Shannon Matthews: Paul Donovan’s ‘Vile’ School Uniform Sex
IN the News of the World’s front-page screamer “SHANNON MAN’S VILE SEX SECRET (more on that here), Paul Donovan’s ex-wife Sue Bird says:
“When he made me dress like a schoolgirl he’d want me in knee-high white socks, flat shoes and a tight top. I had to tie my hair up in plaits. And always no make-up, to complete the schoolgirl look.”
Vile. The NOTW is shocked.
On the Sun’s website - the Sun and the NOTW are News International’s sister papers - readers can access “’Schoolgirl’ ad shown exits”:
RYANAIR has refused to pull an ad showing a model in what looks like school uniform which has been banned by watchdogs. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled the “irresponsible” image appeared to link teenage girls with sexually provocative behaviour and feared it could offend readers.
There is a picytre of a woman dressed a schoolgirl, illustrating the message: “HOTTEST Back to School Fares”.
Enthusiasts of the Sun’s Page 3 Girls may be familiar with the work of Samtha Fox, the topless stunna who appears here in ‘vile’ garb.
And in “St.Trinian’s back with a bang - And they’re as wild and sexy as ever”, Sun readers read: “FIFTY years after they first charged through the crumbling corridors of their school, the girls of St. Trinian’s are back. And they’re as wild and sexy as ever.”
And: In an exclusive interview, Everett and Firth discuss our ‘pervy’ attitude to school uniforms and revealed how they overcame their public feud of 23 years to star in the film.
Vile…
March 16th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
I’m reminded of a children’s pantomime - as the bogeyman rushes back and forth - now you see him, now you don’t, he’s behind you!
And the NOW emerges from behind the curtains to holler - ‘is there a paedo in the house? Could he come backstage please, one of our story lines is flagging, we need an exclusive interview’.
Are we to be frightened or titillated?
This week, next week, for ever?
March 16th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Am staying on the other, and older, thread.
March 16th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
This is getting ridiculous, tomorrow anorak will lie in and not bother again
March 16th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Just wanted to highlight the vile perverison of etc,.etc.etc.
March 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
The entire crew seem to be guilty of paddling in the shallow end of the gene pool.
March 16th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Which crew Andre?
March 16th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Mother, partner, uncle…
March 16th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
We’ve been repeatedly advised not to talk about the details of this case, now that Shannon is under protective custody and someone is under arrest and may be facing charges, for legal reasons, to protect the child’s reputation, and to ensure a fair trial. Yet Anorak coninues to print the speculation about this case and provide links to information about the suspect that could influence potential jurors.
It does seem contradictory to me, and no, I don’t need further explanations. I just wanted to express my dissappointment in the double standards (hypocricy?) and lip service given to protecting Shannon and the course of justice here on this site.
Administrator: I say this carefully and only once.
Firstly: Name any time when we have ever deliberately misled any Anorakian or, ever not had the best interests of the site and the users uppermost, in any decision we have to make? I am not aware of one, but I’m willing to be corrected.
I weary of the deliberate misunderstandings which have gone on today. One poster had a very serious bleat about the thread he was posting in - while in the wrong thread. I honestly just did not have the heart to tell him. He discovered it in his own good time.
I am not your camp guide. Come to think of it, I am not your camp anything.
..and now a poster comes back for the umpteenth time on the same subject..why can’t we? You know why you MUST not. We will continue to let you know what in being printed and we will continue to inform and you may discuss that information fully and without hindrance..
What you can not do is speculate and tell us what you think of so and so, of who did what to whom…because you have NO idea. No-one yet does.
The future of a child may or may not be a stake here.
I do not want to be in the position of telling you “I told you so”
So I am telling you now.
I do not need to repeat my advice. Trust me I DO know what I am talking about.
I see many others out there struggling with the story and rapidly getting to the point of enlightenment which you have been fortunate to experience for at least 24 hours.
