Shannon Matthews: Craig Meehan And Paul Donovan News Round Up
SHANNON Watch: Anorak’s look at the case of Shannon Matthews in the media
ANKIT Saha: “From my humble legal viewpoint, I find it quite startling that the Police took the action they did against Meechan. Normally the authorities operate against the issue of child porn on the level of website owners and online distributors.”
DAILY EXPRESS: “SHANNON’S STEPFATHER REMANDED”
THE stepfather of kidnapped schoolgirl Shannon Matthews was remanded in custody today after being charged with possessing child pornography.
Craig Meehan, 22, appeared at Dewsbury Magistrates Court this morning facing 11 charges of possessing 140 indecent images of children.
He will remain in police custody until April 11 when he will reappear at the court.
DAILY MIRROR (front page): “SHANNON BACK WITH MUM – together for 1st time in 6 weeks.. as stepdad in held over child porn”
Page 11: “COPS FIND HUNDREDS OF CHILD PORN PICS”
It’s an “EXCLUSIVE”.
Shannon Matthews’ stepdad Craig Meehan has been arrested. As reported yesterday.
“The 22-year-old fishmonger, wearing a baseball cap and Manchester United football shirt, was led away. Karen, 32, sobbed and said “I’m in shock. I just can’t say anything.”
The newspaper investigates:
Meehan’s sister Amanda Hyett, who lives next door, said: “I’m just so upset, I can’t talk about it. When will it all end?” Another neighbour, Petra Jamieson, said of Craig: “If it’s him then it makes me feel sick. But lots of people use Karen and Craig’s computers as there are not that many people around here with the internet.”
So he might be innocent?
As she spoke another neighbour, who was walking his dog, interrupted to shout: “It better not be true ‘cos it’s f*****g disgusting.”
DAILY STAR (front page): SHANNON’S STEPDAD HELD FOR KID PORN”
Pages 4 and 5: “SHANNON’S STEPDAD HELD FOR KID PORN - VILE IMAGES FOUND ON COMPUTER”
Meehan is being held under suspicion of possessing child porn. Meehan is a “fishmonger”. Fact.
Last night a family pal said: “Karen doesn’t know what’s going on. She’s just riding a rollercoaster of emotion right now. After all she has been through this is the last thing she needs. So far she’s only had a glimpse of Shannon for a couple of minutes since she was found. She was hoping to finally see her face to face, but now she knows that isn’t going to happen soon.”
The Daily Star – Last For news. In the Mirror Karen Matthews is being picked up in the park and taken to a secret address to see her daughter.
THE SUN (front page): “Shannon stepdad’s vile child porn stash”
The paper has a picture of Meehan using a computer. The paper says “hundreds of vile images” were found on his home PC.
Pages 4 and 5: “He didn’t let kids touch his computer”
There were no pictures of any family members found on the machine.
Say a “pal”: “There was a password to log on to the computer and then passwords for emails and other files. Craig used to download a lot of music and videos. We thought there might be some copyrighted stuff he had downloaded but never imagined there was anything on there like child porn. It has left us all shocked.”
Any other facts?
Meehan, 22, allegedly hid his secret stash behind an innocent-looking screensaver of reality show personality Baby Lyssa.
A baby?
She is the youngest daughter of Duane “Dog” Chapman on imported US TV hit Dog The Bounty Hunter. The show follows the lives of crook-nabbing Dog, his wife Beth and 12 children — including 19-year-old Lyssa — in Hawaii.
Says Karen Matthews’ closest friend, “mum-of-four” Petra Jamieson: “Until the police have checked their dates and times to confirm Craig is responsible, people shouldn’t jump to conclusions.”
DAILY EXPRESS (front- page): “SHANNON’S STEPFATHER ARRESTED”
Page 5: “SHANNON’S STEPFATHER ARRESTED OVER CHILD PORN PHOTOS”
His arrest is not connected to his stepdaughter’s abduction. None of the pictures on the computer involves Shannon or her brothers or sisters and they have been downloaded from the internet.
THE INDEPENDENT: “Shannon’s stepfather held in indecent images inquiry”
Shannon was found on 14 March, 24 days after she disappeared on 19 February, in the drawer of a divan bed at a small flat in Batley Carr, just a mile from her home. Police arrested Mick Donovan, a 39-year-old computer programmer, in connection with her disappearance and later charged him with kidnap and false imprisonment.
