Interesting doc about a Facebook stalker on Channel 4 tonight at 10pm

15681011

Comments

  • ikkleosuikkleosu Posts: 11,494
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    MrSuper wrote: »
    2 things which really annoy me about the poor exploitation of this girl.

    a. Why haven't Ch4 or the production company helped her to remove all the photos and videos of her on the internet. If they're going to make a documentary on her that's the least they could do! Especially with the power Ch4 hold they could easily have done something about it. I'm shocked to discover she can still be found online. I think that's really poor form from Ch4.

    b. Why wasn't there a reason given as to why Shane did what he did. Surely she would have wanted to know why. Did she not speak to him before he was sentenced? Did they not try to interview him or at least ask why?


    Completely agree. I watched this all but at the end was left feeling very uncomfortable. Most shows of these types focus more on the perpetrator and protect this victim, but this seemed entirely to be about the girl and her inability to recognise it was her boyfriend doing it.

    I was shocked at how many of the photos were shown, that he family would AGREE to that and coupled with her name being used frequently, it was opening up Ruth to more abuse.

    The show was trending on Twitter and the quickest of looks saw lots of people attacking Ruth (not tweeting her, but using her name) about her mental abilities, her looks and her family. It won't take much I'm sure for some of these people to google for her photos, her facebook etc.

    Now on top of the 3 years abuse by her boyfriend, she's going to be known to MILLIONS more as that "stupid" girl whose naked pics and sex tape is all over the internet.

    There also seemed to be no lesson in it. It wasn't about talking to strangers online, trusting people you meet. There was nothing about taking steps to protect yourself - especially as at the end the mother basically said well, most people would have been the same way in believing it wasn't the boyfriend, and carrying on with the same behaviour. No, no they wouldn't.
  • dollylovesshoesdollylovesshoes Posts: 14,531
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Not being funny I thought her whole family were picnic jobs,very uncomfortable viewing.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 30
    Forum Member
    Nah, you're allowed to show an erect willy as long as it's not going into anything. Waving one around in front of a photo is okay
  • malaikahmalaikah Posts: 20,010
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Really? Wow, I thought that you could only show flaccid members :confused:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 140
    Forum Member
    People with Aspergers can tell right from wrong, I wish if people were going to pretend someone was inflicted with this, they would at least learn the basics of it. Too many people using the Gary McKinnon excuse.


    So many people try and defend behaviour but blaming it on Aspergers. It's an inability to interact with people socially, not an inability to tell right from wrong.

    I was also a bit shocked about the sudden display of gentlemen's bits. Especially as I was watching the program with my mum! As Paddy McGuinness would say *hands on hips* "AWKWARD!"
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 140
    Forum Member
    malaikah wrote: »
    Really? Wow, I thought that you could only show flaccid members :confused:

    I thought so to? I remember watching This Morning on a day off work and they were doing a bit about cancer in the family jewels. Cue close up of a blokes bits while they show men how to feel for lumps.... on my wide screen tv... with my living room curtains open! I've never dived for the remote to change channel so quickly in my life!
  • ikkleosuikkleosu Posts: 11,494
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    You can show erect penises for educational purposes, but I was a bit shocked to see those pictures as they were clearly shown in a sexual context.
  • Eater SundaeEater Sundae Posts: 10,000
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I thought so to? I remember watching This Morning on a day off work and they were doing a bit about cancer in the family jewels. Cue close up of a blokes bits while they show men how to feel for lumps.... on my wide screen tv... with my living room curtains open! I've never dived for the remote to change channel so quickly in my life!

    Not the "record" button, then?

    Just a thought. Could the family be receiving advertising income for all the hits she gets?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 140
    Forum Member
    Not the "record" button, then?

    It was a long time ago. We didn't have Sky + ;)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,220
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Dunce-2007 wrote: »
    After all that she only removes him now?:confused:

    True did you notice his status said married?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,583
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I was intrigued to read more on this story after watching this. There was no mention of an abortion she had, I wonder why they excluded that from the docu.

    I read the mother blew the guy a kiss as he was taken away after sentencing, which I though was rather weird.

    Also, I inadvertingly laughed when her Dad described her as reasonably intelligent. I wouldn't want my Dad to use that adjective as it sounds as if its a euthanism for dumb.

    Sentencing is borked beyond belief though. I think someone who intentionally causes this amound of grief to another human being deserves more than 2 months in prison.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,220
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I was intrigued to read more on this story after watching this. There was no mention of an abortion she had, I wonder why they excluded that from the docu.

    I read the mother blew the guy a kiss as he was taken away after sentencing, which I though was rather weird.

    Also, I inadvertingly laughed when her Dad described her as reasonably intelligent. I wouldn't want my Dad to use that adjective as it sounds as if its a euthanism for dumb.

    Sentencing is borked beyond belief though. I think someone who intentionally causes this amound of grief to another human being deserves more than 2 months in prison.

    It is weird. Did you notice his status was married? She only removed him after the sentencing? So weird
  • MoggioMoggio Posts: 4,289
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    nck-nck wrote: »
    Nah, you're allowed to show an erect willy as long as it's not going into anything. Waving one around in front of a photo is okay

    That's not correct either. Technically it is fine for broadcasters to show erect nobs and penetration as long as there is some justifiable context ie. in 'educational' programmes such as A Girl's Guide to 21st Century sex on Channel 5 and 'arty' films such as The Idiots, 9 Songs and Shortbus etc.