We DO know how it should be done. Be guided and debate just do not speculate. If you do, we will have little choice when dealing with it. -agw
March 16th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
What’s this with you British and school uniforms? Do your children still wear them? When I was in SA years ago, I saw children in white school uniforms. I couldn’t understand how they kept them clean during the day. I felt so sorry for the mothers who should wash and iron them [assuming it's mostly done by the mothers]. It looked lovely though!
And what’s the story by the “ex-wife” [IF true, we can't check it, do we?] got to do with what happened? I wonder when the papers start printing about adults who are still using comforting blankets. Is that a sign of pervert behaviour too…?
March 16th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
are toy boys an obscenity?
March 16th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
8 Administrator
You are welcome to pursue your business as you see fit, of course. I hope I am still entitled to my opinion, which is partly based on instructions given yesterday by two of the administrators explaining what can and cannot be said on the forum. I have highlighted the parts of the instructions which I think that Anorak itself is not heeding in ‘protecting the child and avoiding jeopardizing a fair trial’ by reprinting information about the suspect’s background and alleged behavior that may influence potential jurors, if the case goes to trial.
QUOTE
Carmen Says:
March 15th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
MODS AND ADMIN
“OK Jolie,
One last try - and I’m not being sarcastic, I do appreciate that it is difficult to understand.
Feel free to comment on the way in which the media cover these stories, do not feel free to use what is in the media to make further speculation in a way that may either damage a young child’s reputation or prevent a fair trial if that is where enquiries are heading.
Believe me, the media have had their top brains up all night working out precisely what they can say and what they can’t say.
As an example:
Were there to be a headline that said: Man found in cupboard with three children.
It would be OK to say that you don’t think the media should have commented on the story at all.
It would be OK to say that you are glad the children are OK.
It would be OK to say that some newspapers seem to have been braver than others in revealing what they know.
It would not be OK to say (or name) the man and say that he has previous convictions for this ‘type of thing’ because you would both be impugning the children’s reputation - and you don’t know what occurred in the cupboard, might have been entirely innocent nor would it be OK to mention previous convictions or anything else about the man that might jeopardise any subsequent trial if there was an arrest. Nor would it be OK if you had just made up the information about the previous convictions for that would be libel.
Anorak is here to allow you to comment on the way in which the media handle these stories, with this particular story, that is a highly technical business - more so because it is, as agw said, it is uncharted territory where the internet is concerned, and many people are fascinated to see just how the media does conduct itself.
That is not in any way, the same thing as us allowing people to come on here and speculate as to what may have happenend to the girl or who may have done it.
Can you see the difference now?
We are trying to walk a difficult tightrope in moderating the comments and your help - all of your help - would be appreciated.
UNQUOTE
and another post from Admin. yesterday:
QUOTE
DuncanR Says:
March 15th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Everybody
I am repeating here a comment posted earlier by Carmen which some may not have seen
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
MODS AND ADMIN
OK, I understand where you are coming from, but you should understand this. Because a newspaper has reported that this was said, doesn’t necessarily make it true. The original commentator may not have been telling the truth. If it isn’t true, then a libel action can be taken against the original commentator, the newspaper which reported it, and YOU for repeating it.
The onus would be on you to prove that it was true, not just that it was said.
Our main concern here is that the child’s reputation should not be damaged. Nothing illegal may have taken place, in terms of actions against the child. She may not have been held against her will. She should not be labelled as being the victim of anything untoward until the truth is known.
Which leads us to a secondary position, IF anything has taken place that later proves to be illegal, we would not want the perpetrator to escape justice because they were able to show that speculation had taken place on this forum that made a fair trial impossible. **
We will be watching carefully everything that is said - if in doubt, don’t say it.
Any wags or wits who think their voice being heard is more important than that child’s reputation or a fair trial of anyone involved in possible wrong doing will find themselves in moderation faster than they can type.
Think before you press ’send’ everybody. OK?
UNQUOTE
** Somehow speculation on a forum on a thread devoted to spreading the gossip and alleged background information on a criminal suspect is worse than the actual spreading of the gossip by the website itself? That doesn’t make sense to me.
I see what I see and I don’t like what I see. I know admin. hate to be criticized but I am a thinking person. It’s hard to respect the words of someone looking down their nose at me telling me they are on higher ground while helping to sling the mud they tell us to leave alone.
