Seems steep to me; others who abused or murdered get less but I suppose we must admit it was the worst crime of all... making the meejah look like idiots.

One of the police officers described her as "Pure evil". At worst she was stupid and greedy. The police earlier admitted that Shannon had not been mistreated - other than by being "kidnapped". I'm still not sure why it was classed as a kidnapping. She was with a member of the extended family with full knowledge of her mother. It was certainly a form of fraud, wasting police time, etc. - but kidnapping? No.

The British judicial system has lost all sense of proportion, if it ever had any.

There is an underclass of society building up, committing violent crimes and terrorizing communities. Little is done to address the problem, and when it is, the results are usually ASBO's, community service and conditional discharges.

On the other hand, we get this type of media show trial, where relatively harmless people, or, as in JK's case, totally innocent people are hung out to dry.

Preposterous and disgraceful.

the kidnaping charge is odd and I'm not sure how it was proved. A dastardly plot to defraud, waste police time certainly- and a silly woman etc.

"Pure evil" is rediculous..I really object to police voicing these opinions. Certainly they are entitled to privately beieve anything they want but gving a press conference stating "it's difficult to think of a more evil crime..blah blah" as one did was wrong and prejudicial.

It's sad that the judiciary are also influenced by the rantings of the media. I've seen a judge say "the public is clamouring for stiff sentences ...etc ".
I didn't see anyone outside the court "clamouring".

The Cat wrote:
One of the police officers described her as "Pure evil". At worst she was stupid and greedy. The police earlier admitted that Shannon had not been mistreated - other than by being "kidnapped". I'm still not sure why it was classed as a kidnapping. She was with a member of the extended family with full knowledge of her mother. It was certainly a form of fraud, wasting police time, etc. - but kidnapping? No.

She was drugged against her will to stop her leaving. Given the choice, i'm sure she would have left earlier. Isn't that kidnapping.

A terribly stupid sly woman - I still cherish her "I miss you sooooo much" when she was under the bed next door - she reminded me of a much younger, female version of my false accusers (bloody awful actors, I thought, but the jury, like the meeeejah in Karen's case, believed them).

But evil? No, just like my accusers weren't evil. Opportunist, eye for an easy buck or two, wanting sympathy, justifying their failures in life, deluded, drugged, drunk, paranoid, victims of corrupt or lazy police, lawyers, judges - yes. Evil? No.

The police seemed to lack consistancy. They claimed she had not been harmed, that she admitted she had been taken out at times, that she said she was just staying with her relative and wasn't worried, then that she was drugged, that she was tied up, and that she suffered a horrible ordeal. Some of those would go together, but not all.

If I'd been on the jury I'd have wanted to hear directly from Shannon. All the jury had was a statement which could have been written by anybody, and the prosecution speaking on her behalf.

It has been said that Shannon has been having nightmares since the ordeal. Are the nightmares because she'd been held captive, or are they because of all that she's been put through since? Or they could be a combination.

It may be that the police have given an accurate account and that it just took Shannon a while to tell the whole story, or it may be that some of the story was 'augmented'. There are various possibilities, but past cases have shown that police and prosecution are not always entirely truthful in their drive for a conviction. All we know for certain is that we do not know anything for certain.

Kidnapping does seem a strange charge, though. It implies that she was taken away and kept from her legal custodian when, in fact, she was not. How a child is treated is not what decides whether they were kidnapped. Unlawful imprisonment may have been a more fitting charge, along with various others reflecting abusive treatment.

Very intelligent post JC

She was, if I believe reports (which I rarely do) given valium which isn't the worst of drugs and I still don't comprehend how a parent who has legal custody of a child can kidnap them.

Although you say "Given the choice, i'm sure she would have left earlier"..where would she have gone ?. Home to her mother ?.

I'm not even sure of the uncle..a parent has a right to give their child into the custody of a relative for a period of time and when was it illegal for a parent or custodian to prevent that child going off on their own ?. Could a parent be charged with holding a child against their will because they prevented them from going and playing in the street at mid-night ?.

I still see it as a plot to defraud and the child was incidental. Police invariably load up charges and give out outrageously exagerated press releases. Why ?.I don't know because a good brief can generally rip apart their nonsense. I would sack most police PRs and let them get jobs where their inventiveness could help..promoting a soapie star. They should only be allowed to release the details of a crime and charges.