    Strangely, although you can show penetrative sex on terrestrial TV, you cannot show it on dedicated porn channels as material that is rated R18 cannot be shown on TV. So they have to make do with simulated stuff and crafty editing.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,583
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    IrishChick wrote: »
    It is weird. Did you notice his status was married? She only removed him after the sentencing? So weird

    I didn't notice that to be honest. Also, when his best mate said he had asked if she had sent any of the messages he received personally and she said no. I got the impression that she might have actually sent some messages telling him to stop it as she firmly believed it wasn't her b/f up to a point.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,220
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I didn't notice that to be honest. Also, when his best mate said he had asked if she had sent any of the messages he received personally and she said no. I got the impression that she might have actually sent some messages telling him to stop it as she firmly believed it wasn't her b/f up to a point.

    Ya me too. I felt sorry for her, and found her family a bit odd. Poor Lee though what an awful thing for him to go through
  • Madam PresidentMadam President Posts: 135
    Forum Member
    I was intrigued to read more on this story after watching this. There was no mention of an abortion she had, I wonder why they excluded that from the docu.

    Yes, I thought that too. :confused: I remember reading she had an abortion at the time the story came out.

    All very disturbing, but an interesting watch nevertheless. I did feel sorry for the girl but more so for the friend.
  • egghead1egghead1 Posts: 4,782
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    People are being a bit harsh on the girl,yes she was a little dim as was parents(although her sister was hot lol) but the b/f was manipulating and controlling her! Some people can be convincing.
    Yes the programme was ill concieved and only further google hits of her,but dont put all blame on Ruth.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 364
    Forum Member
    Recorded this programme last night and just finished watching it.
    The first thing that struck me is how bizarre the situation is ,the girl was mortified and deeply affected by the pics being put on the internet yet she allows them to be shown on national TV!:confused:
    C4 just picked up where her boyfriend left off in as far as exploiting her goes! She is obviously a very vunerable young woman and C4 should hang their heads in shame. The whole thing was no more than Jeremy Kyle for the middle classes!
  • radiofreeradiofree Posts: 7,316
    Forum Member
    egghead1 wrote: »
    People are being a bit harsh on the girl,yes she was a little dim as was parents(although her sister was hot lol) but the b/f was manipulating and controlling her! Some people can be convincing.
    Yes the programme was ill concieved and only further google hits of her,but dont put all blame on Ruth.

    i totally agree with you. i really don't understand all the negative posts against ruth (and her family) here and on twitter. she was naive perhaps and too trusting but, when you're in love, you want to believe the best of people, not the worst.
  • Bulletguy1Bulletguy1 Posts: 18,429
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Reading through posts in this thread i'm surprised at how many are shocked at anyone in a relationship taking nude or intimate photos of each other. Always thought a good 95% of couples did, especially since digital photography which has made it so much easier. No more 'dodgy moments' wondering if you will get your film back from the developing lab.

    Blimey.......you lot haven't lived! :D
  • ikkleosuikkleosu Posts: 11,494
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    radiofree wrote: »
    i totally agree with you. i really don't understand all the negative posts against ruth (and her family) here and on twitter. she was naive perhaps and too trusting but, when you're in love, you want to believe the best of people, not the worst.

    I agree to a point - it was perfectly understandable that she'd think it wasn't her boyfriend at first, and believe everything he said. But the fact that it continued for so long and that any photo (or video) leaked was one she'd done with her boyfriend, surely anyone would start to really wonder?

    The bit that had me shouting "OH COME ON!" at the screen was Shane's explanation for the photos of the naked girl (not Ruth) on his bed - claiming that he'd taken photos of an empty room and someone had added the girl. Ruth is studying computer science, surely she'd KNOW that was a load of bollocks?
  • SydneyHedgehogSydneyHedgehog Posts: 668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Bulletguy1 wrote: »
    Reading through posts in this thread i'm surprised at how many are shocked at anyone in a relationship taking nude or intimate photos of each other. Always thought a good 95% of couples did, especially since digital photography which has made it so much easier. No more 'dodgy moments' wondering if you will get your film back from the developing lab.

    Blimey.......you lot haven't lived! :D

    Dont forget, its a bit prudish in here, so youve got to bear in mind the audience. Having said that, Ive not really taken too many photos as I dont have a wide angle lens ;)
  • Prince MonaluluPrince Monalulu Posts: 35,900
    Forum Member
    ikkleosu wrote: »
    I agree to a point - it was perfectly understandable that she'd think it wasn't her boyfriend at first, and believe everything he said. But the fact that it continued for so long and that any photo (or video) leaked was one she'd done with her boyfriend, surely anyone would start to really wonder?

    The bit that had me shouting "OH COME ON!" at the screen was Shane's explanation for the photos of the naked girl (not Ruth) on his bed - claiming that he'd taken photos of an empty room and someone had added the girl. Ruth is studying computer science, surely she'd KNOW that was a load of bollocks?

    I didn't see the photo and I didn't do Computer Science, but it's more to do with theory end of things programming and how you manipulate and calculate things, rather than the photoshop/graphics end of things.

    On the subject of lying and manipulation, can I mention Hendy Freegard who was also covered by a couple of docs years ago.
    The Spy who stole my life and The Spy who conned me.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jun/24/ukcrime.rosiecowan
  • Prince MonaluluPrince Monalulu Posts: 35,900
    Forum Member
    Bulletguy1 wrote: »
    Reading through posts in this thread i'm surprised at how many are shocked at anyone in a relationship taking nude or intimate photos of each other. Always thought a good 95% of couples did, especially since digital photography which has made it so much easier. No more 'dodgy moments' wondering if you will get your film back from the developing lab.

    Blimey.......you lot haven't lived! :D

    If I'd had a digital camera years ago, i'd certainly have something more than memories to keep.
    I'm thinking of one ex in particular now...
  • SydneyHedgehogSydneyHedgehog Posts: 668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    If I'd had a digital camera years ago, i'd certainly have some more than memories to keep.

    Dude, too much information!! :eek:
Sign In or Register to comment.