My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

News

Shannon Matthews Mother arrested !!!!!

1002 replies

kay1981 · 07/04/2008 09:22

They have arrested her on perverting the course of justice - which i think means lying to the police under oath doesnt it?

Is it at all possible that they knew where she was all the time?

Perhaps cahnnel 4 should now re-show the documentary on shannons family and see how it is received knowing what we know.

OP posts:
Report
rebelmum1 · 07/04/2008 13:00

Wannabe it's not the care system that's picking up the pieces it's us and our tax money. The money that I pay that means I have to work harder and longer hours which means I spend less time with my dd. I'm not having anymore kids because I cannot afford to take the time off work. It's perverse.

Report
fiodyl · 07/04/2008 13:01

i agree horseshoe there has to be something very wrong to not even alow supervised contact.
my gut feeling is that shannon has said she doesnt want to see her mother because she is scared of her because she has 'told' police about what really happened

Report
elesbells · 07/04/2008 13:06

I thought she has seen her? A couple of days last week it was reported she had been to visit - The day of the stepfathers arrest was one iirc

Report
elesbells · 07/04/2008 13:07

*had

Report
Miggsie · 07/04/2008 13:13

Do you think Shannon knew of this supposed plot and thought it would be a laugh?
Or has she suffered days of incarceration and then found out her mum was willing to have her stuffed into a divan bed drawer for financial gain?
Either option is really really dire.
It is too terrible to think about.

Once they held Shannon and the mother didn't want/was not allowed to visit: yes, that's when alarm bells ring.

Report
horseshoe · 07/04/2008 13:14

It was fleeting visits. She has only previously been able to see her through one way glass.

Report
fiodyl · 07/04/2008 13:22

of course the police could have been with holding contact with shannon as a way of trying to get the mother to talk i.e 'tell us the truth and we'll let u see your kid'
kinda nasty tho- think im just suspicious of everyone

Report
nailpolish · 07/04/2008 13:24

what a ridiculous thing to say!

ahve you been watching too many Ashes to Ashes

Report
Iklboo · 07/04/2008 13:26

And I thought I was being a cynical, nasty piece for thinking the whole 'doing it for the money' angle

Report
fiodyl · 07/04/2008 13:29

i must remember not to put my strange random thoughts down in text for other people to read in future

Report
wheresthehamster · 07/04/2008 13:33

I wonder if those friends and neighbours who rallied round and spoke in the documentary are feeling a bit irked at the moment.

Report
wannaBe · 07/04/2008 13:41

?why not keep having kids if thats what you find fulfilling??. Because she can?t afford them. It really is as simple as that.

But we live in a society where people seem to think they have a right to have whatever they want, whenever they want it, regardless of the cost. Debt in this country is spiralling out of control because people keep borrowing beyond their means. Want a new tv? Don?t have the cash? Never mind, you can always put it on the credit card. So poor you can?t afford a foreign holiday? Never mind, just stick it on the credit card. Can?t afford to pay off the credit card? Never mind, just get a IVA and half the debt will be written off, then you can start all over again. Want another child but can?t afford it? Never mind, just get another credit card.

Some people live beyond their means because their means just can?t keep up with their needs, but some just seem to think that the rest of society should pick up the pieces because they should be as entitled to do what the hell they want as everyone else.

Imo it?s simple, if you can?t afford something you go without. It?s not as if Karen Matthews needed to have 7 children, once she had one she was already in a more fortunate position than someone who is unable to have many. I don?t see why she should keep having more children just because that?s what she wants. I?d love a yacht and a mantion but sadly I can?t have those because I can?t afford them.

Report
chocfest · 07/04/2008 13:42

well, if it comes out that all these people are involved in one way or another, I should think they would be bloody fuming, and rightly so.

