I'd have thought the pictures were needed to enforce the point they are making.
The mother's attitude stinks. It's all well and good being liberal but you need to be responsible too, the mother doesn't sound as though she is. The woman is turning her daughter into a media ****;
She declined to say anything more, directing the Mail to PR adviser Katy Brent and adding that the family would entertain bids for media interviews when Soya returns from a holiday with her boyfriend and his family in the Spanish resort of Majorca.
I was a bit confused at that. Does she think her daughter is a celebrity because she is pregnant at 15?
I can't see a follow up to this story to be honest.
I read that article online yesterday afternoon and at that time there was NO bikini photo and when talking about her modelling the DM said within the article that had chosen not to show a picture of her in a bikini.
What changed overnight???
I saw that too. They seemed to be quite adamant they were taking the moral high ground by not printing them and yet today they've abandoned that stance. The story must have got enough hits for them to want to stir up a little more controversy.
The Daily Mail hates the sexualisation of children and they always go on about it :yawn: Yet why on earth have they printed/published a picture of the same girl, when she was 12 years old in her bikini? Could they not have written the article without publishing that particular photo?
Talk about hypocrisy :rolleyes:
The DM's got history for this sort of thing. They seem to use stories of 'sexualisation of children' as an excuse to publish photo's of young girls that would be considered semi-pornographic if published elsewhere.
On a related note, they also ran a story about Rihanna wearing skimpy clothing at a carnival. The tone of the story was disaproving (as per usual), and contained around 20 pics of Rihanna with her legs spread, arse on display, getting dry-humped during a dance. You get the idea. And what about the fuss they made over that contestant on the X Factor who they said was overtly sexual for a TV slot (that went out after the watershed) - then went on to publish pretty much every still from her performance on a site that children can access.
As their bigot-in-chief Richard Littlejohn says "you couldn't make it up."
I'm one of the few on here that doesn't mind the Daily Mail. I find it easy to read because of it's layout and if you can ignore their emotive language, there's usually still a basic story in there somewhere. There does seem to be a standard script for it though. The ones I've particularly noticed are:
At least 3 stories about the Kardasians.
At least 3 stories about The Only Way Is Essex
At least 3 stories about Rihanna and/or Cheryl Cole.
Minimum of 5 articles portraying women in bikinis.
One trivial article about Suri Cruise.
2 articles proclaiming certain foodstuffs to be cancerous (or bad for health)
1 stunning natural geographic type picture.
1 article about a humanised animal (smiling dog, escaping pigs etc)
1 or 2 articles about benefit cheats.
1 or 2 articles about immigrants and their houses.
The DM's got history for this sort of thing. They seem to use stories of 'sexualisation of children' as an excuse to publish photo's of young girls that would be considered semi-pornographic if published elsewhere.
How do catalogue companies advertise swim wear for young children? Are TV shows banned from showing anyone under 16 in a swimming costume in their programmes even if the programme is about a young teenager going swimming?
An image of a 13 yr old in beach wear is not 'pornographic' and the fact so many people nowadays think it is just shows how ridiculously OTT we've become with the paedophile hysteria. It's the same reason no one lets their kids out the house anymore.
How do catalogue companies advertise swim wear for young children? Are TV shows banned from showing anyone under 16 in a swimming costume in their programmes even if the programme is about a young teenager going swimming?
An image of a 13 yr old in beach wear is not 'pornographic' and the fact so many people nowadays think it is just shows how ridiculously OTT we've become with the paedophile hysteria. It's the same reason no one lets their kids out the house anymore.
I should have said 'what the Daily Mail would consider semi-pornographic'. My comments, when taken as a whole, were clearly about the hypocrisy of the Daily Mail's coverage. Could you not see that?
But, seeing how you, rightly, rail against how ridiculously OTT people have beome with the paedo hysteria, I assume you think that applies to the Daily Mail too, who do more than their fair share to stir things up and talk about 'pornographic images' of children that they themselves print - in the name of 'informing the reader'.
