did was despicable, and she had the same upbringing as her siblings, but I just hate the way her actions became an excuse to do some perceived 'underclass' profiling with the usual and not very creative 'its all for the benefits' trope thrown in. Reminds me of a commentator on tv insinuating that baby Ps mum would not have abused him if she had had a job. Completely overlooking her abusive upbringing and life in the care system. I do appreciate that at the end of the day these things must be put aside when sentencing somebody for what are ultimately still wicked actions, but the media ought to be more responsible. Anyway I study forensic psychology and criminal motivation is part of what I'm interested in, so yeah I'm pretty bleeding heart.

If it was meant to show community spirit - I'm not sure it even managed that. The friend just seemed to be bullying others into helping, deliberately ignoring the police pleas not to interfere, and neglecting her own kids.

This was my take too.

I didn't watch because I found the concept disturbing. It's one thing to make a programme 20 years later. But seriously, this is a person who spent the first half of her childhood abused and neglected, then became so high profile that she had an identity change. An identity change?! Imagine you had to pretend you weren't who you'd always been? That's awful, and to an INNOCENT child.

Then she spends the next half of her childhood essentially in hiding. And then just as she becomes a legal adult, setting sail into the world in her own right, someone decides to make entertainment about her trauma, deleting HER.

And it IS entertainment, or the BBC wouldn't have shown it. This wasn't made to show psychology masters students, this was on national TV at prime time.

And while other people get nights out, weekends away, stereos or whatever big gift to mark their adulthood, this person who has been through more than most of us would want to imagine gets HER trauma, the incident that deleted her previous existence put in national TV and told it's about "community spirit".

Maybe in another 10 years it would have still been difficult, but she'd at least have had a chance to be a adult first.

Watching/looking at child sexual abuse images ("child porn") is a crime in part because it perpetuates the crime for the victim long after it's taken place. I see this documentary, or whatever it's being called, as doing exactly that.

Excellent post sksinfood

Excellent post sksinfood

I didn't watch it, I don't think it should have been made so wouldn't want to boost the ratings at all.

Great post sksin

I think Karen Matthews is a despicable human being.

I also think Harold Shipman was a despicable human being. But we dont hear stereotypes and tropes about how all middle class doctors are murdering bastards and/or couldnt care less about their patients welfare do we!

Christ, if you think that is in poor taste then you should check out the musical! Includes "classics" like I've got a Plan (Based on Maddie McCann) and of course Shannon Ain't Dead (She's Under My Bed)...

(Yes, this is real. Check it out on Amazon Prime if you don't believe me.)

Actually don't go to Amazon Prime, they'll get royalties.

Its a tricky question: how soon is too soon for the dramatization of a true story?
I feel since this involved a child victim, only what, eight years, ago, it was probably too soon, yes. I wouldn't watch it.
But then I felt United 93 was too soon, and lots of other things. My rule of thumb in general would be to let 20 years (or so) elapse...

Helena
Harold Shipman is dead so can't be libelled. Karen Matthews has apparently been whinning about how she can't leave her house as she is so scared since the screening of this episode and that the truth will out eventually. I wonder..............
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/shannon-matthews-mum-karen-now-says-the-truth-will-come-out_uk_589c4262e4b076856218170e?

Dagenham I mentioned it to demonstrate that class stereotypes are more likely to be used as sweeping generalisations...."oh those types of ppl are all the same" when the perpetrator is someone who is lower down the socio economic scale.

Mick Philpott..............another sick despicable bastard I agree with him being described that way.

But men higher up the socio economic scale who commit family annihilation.........how often do we see in the press comments about what a "good father and husband" they were.

sksinfood

Yes, exactly right and why I didn't watch it either.

More than anything I don't see the point of it. There have been several documentaries about this case using all the footage that was re-enacted in the drama.

For anyone with a particular interest in it there are a couple of books documenting the behind the scenes stuff witnessed by the FLO.

I watched the first five minutes and thought "nah, not for me". Sheridan Smith was dreadful and I normally love her but this part was a one dimensional caricature.

During the trial, there was evidence of long-term neglect in the household. For example, Shannon frequently wrote notes saying she was hungry and wasn't fed dinner. Surely the grandparents were aware of that? Furthermore, it's clear from photos that her mother didn't care for Shannon's appearance. Why didn't her grandparents offer to wash/iron her school uniform?

You don't know how much access the grandparents got, or how much they were allowed to help. My father blocked access to my grandparents on numerous occasions. Maternal ones walked away in the end. Paternal ones didn't challenge him, didn't get into rows, didn't do anything that could spark him off and they did that because it meant they got to see us, to keep an eye on us, to take us for dinner after school a few times a week etc. The levels for removing children are so high that if SS don't deem it enough then a grandparent/other relative can be caught in a real catch 22. As it was my grandparents decisions worked, the minute my brothers confided in them how bad it was and showed aburn they took us and basically told my parents to go to court to get us back. Sometimes GP's/relatives have to accept low level neglect because it maintains communication so that when it does go really bad they know.

I don't really understand the comments (here and elsewhere) about the Julie character. I think she was a woman who thought that a child from a poor area and a poor family wasn't being given the priority she deserved. She thought her friend wasn't being helped and decided to do something about it. Some of the comments about the area and community at the time were awful. She was conned by Karen Matthews like everyone else.

Jeez and exactly why you are all so not the target audience. Duh

The Grandparents gave several interviews about how awful the childrens lives were (the ones living with Karen, 3 of her children lived with their Dads even before Karen was arrested). The Grandparents had a lot of contact.

People need to stop blaming the gps and Karen's siblings (up thread someone said Karen's sister should have done something about the fact Karen was using plastic bags to save on nappies) and start blaming the person at fault - Karen.

I remember the threads at the time and Karen's estranged sistr was an mner at the time and was horribly distressed at the portrayal of the whole family.

I just watched the first episode and was really touched by the way the community came together which certainly does happen in these situations and perhaps if Shannon is watching it now she will feel the same. Cared for and prayed for by a whole community of people that wanted her safe.

I understand where others are coming from about the trauma and betrayal for Shannon but this shows the other side of it too. The care that went into finding her.

I think Sheridan is an amazing actress the whole cast is superb I grew up in an estate like this and it is exactly spot on.