Report
wannaBe · 07/04/2008 13:56

I read an interesting piece on this the other day

here

"At the moment, neighbours ?can?t believe? that Craig Meehan is guilty of anything. He must have been fitted up, naturally.That will be for a court to decide.
But if he?s found guilty, don?t be surprised if these same neighbours now professing their shock and support, decide to torch his house."

Report
No1ErmaBombeckfan · 07/04/2008 14:06

Am I just imagining things but SM was already in the radar of SS and was about to be taken away from her parents before she went missing...

Report
horseshoe · 07/04/2008 14:08

Just a random thought but looking at the step-dad, even though he is young he has a very child-like appearance to him. Cant help wondering if he was himself subjected to some sort of sexual abuse from same uncle as a child and history is repeating himself.

Report
fiodyl · 07/04/2008 14:11

yeh i heard she was already on the child protection register- although its not specified what for- children with disabled parents etc can be on it so that ss can keep an/school/docs can kep an extra eye out 4 them

Report
fiodyl · 07/04/2008 14:14

thing is if she was already involved with ss, the whole financial gain idea would be even more ludicrous cos her mother would have known she risked losing her children if caught

Report
mousehole · 07/04/2008 14:18

if she found having children so 'fulfilling' then why do the majority of them not live with her. Are ANY of the children's relatives working at all - or is the whole extended family on benefits?

Report
Divastrop · 07/04/2008 14:25

wannabe-sometimes its not just as simple as 'oh i think ill have lots of kids and live off the taxpayer' though.sometimes relationships fail and when you meet somebody new you may want to have a child with them.she may have believed that every new man was 'the one'.

and not everyone has the option of getting steralised.

Report
fiodyl · 07/04/2008 14:30

on more than one occasion ive thought ' if i have another baby now, the council will have to rehouse us'

Report
TwoIfBySea · 07/04/2008 14:31

Ah money, when it raises its ugly head there are always going to be people who wonder how they can get their hands on it. Shocked and appalled if it is true but then again I thought the McCann fund was in bad taste. Much more could have been accomplished had people given their money to proper charities who were experts in searching for missing children.

Just like the whole neglect thing, so many people are going to see this and say "well if they can do it!" Sorry state of affairs but not totally unexpected.

Glad that Shannon is out of that situation now though, poor lass.

Report
mousehole · 07/04/2008 14:36

...the McCann fund ( I guess) was set up so that the cheques that the money which was given directly to them could be clearly seem as a charitable donation. It would not have been the right decision for the McCanns to hand over the money to other charities when the giver did not wish this..

I think that in the McCanns position they handled the whole thing brilliantly and bravely - I'm sure I couldn't have carried on fighting the police and searching and setting up a charity to deal with the huge donations in the exemplarly way they did. Nothing they have done can ever be considered in 'bad taste' in view.

Report
kay1981 · 07/04/2008 16:49

I think the next thing we will be reading is that the Matthews family can not return to Dewsbury for fear of reprisels (sp?). For those who watched the documentary, the two or three young lads in the house were talking about paedophiles - that they should be "strung up and castrated!" and then the police find child pornography on the computer!

I was unsure whether she had been arrested linked to the case of his pornography pictures, but it seems its to do with the disappearance of shannon!

OP posts:
Report
wannaBe · 07/04/2008 17:21

?Nothing they have done can ever be considered in 'bad
taste'?. . Personally setting up a ?find Madeleine? fund made me lose what little respect I might have had for the Mccanns (and I have little respect for anyone who leaves their three children unattended while they go out to dinner.). This was a couple who earn more than the average person, who are clearly financially well off, and yet who, within weeks of their child going missing had set up a fund for people to give them money! Money which they used to pay the mortgage on their £600000 house .

In fact I find it most bizarre that anyone caught up in the horror that must surround losing a child in those circumstances would have the capacity to think ?oh I know, let?s set up a fund, then the public can give us money to help look for our child.?. If my child went missing I would do everything in my power to find him,I would use every penny I had before going cap in hand to the public.

So no, actually I think everything the Mccanns did is in extremely bad taste.

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.