OK, so the girl was on the pill and the mum never let them share a room. That's fairly cautious, obviously not quite cautious enough but teenagers are teenagers so... The mum was probably shocked out her nut, and angry when Soya (really?) told her but what's done is done so being supportive and encouraging is...good, really. No?
Also, the DM's objections to Soya:
Aged 12, the youngster was exercising every day and never left the house without putting on eyeliner and mascara.
She had also started wearing padded bras, short skirts, cropped tops, high heels and fishnet tights.
There were nights out at under-18 discos and hours spent in front of the mirror getting herself ready in clothes regularly picked out by her mother.
At age 12, I was the same, give or take the heels. What a pile of pish.
The fame-hungry stuff is the only real issue, I think.
The Mum obviously thinks that, if her daughter gets famous, she'll be able to leech off her success a bit, hence whoring the kid out to the press. And that's what she is; a kid. I'm sure some teenagers can make good parents, I just have no idea why you'd want to have a kid so young. Do they just not realise how much of a pain babies are? They ruin any semblance of a sleep pattern you have, scream constantly, drain your finances, make it impossible to even leave the house without a bulky pram/buggy and a massive bag of bottles, nappies, etc, they ruin your social life (and sex life).... and in this girl's case, ensure that she doesn't get to have much of a childhood. I get the feeling she didn't really think beyond "Aw, a tiny baby that looks like a mixture of me and my boyfriend!" (to be honest, she doesn't strike me as the smartest peanut in the turd). In the words of Scroobius Pip, "and there ain't nothing wrong at all with having children, just build yourself a little before you try to build them".
As for the DM reaction, I like how it's mostly vitriol and anger in the comment section that "their taxes" are paying for this kid. Mail readers always react like the person in question has sauntered into their house personally and nicked their wallet or something.
The DM's got history for this sort of thing. They seem to use stories of 'sexualisation of children' as an excuse to publish photo's of young girls that would be considered semi-pornographic if published elsewhere.
On a related note, they also ran a story about Rihanna wearing skimpy clothing at a carnival. The tone of the story was disaproving (as per usual), and contained around 20 pics of Rihanna with her legs spread, arse on display, getting dry-humped during a dance. You get the idea. And what about the fuss they made over that contestant on the X Factor who they said was overtly sexual for a TV slot (that went out after the watershed) - then went on to publish pretty much every still from her performance on a site that children can access.
As their bigot-in-chief Richard Littlejohn says "you couldn't make it up."
And on the very same day as the Rihanna story, Littlejohn wrote about his outrage at militant Muslims drawing burkas on posters of scantily clad women. Talk about the Mail contradicting itself.
The Mum obviously thinks that, if her daughter gets famous, she'll be able to leech off her success a bit, hence whoring the kid out to the press. And that's what she is; a kid. I'm sure some teenagers can make good parents, I just have no idea why you'd want to have a kid so young. Do they just not realise how much of a pain babies are? They ruin any semblance of a sleep pattern you have, scream constantly, drain your finances, make it impossible to even leave the house without a bulky pram/buggy and a massive bag of bottles, nappies, etc, they ruin your social life (and sex life).... and in this girl's case, ensure that she doesn't get to have much of a childhood. I get the feeling she didn't really think beyond "Aw, a tiny baby that looks like a mixture of me and my boyfriend!" (to be honest, she doesn't strike me as the smartest peanut in the turd). In the words of Scroobius Pip, "and there ain't nothing wrong at all with having children, just build yourself a little before you try to build them".
As for the DM reaction, I like how it's mostly vitriol and anger in the comment section that "their taxes" are paying for this kid. Mail readers always react like the person in question has sauntered into their house personally and nicked their wallet or something.
Also, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the chances of the kid being a model are somewhat slim, even if it's just glamour modelling. Unless she's going to go purely off notoriety. She's not ugly, but she's definitely not model material.
Also, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the chances of the kid being a model are somewhat slim, even if it's just glamour modelling. Unless she's going to go purely off notoriety. She's not ugly, but she's definitely not model material.
