Shannon Matthews has been placed with social services before returning to her family. A man has been arrested and charged in connection with her disappearance. In a decent world, that would be the end of the matter until the possible trial, but this isn't a decent world. This is still 'news' to some (not all) media and it hasn't dropped off the radar.
So here comes the Mail. My question after reading this is: what the fuck are you telling me this for?
Family to spend Easter without Shannon as she opts to stay with social workers
Two disgraceful things in the headline. Firstly, it should be a private family matter as to where the child is. How does it benefit the public to know this? Secondly, it should be absolutely private what a nine-year-old girl does or doesn't decide to do. Shouldn't it? Am I just being old-fashioned about this? I don't think so. It just sickens me that this young child has become owned by the press at this time.
The family of Shannon Matthews were today facing the agony of not having her back home for Easter.
Private - isn't it? Am I just too sensitive? How does it benefit anyone to know this, is what I am asking. Why do the Mail think we want to know? I don't want to know. I don't care. This family have family stuff to sort out with social services. That's all. If there's an investigation ongoing, that must be private. This is extremely sensitive and it involves a child, who has young brothers and sisters.
However, if I were to offer perhaps one theory as to why Shannon Matthews might not want to come back home, it would be that, even at such a young age, she might be aware of the media scrum around her and she wouldn't want some bastard sticking a camera in her face all the fucking time. Just a thought, you know.
As her siblings enjoy Easter eggs and the school holidays, the nine-year-old has still not been reunited with her family and friends back in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire. Shannon is now in the care of Kirklees Family Services on a voluntary basis and it is thought that she will not be going home for some time.
It is thought? By whom? Who thinks that? Some bastard who rang you up for a bit of cash? Some totally unprofessional scumbag? Or does the Mail not really know?
And then there's a photograph - of Karen Matthews shopping for Easter eggs, with the glib caption:
Alone: Shannon's mother Karen - pictured here carrying bags of Easter eggs that she won't be able to share with her daughter
Yes, let's take a picture of a distressed mother out shopping. That's really fucking amazing journalism, isn't it? Well I bet the snapper who took that went home to his family and was really proud. "Yeah, I invaded a woman's privacy today, took pictures of her out shopping, then some cunt behind a desk in London wrote a snotty little caption underneath. Great day."
Great day. Unless you're Karen Matthews of course.