It was also revealed that he is an uncle of Mr Meehan. Mr Donovan, also known as Paul Drake, is awaiting trial at Leeds Crown Court.
Innocent until proven otherwise.
Posted: 3rd, April 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann, Tabloids Comments (65) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- June on 2000-2010 In Pictures: The Decade In Politics
- Yimmie on James Arthur Ray’s Thought Of Power And Talk Of Death
- Dina George on Katie Price’s Alex Reid In Drunken Fight
- Bat E Bird on Naked Twilight Star Christian Serratos Is Peta’s Dumb Animal Of The Month
- June on Weston Bans Fat Mums From Giving Birth In Town
April 4th, 2008 at 9:46 am
63
Marie Nicholas
Indeed I do not want to prove that you intended to say that children should ever be abused. Nor do I presume to know what you think, better than yourself. I suggested your command English as a non native language could be a reason for ‘misinterpretation’ of what you were intending to say.. in effect, I was trying to loosen the rope you (inadvertently?) had tightened on yourself.
Incidentally, ‘exciting’ is very much an inappropriate term to use in this context, and I continue to think (hope) that language is an issue. There is no shame in that, I am not trying to beat you with a stick re. language, far from it.
However, I vehemently disagree with this -
‘watching a picture is the same as doing what is done on the picture, people who try to refrain from their perversions will no longer try’
- Let me be clear. This a zero tolerance issue. Furthermore, there is no evidence that looking at such things prevents further abuse. On the contrary, there is evidence that violent, depraved images feeds fantasy and interest.
But if you insist that this is some kind of crime prevention method; that it stops further abuse, then you can be the one who offers your children for photos as some misplaced community service so that other children will not be abused . I do not mean to be inflamatory, but that is what it come down to.
April 4th, 2008 at 6:35 am
IMO people who store images of children and are found out…don’t do that sort of thing just to store pictures. They have and evil bent..and are a threat to society in general. Isn’t it a known fact that a lot goes with a lot. [edited - dr]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
Please do NOT speculate about what may or not have happened. (See AGW’s piece ‘Legal Niceties’ in Forums) -
http://www.anorak.co.uk/forums/topic.php?id=1197&replies=4
April 4th, 2008 at 12:39 am
Spongebob
If I say I don’t think children should ever be abused, which is the truth, I know you will not be satisfied, and you will want to prove me I said the contrary. And you will tell me what I said is chilling you to the bone.
What you find shocking is that I think it is worse to take the photos/to molest a child, than to collect them. I realise that it is shocking for many if I say the man IMO has done less harm by collecting those pictures, than by having directly harmed a child (if it is what happened). “Less harm” doesn’t mean “no harm”.
I agree with the argument according to which people who watch the pictures are responsible for them being done, and therefore also harm children. It is true, of course, and I may have given the impression to have overlooked the fact, though of course, I find the industry horrid. Yet I still think there are degrees in evil, and that if some people collect pictures and do nothing else, they shouldn’t be punished as much as people who also do something else.
I think there should be some degrees in the assessment of the wrong doings. If watching a picture is the same as doing what is done on the picture, people who try to refrain from their perversions will no longer try.
Spongebob, I could tell you I am chilled to the bone by people who think it is the same to derive pleasure from viewing a picture, however horrible it is, as to derive pleasure from doing what is on the picture. But I will not, because it isn’t an expression I would use in a debate.
You said my English wasn’t as good as I thought. How do you know what I think, better than myself?
I used the word “exciting” in the meaning of: making people react, stirring, provoking.
April 4th, 2008 at 12:15 am
55
Marie Nicholas
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:39 pm
55
Marie Nicholas
Strange how exciting the topic is.
++++++++++++++
What another odd comment to make.
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:35 pm
55
No, sorry. I quoted you directly. Check. I reread what you wrote before i posted. Because I couldn’t believe it
If you did not mean this then you need to make this clear.
I don’t think it’s exciting’ - I think it’s contemptible and I’m beyond furious at your posts.
That fact you have used this particular term makes me think that your English is poorer than I thought it was, (and you think it is), as I have seen very lucid posts from you before. If that is the case, then clarify - and no, not for me as there is no need for that, but for yourself…
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:11 pm
55 SpongeBob
You make me say what I haven’t said.
