Karen Matthews... Pure evil?

In the Uk there has been a highly publicised case about a 'hoax' kidnapping. For those who don't know about it...

news.bbc.co.uk...

Today a high ranking police spokesman said Karen Matthews was "pure evil". This woman has done a horrible thing that will effect her daughter forever... it really makes me sick. What I'm trying to decide though is if she really is pure evil.

She (and an accomplice) did it for money, she was motivated to commit the crime to gain large sums from media interest. Money is the back bone of society, a million words could be written about how imprisoning and manipulating money and our society is.

My suggestion is that she is not pure evil, she has been manipulated by the power of money, the need for money, so much so that she has committed a heinous act ergo society is pure evil, money is pure evil. Yes she is a b***h but is she pure evil?

I hope I've expressed my point properly. I think that if she had imprisoned her daughter for fun, for no motivation but to get a kick out of an evil deed then she would be evil. To quote Icke: "You didn't fall, you were pushed."

I think what this woman and her partner did were reprehensible and just horrible.Do I think she's evil? Not exactly: I mean yes its bad but its not like they tortured the child. I hate to say it but I have seen parents do much worse to their offspring.
And I wouldn't go so far as to say that society and money are to blame. Sure they did it for the money, because of greed. For the love of money.
If they truly needed money there are legal ways to get it. Or how about just cutting back in spending if possible?
I'm in the USA so I'm not overly familiar with the UK's welfare system, but from what I've heard it sounds pretty generous to those with kids.

Lots of people really desperately need money, all the time, and all over the place. But a lot of, if not most, don't commit crimes to get it. At least not me, my family, friends or neighbors, AFAIK.

Lastly, I think if you're going to brand this woman as evil, you should include her partner as well. Its not like she was in this alone. The child was held at his place. Please don't tell me that a man was that scared of a woman. Maybe that's sexist, or maybe its the result of the fact that I'm a very small woman and don't see muyself as intimidating to any guy anywhere.


[edit on 4-12-2008 by FunSized]

reply to post by FunSized


7 kids to 5 different dads, if they all live with here she can claim upwards of £25,000pa. Not judging her on the children scene just making a point on our welfare system.

reply to post by FunSized


Drugs where found in the child's body that dated back over 12 months, to me the peaks of exposure seem to correlate with the holiday seasons. I think this was either to subdue the child and keep her while she was off school or maybe knock her out completely while the "parents" went out to spend their hard earned cash on beer.

There's more info on what a waste of space the mother was on iplayer on a panorama episode (you can watch it here www.bbc.co.uk... )


BTW, this was a completely self indulgent bitch without a care for any of her kids, hard to believe but true.

[edit on 5/12/2008 by spitefulgod]

Her actions were pure evil, she herself I wouldn't think so. The Police LIason Officer to whom this woman eventually made the confession that she had been involved in the kidnap said "I felt sorry for her." Two sides of the coin I guess with the truth probably somewhere in between.

reply to post by FunSized


I just think that her actions were a product of society but then at the same time you could literally narrow everything down to that conclusion. I resent our imposed society and like blaming it for everything, you should try it, it's a great way to get rid of guilt .

She wasn't evil in the true sense of the word. Not when evil is used to describe the actions of Myra Hindley, Hitler and what about Baby P's torturers? No, she was an ignorant, greedy, uneducated reject of society living in a micro world of society that is devoid of standards and morals. She didnt consider the consequences of her actions because she was to stupid. WHat she did was wrong, no question about it but did she INTEND to hurt Shannon? No, I dont think so

reply to post by and14263


I agree wholeheartedly. Ultimately, I would like to see total anarchy. It would only take a few years for things to normalize back to a better state than we're in now and it would get progressively better from there. When people have no control and therefore no responsibility, you end up with situations like this.

On the other hand, life is all about lessons - for both the victim and the perpetrator. So be it. So it is.

Think about the lyrics to Lennon's "Imagine". Imagine genuine freedom.

NOTE: Not off topic. Think outside of the box, mates.

reply to post by and14263

Do you think little Shannon will ever fully recover from being kept drugged, in a box for a year by the people she should have been able to trust?

What they did to her is arguably worse than murder, she has had her childhood and innocence stolen from her, she has no-one she can trust, and she is going to have to live with the horror, disillusionment and heartbreak for the rest of her life.

A mother betraying her child like that is evil.
No two ways about it.

When Shannon first went missing and I saw her picture I commented that this was a frightened kid who was already used to being hit. She has been through hell, and I can only hope she's placed with a good foster family now.

reply to post by and14263


No, I don't think she's evil. On the grand scale of everything she's an idiotic, selfish, greedy young woman who appreciates money more than her own children.

The Nazi's were pure Evil.

As soon as I saw him saying that I thought "what a plonker!"
It was a tabloid headline induced knee-jerk statement made for sensationalist reasons, no substance to it.

Yes she did a truly despicable thing, but it just makes her a despicable woman.
Unfortunately, there's more like her out there.
When I look at the younger people in our country, I see self-involvement, idiocy and greed on a massive scale (I'm not generalizing here, it exists in older generations too but I don't think it's to the same scale).
Regular intelligent people are few and far between, they've been vastly outnumbered by those who care more about the brands they wear than the world around them.
They don't think, they have nothing of value to add to society, and their only ambition is to get more money/fame/status than their peers.

There will be another case like this in a few years.

Stupid and ignorant yes. Evil no.