March 16th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Jolie
We highlight the irony of the press showing how much they care, emoting and empathising while they turn aside, cup a hand to their mouths and whisper to the masses: some say there is more to this than meets the eye.
The aim is to show a story for what it is – a single fact spun by opinion and a vociferous media.
If we mention speculation it is show it up as just that.
When we show how each newspaper is addressing the story it can reveal a paper’s agenda. Often they do not even agree on the most simple fact.
Paul
March 16th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
My school uniform never looked like that ….
March 16th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Jolie
I will not debate this and you are becoming high maintenance. There are other things I and the Moderators have to do.
A couple of questions :
Do you get the point of Anorak?
Do you understand we are not about any one story?
Have you understood a single word I have written?
Get this clear and once and for all. The restraints which we have asked you to observe are the very minimum. We exercise the same restraints on ourselves and we report to you how OTHERS are reporting the story. We will not allow speculation on this story as I have already outlined this evening. You are free to express doubt and criticise Anorak’s decision process. That we do not mind. If you attempt to prolong this senseless return to argue a point re our decision processes and distract us further we mind very much.
I care very little for your opinion in the scale of things. I do not mean that in a personal or deliberately offensive way. You are one voice calling for a change which is not possible.
We/I deal in the possible and probable as it relates to this site. I will not return to discuss this with you again. I have other things to do and I regard this and you to be a distraction I can do without.
The situation has been explained clearly and without equivocation many times. If you fail to understand it, that really is not my problem.
The eventual action and decision to take action may very well be. I hope that does not arise .
March 16th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
13 MrsT
Why not? Was yours not ironed?
March 16th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
15 - Mic
For Gawd’s sake. Don’t get her started on that bloody ironing !!!
March 16th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
It’s about time she did get started on some bloody ironing…
IMO, so I’m led to believe, apparently, allegedly… (is that enough copouts?)
March 16th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
One day in class the teacher has sex education.On the black board she drawsa penis then asks the class if any of them knows what it is.In the back ofthe room,Dirty Johnny stands and says “That’s a penis,and my father has two of them”. The teacher looks surprised and asks “What do you mean,two?” DirtyJohnny responds,”A little one to pee,and a big one to brush the baby sitters teeth.
March 16th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
18
GANDOLF
And who was looking after the child/children while the baby sitter was getting flossed? A clear case of child neglect and you, if you witnessed the event without reporting it to the authorities are a very naughty boy and probably should be sued or something
March 16th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
yampster, errrrrrrrrrr I will need to take advice from Totje, can I get back to you…
March 16th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Thick black tights ( Nora Batty style) …. and you took your blazer off at your peril.
Sam Fox pees me off ….. my blouse didn’t fill out like that.
March 16th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
22- MrsT
Thick black tights ( Nora Batty style)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tart!
March 16th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Ironing, what’s this fixation with ironing? Is it typically British or is it an universal problem? I wonder if the Martians also do some ironing. But for us simple terrestrials there’s a new dryer with steam function, hardly no ironing at all necessary! It this a simple solution or am I getting ironical?
March 16th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
21
GANDOLF
Why silly me? Better ask Ian, he knows all about child neglect!
March 16th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Well while the Martians are doing theirs, they can come and do mine …
Duncan, keep Mic away with his ferrets.
March 16th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
24
Totje
You are a woman so you know little of ironing. Only men can iron properly. It’s a well known fact that Hitler invaded Russia after Mrs Stalin spotted a double crease on the sleeve of Adolf’s favourite black shirt
March 16th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
27
yampster
Oh so we should rewrite history, isn’t it? So much misinformation in history books! Hitler didn’t want to occupy Russia or fight the communism, he wanted to get mrs Stalin to do his ironing! Or do you think he wanted to get revenge on her for her remark???
March 16th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Yampster are you a man ?
March 16th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
28
MrsT
Hang on I’ll ask the current Mrs L
March 16th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Oops, what a giveaway. I meant of course the current Mrs Y