Karen Matthews

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_yorkshire/7846696.stm

Eight years sounds about right to me. I have nothing but contempt for those two. I just hope that poor child finds/has found a decent family who can show her what a real family does for each other.

So theres a good chance she ll be out in 4? how wonderful.

Really? For staging the abduction of her own daughter? Wow.

I'm sure her fellow inmates will make the time nice and comfortable for her..

What did the 'uncle' get?

Has she ever said why she did it? I know for money, but just WHY?? I can't understand why someone would do this, it's just so, so awful.

Both got 8 years. Can't answer your other questions, it's beyond me and too horrible to even contemplate. Like HH said, I'm pretty sure the other inmates will make her feel most welcome, as will her local community when she does eventually get out.

Unless she gets the full 'Maxine' treatment and given a new name address etc......

and be still young enough to pop out two or three more kids. fabulous.

i thought the judge told them to expect a weighty sentence? eight years is pathetic!

I must confess, 8 years seems outrageously paltry. the daughter will be in therapy for years no doubt, and is in care. if she s out in 4 it ll be a travesty.

her children's time in care will be longer than her prison sentence. so who have been the real ones to be punished here?

i'm amazed at this sentence i really am. i will be honest, i don't know what the maximum tarriff would have been, but i'm sure it's more than that

and what planet is the lawyer on? 'good mum' my arse. even if she had not done this she was anything but!

And just realised the last comment makes no sense, as no reference to it in that news story. ?i've been listening to radio leeds.

apparently her lawyer said that the detective calling mattews 'pure evil' was unhelpful, she was 'no rose west or myra hindley' and while she was an inadequate mother, she was a good mum who loved and cared for her kids. or words to that effect. ?

Eight years didn't seem anywhere near enough to me.

Its actually 8 years for one thing, 3 for another and 2 for another, so 13 years in total, but obviously they all run at the same time so maximum 8. Having not thought about the "out in 4" thing when I first posted, it doesn't seem enough and a "real" 8 years would have, imo, been better, not great, but better.

I was just listening to Radio 5 and as part of some of the statements given to the judge were reports on Shannon and how she's doing. Apparently she has recurring dreams about being tied up and will need a substantial amount of psychotherapy, perhaps for the rest of her life. Poor thing ?

Definitely not long enough considering the years of suffering Shannon will go through.

On Sky News it said she will serve 4 years in prison and 4 years on licence.

If the time she's spent on remand is deducted, she'll be out in less than 4 won't she?

I find it difficult to get my head round this one since it all began to be honest. Was Karen Matthews greedy for money, evil, or just not playing with the full deck of cards?!?

What mother on earth would put their own child in this kind of situation? It leaves me totally dumbfounded.

I hope Shannon, and her siblings, make a full recovery from this dreadful experience.

I don't think she's "pure evil", just extremely greedy and stupid. I can't see how anyone can describe her as a "good mum" but maybe she's done a better job with her other children...

Eight years total, out in 4 on license doesn't seem much but I can't imagine how awful an experience she'll find jail. And to be honest, it's not likely she's ever going to do be able to anything similar again, she's not much of a threat to the public, and I can't how extending the sentence will help her children.

i d imagine that she wont be able to be kept with the other inmates, and will be with the ones on rule 64 or hatever its called, ie pretty isolated.

kierens point was a good one - her daughter will be in care because of this for far longer than her prison sentence.

It's probably about what i expected. As some one else said it's not like she's murdered her daughter or caused a threat to the general public, she just did something extereemly stupid. She should be made to serve the whole full 8 years though if it is that she will be running other prison sentances alongside this one, and also she should be made to pay back the money that was investing in trying to find her daughter!

I know people's first expectation is that she'll be a complete target in prison - and not least because her ex got done for child porn, IIRC - so it'll be for her own good, but being in long-term, almost constant isolation from other people is a bl00dy awful thing, incredibly cruel, drives people insane. Could that have been a consideration for length of sentence?

And while she certainly should be punished and I completely get Kieren's point about length of prison vs care, I don't think our justice system works on tit for tat. And her daughter (and presuably other children) will be in care regardless of whether or not she is in prison. But she is still their mother and whatever relationship they still have with her won't be aided by her incarceration.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all sympathetic to this woman but some people get lesser sentences for manslaughter or murder or rape...

driving the wrong way down a motoroway is "extremely stupid". planning your own daughters abduction and imprisonment is premeditated, planned, thought through. and then there s the issue of fraud as well, though the fraud was not successful. the more i think about this the more disgusted i feel.

Oh, and lest we forget, drugging her with tranquilisers (which was going on even before the "kidnap")

well yes, because she's going to have the earning capacity to repay the thick end of three million quid...

as for her doing a better job with the other children, i'd imagine the answer to that is a resounding no. so a childhood in care is a case of rock/hard place for these poor kids.

I might sound a bit 'Daily Mail', but I'm not particularly bothered that she's going to find it tough in prison, or might have to be isolated, or whatever. I feel more bothered about the effects her cruelty has had on her daughter, and will continue to have for the rest of her life.

I don't think 8 years is anywhere near enough.

i agree with all that, and i dont care if its daily mail or not.

Ok so maybe she doesn't have the intelectual ability to take on this kind of job, but what's the betting that when she gets out of prison she'll get a new identity and receive some kind of benefits from the government. This should most definately be stopped!

but what's the alternative?

what do you suggest?

I really don't know. But for her to waste millions in tax payers money, then to be put into prison and then to come out get a new identity and benefits is just a joke but then i suppose this is what the country is like.

Totally agree with you HH, i hope she does have it tough in there, its not like she didnt put her own daughter through it. TBH i think she's a disgrace, it makes me sick to the stomach to think of what she put the girl through.

8 years is never enough.

I'm with Keef, Nick and HH on this one. 8 years is laughable and I couldn't give a flying *** about the effect isolation will have on her. It was premeditated and the impact on her other kids as well as poor Shannon cannot be under estimated. I felt sick when it came out she'd drugged Shannon with temazepam in the school holidays, now she must've got the idea for that from somewhere, GOK how many other kids are subjected to t he same.

As for the paying the money back.... pah!

And a good thing too - I've lived in countries that aren't, and it's not pretty.

Also, it costs the taxpayer a hell of a lot more to keep someone in prison than it does to keep them on benefits, so your argument doesn't begin to stack up.

That said, the sentence does seem very lenient.