The media frenzy over 13-year-old Alfie Patten’s fatherhood is getting out of control
Dear Jeremy Hunt,
It’s fair to say that the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) is not the most highly respected organisation in media circles. Newspapers consider it more of an obstacle than anything else. As Shadow Culture, Media and Sport Secretary, I wondered if you had any plans to do anything about this, especially in light of the media frenzy over ‘father at 13 but looks about 6′ Alfie Patten, his one-night-stand-turned-mother Chantelle Steadman, 15, and their newborn daughter.
Child protection officers at East Sussex County Council have written to the PCC to complain about ‘harassment’ of the teenagers. The PCC is already investigating whether or not The Sun and The People broke rules by making payments to the Patten family. News organisations may only do so if there is a “demonstrable public interest” in a story. Both papers will argue that such a public interest is evidenced by wider fears about a “broken society”. Channel 4’s Cutting Edge programme has already secured rights for a documentary about the boy and at least 15 production companies have enquired about his availability. Last Friday, Alfie was shown on the front page of The Sun with Maisie Roxanne, whom he claims to have fathered. Up to six other local youths claim to have slept with Chantelle in the past nine months, but two in particular have been forceful in their claims on the child. Allegedly The Sun initially offered the families between £10,000 and £15,000, soon raising that to about £32,000. Max Clifford, Alfie’s agent, refused to confirm the sum, or reports that Alfie would open his DNA test results on Monday live on television. Contrary to some reports, social services in East Sussex will not pay the £300 cost of the DNA test. The PCC was forced to defend itself yesterday from accusations that it had failed to act swiftly enough to protect the privacy of the three children.
It’s a tricky one, I know. Conservatives like you and I instinctively flinch at the idea of ‘Big State’ actions or excessive government intervention. However, my political principles are being pulled in several different directions. I don’t believe that the welfare state should ever incentivise stupid behaviour by, for example, paying single parents more child benefit than married couples – but surely tens of thousands of pounds from newspapers plus accompanying documentaries and glamorous publicity is just as dangerous and promotes the wrong behaviour? Then there’s the issue of privacy invasion. I am totally against the media being able to splash details of people’s private lives all over the front pages, but if children want to sell their story should the PCC intervene? If the government banned under 16’s from selling personal details to newspapers, wouldn’t that make things better? The issue of ‘public interest’ is easier to deal with. This story might be ‘interesting for the public’ but that doesn’t mean we are gaining or benefiting from it. If anything, the publicity it has received will encourage others to follow suit. The PCC’s remit should be changed from ‘in the public interest’ to ‘of benefit to the nation’ or words to that effect, in order to prevent spurious claims from newspapers regarding the importance of stories.
The PCC is clearly a spineless and powerless organisation and can do little more than slap newspapers on the back of the hand and wag their finger at them. This is clearly not an acceptable state of affairs and needs some careful thought. I don’t mean to sound all Daily Mail-esque but we are talking about the privacy and future of two idiotic and vulnerable children plus a newborn baby. Even though this story makes for a great newspaper headline, the media furore and their ensuing behaviour is verging on exploitation. The fact that Alfie Patten might open his DNA test results live on television is sick, it’s just sick. What kind of society takes pleasure from watching a child’s life potentially fall apart in front of him? The way that this story has unfolded and the complete failure to put the interests of the children first is simply appalling.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
Funniest thing I read today? The report that social workers were concerned that the media were damaging the welfare of his family.
Yeah, that ship had already sailed, social workers! Good job there…
But isn’t that precisely the problem? We have a culture of acceptance when it comes to the intricate details of children’s lives being splashed all over the newspapers – should this be acceptable and within the bounds of the law? I despise government intervention as a general rule, but isn’t protecting young children a strong justification for the government to step in?
The government should have ’stepped in’ long before the story became a story. Or they should have never allowed this kind of dysfunctional ‘family’ to be encouraged by the welfare state in the first place.
It’s no good whining about it now, this is what their policies have wrought, deliberately or inadvertantly.
This just smacks of ‘We shouldn’t do anything to the people involved, because that’s harsh and judgemental, so we’ll castigate the people pointing out the moral decline instead’…
Well said. I was just curious about your views on the government allowing this degree of privacy invasion in children, seeing as I know you’re not big on ‘Big State’ intervention. I would be tempted to support legislation stating that details of children under 16, maybe 18, are not allowed to be bought and published by newspapers….