You know perfectly well I didn’t say some children should be abused.
Are you pretending I did just to hurt me?
Strange how exciting the topic is.
If we were talking about muggers torturing old ladies to steal their money, or us buying cheap products from faraway which may be are manufactured by prisoners in concentration camps, I bet some wouldn’t be half as indignant.
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:54 pm
44
Marie Nicholas Says:
well I have read some of the thread now…You said..
‘What I should have said is that fantasies will sometimes help people get rid of their pervert tendencies, and they shouldn’t be seen as horrid, as long as they remain fantasies, and aren’t acted out. ‘
- So, to get this straight, some children should be abused while being photographed/filmed so that sickos can watch them being abused in order that those sickos will not act out their fantasies?
There is NO accounting for what goes on in peoples’ minds, and they are allowed to have thoughts, whatever they are, as long as they are not hurting anyone else. Watching/looking at child abuse IS hurting others - children.
I am chilled to the bone by your statements
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:42 pm
1
Marie Nicholas
‘Watching pictures isn’t the same as molesting a child’
- I’m sorry, can’t get your head round this Marie N. I really, strongly disagree.
It is watching a child being molested. It is NOT ‘harmless’ as you put it. …Seriously having to restrain myself here, so I’ll stop
(I haven’t read the rest of the thread yet - I hope you are having some language difficulty!)
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Rob,
Who’s this ‘al’ feller, and what’s he done?
The same thought had occured to me on numerous occasions; ‘doing reearch’ is a totally lame and indefensible excuse. Yet somehow the judiciary, and the public at large seem to fall for it.
Langham and Townshend got off particularly lightly as far as I’m concerned because they were popular figures, (” He wouldn’t, would he? But he seems so nice on the telly”) as opposed to the likes of Jonatahn King and Paul ‘glitter’ Gadd, who were long forgotten has-beens and figures of some ridicule.
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:23 pm
oh and one more thing Chris Langham Pete Townsend et al.
I have to ask myself why anyone who researches abuse should not be able to use the written testimonies of adult survivors without needing to view the suffering.
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:10 pm
33 cool and calm
“Definately the downside of the internet”
While i agree that a downside of internet access is the ease with which the abuse of children can be shared amongst abusers, and undoubtedly this has led to people outside the actual abuse circles [ie taking part physically} being party to these images, it has also enabled the police to close in on vast numbers of abusers across the world and has in my view opened up the reality to much of the population of the scale of the problem worldwide. It has also made it easier for a great number of people to come forward with their own experience of this trauma and bring it to the attention of the police or relevant authority with the knowledge that their claims would be investigated and not brushed aside or ignored.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:56 pm
47
Marie Nicholas Says:
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:17 pm
May 46
I wonder if the sentencing will reduce the number of offenders, May. Edit/..
*****************
We will never know, as sadly our gaols are so full already that the most such offenders may expect is several weeks of ‘community service’. Anyway, gaol without help would be useless, I know.
I agree something has gone radically wrong in the background of offenders, quite often perpetuated through the generations. How to break the cycle is a major problem.
Perhaps the ones to offer guidance are some of the disadvantaged people who have managed to bring up children who remain well adjusted against the odds.
Child pornography addiction does not seem to be restricted to any one class. It’s not a subject I have researched, but there must be many people who have been involved or who have been victims who would have useful views on how best to break the cycle.
How can we know how many people are ‘fantasisng’ privately about abusing children? We only know when the fantasy has been acted upon and the abuse comes to light.
I don’t pretend to have any answers as to how we can restore values, self respect, support for those in need and compassion for those in trouble. All around us are self destructing scenarios, such as you described.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:55 pm
I forgot to say, what stops children form growing into mature adults, sexually speaking, could be the arousal of their sexual drives at too early a stage in their development. I also think that maybe some children are naturally more prone than others to such deviations.
It is absolutely necessary that society defends itself, and sanctions wrong behaviours, apart form putting dangerous people away at least for a whilee. Perverts need to be told what they do is wrong, as their tendency would be to say they have a right to do it.
But I am not sure punishment is enough to deter them form what they want, unfortunately.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:51 pm
16
PeterMac Says:
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:48 pm e
He is not her stepfather. He is her mother’s current boyfriend.
