Madeleine McCann info shown before Shrek, anyone else cross about this?

[WideWebWitch]

I was. I have chosen NOT to tell my nearly 4yo about this. I haven't discussed it in detail with 9yo ds either I CHOOSE not to put the news on in our house. I really resent this being shoved at my children before a U cert movie. Completely inappropriate imo.

maybe worth a bump, so if you've seen the ad before Shrek and thought it inappropriate,

ASA form here

Well there you go Shiny, as so often happens on MN, warring parties were not so far apart after all.

And mine actually rarely watch Newsround at all.

As I do not allow Tv on week days.

Do they show that info film showing the effect of a child being knocked down at 30/40 etc. miles an hour at U certificate films? (Haven't taken DS to the cinema yet). To be honest, it is very unlikely that DS will be snatched from his bed while on holiday - this kind of incident is so rare that I don't think its correct to call it part of the 'real' world. However, a traffic accident is a very real danger, but I am guessing they don't show the more graphic public information films at U films.

It is good for older school age children to learn about the news, but it is very hard for young children to put the news into context. This is why newsround is on CBBC, not Cbeebies.

Plenty of 3/4/5 year olds will be going to see Shrek, and many of them would be interested enough to ask questions about the ad. I think you have to be careful of underestimating what small children take in. As others have said, there are plenty of awful things happening to children in the world that we don't discuss with our children e.g. Darfur, the experiences of child soldiers. There are also alot of missing people in the UK under the age of 16. Bad things happen in the world every day and will continue to happen, but we if we can we don't share them with young children. What purpose is served by making an exception for this situation? (Genuine, not rhetorical question).

I think we may have a result

I think you would need to complain to whoever set the rating for the advert

I'm assuming it was rated "U"

The cinema will show U adverts before U films

So I guess you should complain the Video Standards Council

Have only skimmed thread but yes I agree with bakedpotato, this is about choice about when we tell our children about scary stuff that's in the news.

Where's the media thread? I'm happy to contribute but I can't find it.

i think its ok for children to know but how much is appropiate to tell them does depend on their age and understanding.

the telegraph did an article about how to tell your children about madeleine which pretty much said stress on the rarity of the situation and not to wonder off etc.

This is the discussion I heard on Radio 4 about Newsround coverage and how they tried to cover the story but as sensitively as possible.

You know, I have never really thought about all the bad things my dd could be subjected to when she goes to the cinema!
No sarcasm, honestly.
She's too young to go at the moment (nearly 21 months) plus she's a fidget bum so I dont think she'll be ready any time soon!
On the post about the advert about being knocked down by a car, I dont think they show that before U film but in my local cinema they do have a giant 3D poster which shows her face above the time 30mph and as you change your view, her skull at 40mph.
I asked my BIL who works at the Showcase and he thinks they are showing this at their cinema but he doesnt think its before U films.

It is every parents choice what they tell their child and how. Dts know about her because they saw it on tv and dts1 is always curious, I let it open up a discussion about stranger danger and what had happened to her (possibly, we still really don't know the facts.) There was nothing at the school about her as I don't think she will be found in the wild, wild West Lothian. If I take them to Shrek, as I intend to this week, at least I am now forewarned I suppose.

I take it this is what the McCanns were wanting the money for and a manager for? So if you donated you helped pay for adverts etc. I don't really know if this kind of advertising would really have any effect?

i just don't see that my 5 year old has to know about this , at all.

got a generic response from the odeon when i got home tonight - nothing all that interesting - they assure me that it's being looked into. I'll post response ( which will probably also be generic...) when i get it.

mrR - what about the casey mullen story? i know i would not want my 2 year old to know about that, yet it is real life.

God, the Casey Mullen story, I hope to God my dd never knows about that.
She's not even 2 and already I'm worried about the things she'll hear and see, such sadness in the world

i know. the thing is with how much coverage stuff in the news gets you can't really hide them away from it. i suppose all you can do is explain it is very rare, that mummy will keep you safe and even though it seems to be everywhere it is not happening everywhere.

Shiny and CC - I agree with you completely.

I have to add that the McCanns are not 'wealthy' rather they are well paid, but that would never be enough to fund an international campaign to find your child. How can the fact they want help funding the campaign make it any less valid - she is still a 4 year old. Also the more support this campaign has, the more successful it is likely to be and the better a model it is for looking for abducted children in the future.

The reason they want to keep her image in the public eye - isn't because they think somebody in Wiltshire needs to see it again - but because the chances are, if she has been taken by a peadophile ring, that they have her somewhere in Europe waiting for the media 'noise' to die down. the longer she is kept in europe the greater the chance of finding her.

iCod - your post early on - if you are a mother you should be so ashamed of yourself.

wot message should cod be ashamed of?

as this is mumsnet i think we can safely say she is probably a mother (if not a father

?they are not wealthy they are well paid?. Perhaps, but they?re a damn sight better paid than the majority of people who will be donating to their fund. Apparently the fund only has about £350000 in it, which is approximately half the value of their house, which they have not sold to fund their search for their daughter, something which I would certainly have done first before begging for money on the basis that ?giving money is a good outlet for peoples? emotions?.

And I think that people who genuinely believe that Madeleine is ?being held? are deluded. In fact I think that the more publicity there is, the less chance there is of Madeleine still being alive. It?s a lot easier to conceal a body than it is to conceal a live child, even the police have said that the publicity may have hampered the investigation because of all the money grabbers crawling out of the woodwork hoping to get their hands on a slice of the reward.

Icod does have a tendency to try and be controversial but I have to say that sadly, she is probably correct. Unless someone is trying to get the reward money from the McCanns, which frankly would be a highly risky situation for this (these) criminal(s). Other than that I can't see that they would be continuing to move Madeleine from place to place or keep her alive after the enormous attention surrounding the investigation. To even think that they are parading her around European tourist hot-spots is just beyond ridiculous.

The only remote more 'positive scenario is that she was taken by someone 'sad' rather than 'bad' as Kate McCann put it but, really, that is so unlikely. I hope I am wrong.

I went to Odeon Birmingham today and the Madeleine McCann ad was not shown before the film.

they had someone on r5 some time back saying that it was virtually impossible that she would have been taken by a childless couple because she was too old, and it would be impossible for that couple to pass her off as their own. And I have to say I agree. my ds is 4.5, and he could tell you his name, address and phone number if you asked for it, so there's no way someone could be sure a child of that age would keep their mouth shut. far too risky imo - if it was a desperate childless couple they would have taken one of the twins.

Thanks for this thread. I think we'll just have to give Shrek 3 a miss. dd, who as far as I am aware does not know anything about the case would find it very upsetting, and the cinema as many have said is not the place to reassure your child. I think the whole thing is getting very odd.

I have read in some posts that it was shown in the Odeao and Cineworld, but it is also being shown at the Showcase if that is your local cinema