Thursday, 15 May 2008

sorry, we can't help you, or your daughter.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=566044&in_page_id=1879

Story is sad but hilarious, teenage rebellion, young love, exploitation, overbearing mothers, DEATH BY CANNABIS, TEEN PREGNANCY...

"It was then that we started hearing all sorts of rumours about Jack, that he'd given her cannabis. I was distraught, half expecting a call saying Victoria had been found dead."

Oh and the cracking line about her mum discovering a packet of contraceptive pills and assumed that this meant her daughter was sexually active.

The story is kinda saddening, half to me because the hate mail thinks it's fine to invade this girls privacy for a story. To publish details about her sex life/lack of. My sister passed tis story on to me, she has known this girl at school since the age of 5. Apparently the girl now thinks she is a celebrity, and holds her hand out and says 'NO COMMENT' to people. I despair, and sulk.

5 comments:

miss snowmantle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
miss snowmantle said...

ermmm... how exactly are they invading her privacy? she's telling them the story herself! there doesn't seem to be anything sneaky being done here by the daily mail, and at least it's not on par with the likes of perez hilton

cutee_pi said...

What a stupid, stupid girl! She's completely ruining her life for a man. Why are girls so stupid?!?!?!!!! I don't understand why she didn't take her GCSEs. You can't get anywhere these days without them, but it looks like her standards are low anyway.

Yeah, I don't think her privacy is being invaded. She talked to the daily mail herself, so unless you can accuse someone of invading their own privacy. . . .

mintspy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mintspy said...

ah u c i don't think i explained this too well, but since she is 15, i think that them publishing that her mum found a packet of contraceptive pills on her floor and then assumed she was sexually active...

basically, if she is, then that (by law) is statutory rape. she is a child/minor and therefore unable to 'give consent' to sex. the paper would therefore be implying that statutory rape of a minor has taken place.

If the girl were involved in a violent crime, her identity would have been protected.

At this age as well the argument can be made that the things she says now she will later regret. As she is still a 'child', she is possibly unaware of the future implications of what she shared with the nice reporter. the paper, however, know full well what impact this article could have on the rest of her life.

she may have given the info freely, and when she is 16, the same could have happened and i would have had less to say about it.