Perhaps, if she had the wit to let her daughter in on the scam, they might have pulled it off.

The police statement on the telly, describing her as 'pure evil' goes beyond the pale.

It is not the job of the police to issue statements like that about people investigated. They should keep their mouths shut and get on with what they are supposed to be doing. Protecting the public, not espousing moral judgement about their charge in the mainstream media.

So let me get this straight.

Karen Matthews recieves unemployment benefit (aka the dole).

While in an unsustainable fiscal situation, she has 7 children from 5 different fathers. She proceeds to recieve tens of thousands of pounds in child benefits.

Unsufficed by this, she hatches a plot to feign the kidnapping of her daughter; thereby costing a vast sum of money (millions) in police action and more importantly a waste of police time.

No sir, she is not pure evil... she is just purely worthless.

Is this what the welfare state is for? To subsidize the existence of people like Karen Matthews?

Because if it is, Im not sure a single man in the world could look me in the eye and tell me that extracting income tax from me to pay for her existence is moral.

Call me a right wing nut, call me heartless or call me a nazi... call me whatever you want; but I cant help but shake the opinion that people like Matthews should be given a clear choice:

1. Get sterilized, claim benefits.

2. Use your uterus as a factory for the children of every man on your housing estate, but get no benefits from the state.

(Note option 1 would only be for those perpetually refusing to work... theres nothing wrong with falling onto the dole and then finding another job, but to refuse work and claim benefits for two decades is not acceptable).

Im sorry but its that simple in my mind. I cannot see any use in her existence. She has never done anything for her family, her society or her country. Hell, she has never even done anything for herself.

Taxpayers need to get up. We are the trees that the welfare safety net is anchored to... how are we not tired of the burden of Matthews et al using it as a hammock?

reply to post by moonrat


Haven't you read the reports she drugged the child for years to keep them quite while she got drunk as well as starving them, a note to her brother read.

do you think we'll get fed tonight, if we're quiet we might get some crisps, if we're too load we'll get beaten again.

Yes I think she is evil, don't pity her or defend her corner otherwise you're just condoning the abuse and ill treatment of children, it was her choice and her decision to treat her kids lower than animals no one elses


[edit on 5/12/2008 by spitefulgod]

reply to post by Kailassa


Do I think she will recover? I believe it depends on who she is surrounded by and how she is dealt with over the next few years. That said it will leave its scars whether or not she learns to cope with it, she will definitely feel the scars forever.

44soulslayer... it really is that simple. I come from a place where from the age of 14 a woman's (young girl's) role is as a baby making factory and a walking advertisement for the ASBO crew.

Originally posted by spitefulgod
reply to post by moonrat

 

Haven't you read the reports she drugged the child for years to keep them quite while she got drunk as well as starving them, a note to her brother read.

do you think we'll get fed tonight, if we're quiet we might get some crisps, if we're too load we'll get beaten again.

Yes I think she is evil, don't pity her or defend her corner otherwise you're just condoning the abuse and ill treatment of children, it was her choice and her decision to treat her kids lower than animals no one elses


[edit on 5/12/2008 by spitefulgod]

I understand your reaction here, but no one is defending her actions.

And can I ask what the source was for that quote? If it was the Sun or other such tabloid, take it all with a huge grain of salt.

Was she a bad mother? Yes
Should she have been allowed to treat her children in this way? Absolutely not.
Should her children have been taken into care? Yes.

Is she "Pure Evil"? No.

She was a selfish, irresponsible, abusive mother who cared about herself before anyone else.

No one is down-playing her actions here by refuting the "Evil" comment. But when you consider that this word is pretty much the harshest statement one could issue to describe a person, Hitler was Evil, truly, and she hasn't murdered millions of people.

And about her having 7 kids and being on welfare, I agree that this is unacceptable.

But the only real way to deal with this is at the cause.
People living on state benefit shouldn't be given the opportunity to "opt out" of taking responsibility for themselves and their children.
The fathers should be paying support, the mothers should have long ago been forced into social work in the community.
Single mothers should not be given the option to "not say" who the father is. He is responsible for that child just as the mother is.

Can't find a job? Here, volunteer 40 hours a week in your community, don't do the work don't get the benefit. They'll soon be looking for a real job that pays a real living wage instead. And in the majority of cases they'd find one in a matter of days.
How is it that these people cannot find work, when I can go to any agency and start another job tomorrow?

Teenagers should be given three options when leaving school...
1) Further education.
2) Full Time employment
3) Community service to equal full-time employment while claiming benefits.

That's it. No lounging about claiming benefits and giving nothing back to the community. Perhaps this would also prevent boredom and the inevitable "unwanted pregnancies" that result?

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Teenagers should be given three options when leaving school...
1) Further education.
2) Full Time employment
3) Community service to equal full-time employment while claiming benefits.

That's it. No lounging about claiming benefits and giving nothing back to the community. Perhaps this would also prevent boredom and the inevitable "unwanted pregnancies" that result?

I agree.

I'm a socialist, and believe everyone should have good opportunities and be taken reasonable care of.

But I also believe everyone should contribute a weeks worth of work back to the state each week, and be penalised if they don't. To take and not give back what you can is theft.

(Except for those who absolutely cannot, of course.)

Even my son who can't read or write, can't add up money and can't add 2 + 2, works a 40 hour week at $1.00 an hour, rather than just do nothing and collect a pension.