***********************
As of this afternoon, Peter, the man formerly known as ’step-father’ has very publicly become the ‘mother’s ex-boyfriend’ - it will be interesting to see how the media handle this new development. Mother’s ex-boyfriend doesn’t provide such an easy link to Shannon.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:17 pm
May 46
I wonder if the sentencing will reduce the number of offenders, May.
What makes people perverts is when something goes wrong in their upbringing I should think. The tendency of our society to unveil everything, to make images with everything, coupled with not learning how to cope with frustration, might be one of the factors that stop the children from learning to imagine, and elaborate. Raw, wild violence has to be “ritualised”, as it is in sports, for instance, with rules.
Even animals know how to ritualise violence. Two dogs will fight. The loser will lie on its back, and present its neck towards the winner, offering access to its carotide vein. The winner will pretend to bite it, but will not section it. No harm done.
When we lose our capacity to imagine, and displace the object of our violence, we are in great danger. That is what our children need to be tought.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:56 pm
44
Marie Nicholas
Julie was right when she knew from the start there was something unhealthy in the whole situation in the Shannon’s case.
+++++++++++++++++
You mean that Julie’s guess, based on no evidence whatsoever at the time, was better than the many other guesses also based on no evidence.
At the moment there is nothing other than photos on a computer charge. No link to abduction, no link to abuse.
Using your example in your post at 1) “Watching pictures isn’t the same as molesting a child.”
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:55 pm
39
Marie Nicholas Says:
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:49 pm
************
Marie Nicholas, so much of what you write is thoughtful, compassionate and filled with common sense. I agree with the gist of your post 39. We live in a world where there are no boundaries and ’shocking’ behaviour is flaunted before the young as something to emulate.
However, I totally agree with the views of those who condemn the people who view child pornography as being just as guilty as the perpetrators. How else can we restrict the market for such images?
I realise you feel that are levels of guilt when it comes to sentencing, and that those who view images on their computers should receive a lesser punishment than the perpetrators. However, I strongly disagree when it comes to anything involving children. If there was no market for these images, they would be less easily available, and perhaps fewer children would suffer, and be haunted for the rest of their lives by the terrible abuse.
We need to create a culture of automatic condemnation for this unhealthy trade and offer treatment for those who would like to be free of their demons. Some people claim to be looking out of curiosity. Why? I wonder how many then close down the images for ever, compared with those who move on to view more and more graphic abuse, before finally becoming a perpetrator.
Why aren’t these people haunted by the misery of the victims in these pictures? Everything possible should be done to discourage viewing, and if heavy sentences are given to both the perpetrators and the voyeurs, I am totally in support.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Apparently neighbours and others used the computer(s).
And surely others in the house ?
The children ?
The mother ?
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Karen
I re-read myself, post I, and it is true I was a bit ambiguous in the way I said it. It could be understood that I thought nothing of collecting porn child pictures. Of course I think it is bad in itself.
What I should have said is that fantasies will sometimes help people get rid of their pervert tendencies, and they shouldn’t be seen as horrid, as long as they remain fantasies, and aren’t acted out.
In France, when brothels were allowed, it is said that there was always one of the girls, childlike, and dressed up as a schoolgirl. And that it saved many people from doing worse. I know how terrible it sounds, because I also think that whorehouses allowed by state are degrading, and that the girls who were working there were poor things, when society treated them with the utmost contempt.
Julie was right when she knew from the start there was something unhealthy in the whole situation in the Shannon’s case.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:26 pm
43 Mic
Thanks. (And I am proud I got the pun about the Ryder Cup !).
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Marie,
I remember the last golf war; I think they called it ‘The Ryder Cup’.
sorry… I shouldn’t make fun of your typing errors. I make more than enough myself, and your command of written English far exceeds that of many English speakers that I know.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Marie Nicholas
It’s true, IMO, it’s a wider problem and there is social hypocrisy involved.
But I think it’s dangerous to let people think that what turns them on in private has no effect on any real victims, or isn’t something in their character they need to think about or learn to control.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:03 pm
I re-read mysel : Gulf War (ibn French Guerre du Golfe).
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Julie
Thank you for telling me that your opinion of me has not diminished. Let me explain myself a bit more, though.