Thanks. So that's the Daily Mail, The Sun and the Australian Daily Telegraph. When I worked in Aus, the locals told me that the Daily Telegraph is "just like your British paper The Sun".
it's not provocative, go to any beach and you will see girls 12 or younger wearing bikinis. if people think it's sexual then they are seriously repressed
Comments
I was a bit confused at that. Does she think her daughter is a celebrity because she is pregnant at 15?
I can't see a follow up to this story to be honest.
I saw that too. They seemed to be quite adamant they were taking the moral high ground by not printing them and yet today they've abandoned that stance. The story must have got enough hits for them to want to stir up a little more controversy.
She's clearly hoping her daughter will become a celebrity off the back of this story.
The DM's got history for this sort of thing. They seem to use stories of 'sexualisation of children' as an excuse to publish photo's of young girls that would be considered semi-pornographic if published elsewhere.
On a related note, they also ran a story about Rihanna wearing skimpy clothing at a carnival. The tone of the story was disaproving (as per usual), and contained around 20 pics of Rihanna with her legs spread, arse on display, getting dry-humped during a dance. You get the idea. And what about the fuss they made over that contestant on the X Factor who they said was overtly sexual for a TV slot (that went out after the watershed) - then went on to publish pretty much every still from her performance on a site that children can access.
As their bigot-in-chief Richard Littlejohn says "you couldn't make it up."
At least 3 stories about the Kardasians.
At least 3 stories about The Only Way Is Essex
At least 3 stories about Rihanna and/or Cheryl Cole.
Minimum of 5 articles portraying women in bikinis.
One trivial article about Suri Cruise.
2 articles proclaiming certain foodstuffs to be cancerous (or bad for health)
1 stunning natural geographic type picture.
1 article about a humanised animal (smiling dog, escaping pigs etc)
1 or 2 articles about benefit cheats.
1 or 2 articles about immigrants and their houses.
How do catalogue companies advertise swim wear for young children? Are TV shows banned from showing anyone under 16 in a swimming costume in their programmes even if the programme is about a young teenager going swimming?
An image of a 13 yr old in beach wear is not 'pornographic' and the fact so many people nowadays think it is just shows how ridiculously OTT we've become with the paedophile hysteria. It's the same reason no one lets their kids out the house anymore.
Indeed, by being on her back to become a celebrity.
She looks older than 15 in those photos...she ain't gonna age well...
I should have said 'what the Daily Mail would consider semi-pornographic'. My comments, when taken as a whole, were clearly about the hypocrisy of the Daily Mail's coverage. Could you not see that?
But, seeing how you, rightly, rail against how ridiculously OTT people have beome with the paedo hysteria, I assume you think that applies to the Daily Mail too, who do more than their fair share to stir things up and talk about 'pornographic images' of children that they themselves print - in the name of 'informing the reader'.
Also, the DM's objections to Soya:
At age 12, I was the same, give or take the heels. What a pile of pish.
The fame-hungry stuff is the only real issue, I think.
Weird names for her kids that mother, Soya, Coco and Ritzy?. WTF?.
I've never heard of a Ritzy Bean.
Hilarious.
I can't see any hypocricy in printing a photo.
As for the DM reaction, I like how it's mostly vitriol and anger in the comment section that "their taxes" are paying for this kid. Mail readers always react like the person in question has sauntered into their house personally and nicked their wallet or something.
And on the very same day as the Rihanna story, Littlejohn wrote about his outrage at militant Muslims drawing burkas on posters of scantily clad women. Talk about the Mail contradicting itself.
Is this story in any other paper than the Mail?
Just here and here unless you count blog posts.
Also, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the chances of the kid being a model are somewhat slim, even if it's just glamour modelling. Unless she's going to go purely off notoriety. She's not ugly, but she's definitely not model material.
Thanks. So that's the Daily Mail, The Sun and the Australian Daily Telegraph. When I worked in Aus, the locals told me that the Daily Telegraph is "just like your British paper The Sun".
She has definitely either been on the telly or in a magazine article before.
Know your enemy.
There's more quality research in this thread than there is in any article you'd find in the Daily Mail.