To me-this is a classic example of trial by media and it's becoming more frequent. Is she appealing ?

3 males who raped a girl with learning disabilities and then threw caustic soda on her body to try and avoid forensic evidence, leaving her scarred on 50% of her body for life, got 6 years each.

Ridiculous.

The only benefit of locking Karen Matthews up is that she can't have any more children for at last 4 years.

'She was, if I believe reports (which I rarely do) given valium which isn't the worst of drugs' - an unbelievable statement, really quite remarkable.

She was chained up in a flat and drugged by her mother and uncle. I hope you lot are on the jury if i ever get in trouble. 'what, he chopped her arm off?' 'A mere flesh wound.'

Godiver wrote:
'She was, if I believe reports (which I rarely do) given valium which isn't the worst of drugs' - an unbelievable statement, really quite remarkable.

She was chained up in a flat and drugged by her mother and uncle. I hope you lot are on the jury if i ever get in trouble. 'what, he chopped her arm off?' 'A mere flesh wound.'

whose arm would you be chopping off ?

Very intelligent post Godiver.

It's all about evidence, Godiver. All we've had are words.

I wonder how many people have been locked up on the strength of mere words. Regardless of the seriousness of the accusation, all cases should be judged on solid, factual evidence. I would vote not guilty in any trial where there the only evidence is words. In this case I would have voted not guilty on the kidnap charge. This would have been the fault of the prosecution for choosing such a ridiculous, unrealistic charge where there were plenty others more suitable.

I recall the prosectution claiming that they found something which "could have" been used to tie Shannon. As for the drugs claim, I'd require an independent doctor's testimony and an appearance (at least on camera) of the victim herself. I think it is the duty of the jury to begin with the assumption of innocence and demand to be convinced otherwise by evidence presented by the prosecution. No evidence = no conviction.

I'm rarely influenced by media coverage.

rubbish.

If..she was given valium ,it was no different to thousands of parents who allow their kids to sip wine or take prescribed drugs for ADD, like Ritalin ( a far more destructive drug)that plenty of doctors claim do not work.

How many valium was she given?..come on some deatils.

what was chained with ?..how many times and for how long ?

Do you mean she was restrained with straps like those ones parents have little kids on ?..like I see everday in the high street ?

Very easy to weave a story and use the media to paint a picture of horror. I know..I've done it myself so many times in the past as a journalist. The truth and reality are rarely reflected in media reports..I only believe court cases when I actually sit in on them.

but perhaps you know all about this case and you can give an answer to my question :

how can a parent who has legal custody of a child , kidnap that child ?

Petty insults and rediculous examples like chopped off arms aren't an answer...give me a few details of your life and I'll have you sounding worse than Jack the Ripper in 2 paragraphs.

Ok, i concede that i was not present in the flat where the girl was held captive.

However, you posted that giving valium to a very young girl was not really wrong - ridiculous.

Hey Godiver - you, Angel, Max Clifford and anybody else is entitled to their own opinion - this board is open to a variety of thoughts and has no power whatever in making law or passing sentences.

What worries me is when tabloid thinking - which inevitably includes exaggeration and over colour, if not downright invention - influences those areas.

Because then we have unfair justice and massive wastage on expenditure as well as concentration on aspects that do not exist (allowing real crime to flourish undetected).

Not agreeing with your views and opinions does not make one gullible and stupid my dear. Tabloids exaggerate do they? no, surely not?

Do you think giving valium to a very young girl is ok?

I don't think taking valium is OK at all actually and wouldn't give any drug to any child unless prescribed by a doctor but I don't dictate to others and many dole out aspirins and stuff like sweeties.

Still I think the judge ruled by tabloid morality. If there had been no foolish meejah coverage, like Boy George, she'd have been cautioned and told not to do it again.

My dear.

JK2006 wrote:
I don't think taking valium is OK at all actually and wouldn't give any drug to any child unless prescribed by a doctor but I don't dictate to others and many dole out aspirins and stuff like sweeties.

Still I think the judge ruled by tabloid morality. If there had been no foolish meejah coverage, like Boy George, she'd have been cautioned and told not to do it again.

My dear.
Including valium with aspirin has simply made you look more ridiculous than usual and confirms Godiver's point.