Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

To think this isn't news

30 replies

tyler80 · 09/07/2010 15:51

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1293165/Nanny-30-died-sexual-arousal-watching-pornography.html

Why on earth should this information be reported? there's just no need. Shame on the journalists and editor who thought this was newsworthy

OP posts:

proudnsad · 09/07/2010 15:53

I agree, horribly unnecessary. Really bad judgement.

BarmyArmy · 09/07/2010 15:53

Why shouldn't it? Got some hangups about sexual arousal, have we?

porcamiseria · 09/07/2010 15:54

agree, disrespectful
her poor Mum and Dad

Besom · 09/07/2010 15:55

No, the daily mail has hang ups about sexual arousal which is why they have printed it as 'news'. Her poor family.

ShinyAndNew · 09/07/2010 15:56

It's not a very respectful way to remember her is it? Her poor family.

BarmyArmy · 09/07/2010 15:58

Unfortunately (for some), coroner's courts are public spaces to which our free press has access.

Better things get reported than not.

Why 'her poor family'? Or am I missing something pretty obvious here - should they feel 'ashamed' as well?

Ohhh, the scandal - pass me the smelling salts!!

We do live in the 21st century and people have sex lives - big deal.

ConnorTraceptive · 09/07/2010 16:00

Awful for her family give the poor girl some dignity and privacy FFS.

ShinyAndNew · 09/07/2010 16:01

Imo there was nothing wrong with what she was doing, but it is private. Would you want the world to know you had gone that way? Or that your daughter had?

There was no reason for it to be reported. She is not a celeb. Had she died in her sleep it wouldn't be 'news', so why is it now?

Besom · 09/07/2010 16:01

Why does it need to be reported at all though? What is the possible public interest in it being reported?

Original poster

tyler80 · 09/07/2010 16:02

To be honest, if they'd just reported the sexual arousal aspect it wouldn't be so bad because it is relevant to the death. The vibrator and the pornography is absolutely not relevant and there is no reason for it's inclusion.

OP posts:

cestlavielife · 09/07/2010 16:03

typical daily mail - children's nannny should be prim and proper miss poppins with no sex life...

SixtyFootDoll · 09/07/2010 16:04

Most unecessary
The public dont need to know that

porcamiseria · 09/07/2010 16:05

barmy

they have lost their daughter, awful. and know all their relatives and friends need to read that she was chugging on her her vibrator watching porn. Its personal and embarassing, and I am sure that the dead girl would have been mortified

this is not me beiing victorian. I think its so disrespectful to her, she was not harming a soul and did not deserve to have this broadcst

LynetteScavo · 09/07/2010 16:08

I so did not need to know that.

It's not news.

MinnieMummy · 09/07/2010 16:12

Actually I'd say someone dying that young is (only slightly) newsworthy. Ironically it was the DM that implied young people don't die of heart attacks 'naturally' when Stephen Gately died. What it definitely is though is rubbish journalism - she did NOT die of 'sexual arousal' ffs!!

foureleven · 09/07/2010 16:12

That is appauling. Not only do we not need to know, I doubt the poor woman would want her face on a newspaper where all and sundry can read this.. the children she looked after, her grandparents, her partner... how utterly disrespectful to the womans privacy.

Original poster

tyler80 · 09/07/2010 16:19

My friend died in her sleep aged 20, I found her the next day. There was a tribute style article in the paper when it happened but nothing was ever reported after the coroner's inquiry.

Adult sudden death is, unfortunately, not that uncommon. From memory it's about 8 a week, Google "cardiac risk in the young" for proper stats and info

OP posts:

Besom · 09/07/2010 16:20

Tyler - I'm so sorry.

JaneS · 09/07/2010 16:23

'Why 'her poor family'? Or am I missing something pretty obvious here? '

Er, maybe because they've lost a 30-year-old relative?!

PortiaNovmerriment · 09/07/2010 16:33

You can complain to the PCC here, on the grounds of invasion of privacy and intrusion into private grief.

MrsC2010 · 09/07/2010 16:36

YADNBU

tethersend · 09/07/2010 16:44

Although I agree wholeheartedly that this is not news and a gross invasion of her and her family's privacy, I'm not sure posting a link to the story on an internet forum is the best way to honour her memory TBH...

LynetteScavo · 09/07/2010 16:46

Have complained.

5DollarShake · 09/07/2010 16:54

BarmyAmry - there is nothing wrong with what she was doing, but have you no sense of privacy at all?

We certainly do not need to know every time you have a shit, and likewise, we do not need to know all the circumstances around this poor girl's death. There is nothing in that news story that is in the public interest.

Trying to turn this around and make out that people who are objecting are prudes just makes you look a little bit dense.

Agree that posting a thread about this on a heavily populated forum like MN is a bit

Original poster

tyler80 · 09/07/2010 17:04

I got the figure wrong it's 12

Cardiac Research in the Young

Realised after I posted it that it might have been better to give a vague outline of the article rather than the daily wail getting the click throughs. Unfortunately no edit button

OP posts:

Flip

1 2