My opinions on these media frenzies is well documented. You could burn all the printing presses and it wouldn’t bother me.
However, the idea that legislation would restrict stories coming out in this day and age is bunkum.
Why wouldn’t a ban on newspapers publishing these stores work? How else would we have found out about Alfie Patten if the Sun hadn’t splashed the story all over the front pages? I would have thought simple and targetted legislation would have an enormous effect.
These kids’ lives have been ruined by a mistake – which I’m not sure they see it as one yet but I am sure they will. they have been failed by predominantely their own parents, by culture, by the education system and in part government. It is tragic to think that these kids have such dysfunctional families that nobody told them that having a child is not a great idea when you are still a child yourself. This naivety is so disheartening.
These stories sell papers but you are right LFAT it is certainly not a publc benefit. So perhaps strict regulation is the way to go.
who is doing the exploiting and what do you expect the PCC to do about it. The lad has an asset (his story) and he is exploiting it. Good for him! The public interest argument is nonsense – who on earth is appropriate to rule on that – its a nebulous concept of no use to man nor beast.
All this really demonstrates is that much government policy is nonsense, and there is little the law can do about it without making itself look like an ass.
What is missing from this is parental responsibility. Personally I think that is a result of the nonsense socialist dogma which has invaded these isles.
Isn’t the PCC made up of newspaper editors?I’m sure it’s not an indepencant body.
Far from hiding this story i think it’s done a lot to make people realise that state of the country and to bring home the type of life the benefits culture generates.
The children have been exploited by the parents as well as the press and I think most people will notice this and be disgusted by it.You may get a few more trying to jump on the bandwagon but on the whole this has been very negative publicity.If the childrens lives have been blighted and corrupted so be it,but they have been blighted anyway the way they live.
You will not change anything by hiding it away.
Alistair, I’m not one to question entrepreneurship but I’m still struggling to see how this entire episode can be construed as anything other than exploiting the dire personal circumstances of two teenagers and their newborn child (who has now been brought into this world in the most horrific media environment and is damned to a life of horrible circumstances surrounding their birth). Obviously parental responsibility is missing, no-one is doubting that.
DMC, obviously the media didn’t make this child come into the world, but surely you would accept that they’ve made its life a lot worse before it’s had a chance to get started?
tend to agree with Alastair. The parents are the ones responsible in the dealings with the papers as the kids are too young. The only way to inhibit this would be if social services cautioned the parents about their behaviour and potential consequences – never going to happen.
But as in all these paper stories who is doing the exploiting, the papers or the people who buy the papers (and increase revenues). This is far more in the purview of the behaviour of society in general than newspaper regulation. I’d be far more concerned about any new PPC regulations that would be abused by polticians and people with money that hire top litigators to keep stories of genuine public interest secret.
I dont think the media have LFAT,when she is old enough to understand whats going on the money will all be spent and they will be all back on benefits,The media all over some new trivial item.
She has the worse posibble set of relatives,it will be a miracle if she turns out a decent human being.The only way of saving her is to get her well away from all of them.
“obviously the media didn’t make this child come into the world, but surely you would accept that they’ve made its life a lot worse before it’s had a chance to get started?”
No. The ‘parents’ have done that, by exploiting them for financial gain. If the papers weren’t interested, they’d still have their hands in my pocket, after all, by claiming all the benefits going.
“No. The ‘parents’ have done that, by exploiting them for financial gain. If the papers weren’t interested, they’d still have their hands in my pocket, after all, by claiming all the benefits going.”
Are they exploiting their kids or are they, like Jade Goody, merely trying to acquire money to ensure they have a better or indeed comfortable life? And as you correctly observe, if the papers and their consumers are happy to give them money then I won’t have to.
Personally I don’t for a minute think the parents are doing this for the kids.This is pure greed.
Personally I don’t for a minute think the parents are doing this for the kids.This is pure greed.
But when considered in TabloidLand, I’d rather see more of baby-father than some D-List ‘reality’ TV-starlet’s orange-coloured boobs.
Maybe my age is showing.