We live in a society where image has become everything. Pictures, TV, advertisement. Images everywhere, and a number of them sexually suggestive and arousing. As it happens, this showbusiness world is a money-making world. Much more money is to be made from it than from say, scientific research. So, this phenomena of porn pictures isn’t isolated, it is the produce of our culture, and in a way, we are passive accessories to our culture. The TV people keep pandering to our need for seing pictures that excite us, mostly violent and sexual. I remember a photographer who had won a prize for a picture of children soldiers, and who said he had come on the scene with orange scarves to tie around their neck, as they were dressed in kaki, and it wouldn’t look good for the picture. We want more and more excitement. Remember the first golf War, we saw it on our screens the way we would have watched fireworks. We now want the real thing, not a fake one with actors.
The music is so loud now everywhere that our children are becoming deaf. They need to get high to amuse themselves. Not only do some of them need slapping people to enjoy themselves, but the slapping becomes happy if it is filmed.
By the way, it has been proved that children are more sensitive, and hurt, by violent pictures than by sexual pictures. It hasn’t stopped us from letting them see hundreds of deaths on the screen before they even reach their teens.
In advertising business, the picture turns the model (usually a woman) into an object, and even into a “partial object”, to use a psychoanalytical word, and the viewer into a voyeur, a fetichist. The problem with pleasure is it is greedy. The more satisfaction it gets, the more satisfaction it wants.
We all know that some people, perverts, immature, weak, vicious, a whole range of potentially dangerous weirdos will be not content themselves with the everyday dose of pervert pictures that we absorb, but will do all they can to get some that are still more exciting and more pervert. And which they can easily get, because they are on the internet. Yes, they should be punished, but isn’t it time we enlarged the probelm, and not name them the only guilty ones.
Now the TV is going to show us pictures of the monster’s disgusting face, pictures that will arouse us, every normal human being, with our perfectly normal aggressive drives.
It now seems that the drug problems will not be solved by punishing the consumers, but the dealers. This should make us think. I think there is a lot of hypocrisy in the way the media thrive on that sort of stories, and the way we puke at the monsters when the media want us to puke (I am using words which I learnt here).
I haven’t the time to put my thoughts in proper order, and to explain myself more clearly. But no, I certainly don’t condone those horrors, I just try to put them into perspective.
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Marie, please my opinion of you has not diminished because of the way you see this particular subject. I have great admiration for you and the way you are able to express yourself. I believe that you are a very fair person in life, and this comes across in your posts.
You are right when you say that the LAW has differing degrees to this type of crime. However, I can bet my last cent that any judge who has to deal with this type of person, no matter whether they are just caught with the offending material on their computer or perhaps something worse, would wish that they could impose a maximum sentence across the board.
It is a known fact that paedophiles “collect” pictures of young children, and while not all who collect these pictures resort to sexual abuse, the danger is there already - it will only pose the right circumstances to trigger yet another case that we all slap our hands over our mouths with shock wondering how it could happen again and again!
You have to ask yourself, what is the aim of an adult collecting pornographic images of children? If not evil with intent …. then what?
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:22 pm
It is a not a subject for research online because even entering the search words would lead to difficulties.
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Marie Nicholas
Watching child porn is not a victimless crime.
The child is being abused and it’s being exploited for money. If you were the child would you like to know your picture was on the internet and men were fiddling with themselves over it?
And it’s the fiddling (sorry, I’m too squeamish not to use a euphemism) that’s the other issue - they’re not just looking, they’re responding (in most cases).
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:01 pm
JO 33
It is not the thoughts that harm and kill, it is the deeds. So let people be punished not for their thoughts, but for their deeds.
I fully agree with you Jo :
No to whatever harms a child.
I am not a specialist on the subject, as thank God, I don’t personnally know anybody involved in such crimes. And I find it sordid. So, I’ll drop it now.
April 3rd, 2008 at 3:56 pm
30
DCB Says:
April 3rd, 2008 at 3:25 pm
To me someone who views child pornography is just as bad as sometime who takes the pictures, and the punishment should be the same.
may be very early monitoring of “only watchers” could be introduced in rehab but I doubt.Those people are not crazy.They perfectly know what they are doing.
They make me sick
As a mother of 3 I would kill
April 3rd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
MN 31. I think legally there are different levels… when Chris Langham recieved his derisory sentence, the judge said he had viewed ‘level 5′ which was the worst level of child p.
I think zero tolerance and high sentencing may just be a deterrent. However can we ever shut the door now its been opened?
Definitely the downside of the internet.