There, you see: no sooner do i say i am going to write just two posts today than one of Fleet St’s finest – in this case the somewhat dishevelled form of self-proclaimed Marxist revolutionary, but more accurately smug right-winger, Brendan O’Neill turns up in the Telegraph to take an uninformed pop at Lucy.
Oh. And also to add a third disgusting innuendo to which even the Mail and Littlejohn haven’t yet stooped, to suggest that not only is the fuss little more than naked exploitation of someone else’s death for political gain, but also – guess what! – Lucy might not have been in her right mind.
This he manages by the trick of linking her death to that of nurse Jacintha Saldana who, he claims “suffered from deep, dark, suicidal depression for years, and had attempted suicide in the past”. And guess what: according to O’Neill, “we may possibly discover that the same was true of Ms Meadows”.
Don’t rush to judgment, he tells us, while gleefully introducing speculation of the most disgusting kind. Just as well that the dead aren’t protected by libel laws.
For those who can’t bear to read the filth that he’s just poured out into the Telegraph, here’s the comment i posted a few minutes back, which, despite being a tad hurried, i hope gets to the heart of this.
Comment on Brendan O’Neill’s exploitative rant
What a smug, stupid, insensitive person you are, Mr O’Neill.
How many individuals in the trans community did you speak to before writing this crass piece, itself exploiting the very issue you whinge about others exploiting?
I have done little other than speak to that community over the past 72 hours, and i’d suggest that the grief and the anger are all too real. Unfocussed. Possibly directed at the wrong target – i personally think the Sun’s reporting of Lucy is as bad or worse than anything that Littlejohn wrote.
And no: i’m not asking for him to be sacked. Just asking that he have the guts to explain his conduct.
As far as i am concerned, two things stink. Two things stick out a mile from this story.
First, the press obsession with a non-story, to the extent that they actively disrupted a young woman’s life at what was almost certainly the most traumatic period she had ever lived thru.
Tell you what: when you next lose a loved one or go thru some life trauma, how would it be with you if I and two dozen of my friends came and camped outside your doorstep and wouldn’t go away until you had spoken to me and coughed up a picture or two? Or, if you wouldn’t do that, perhaps it would be OK if i paid your friends and relatives for those intimate pics you didn’t want me to have? Or just stole them?
Because in your piece, that appears to be the sort of behaviour you endorse.
And second, when next that trauma strikes and you do lose a loved one, how about i turn up at their funeral with that same band of hangers-on and party? Respectful, huh?
Well, Mr unresearched columnist, those are the two things that people are mostly upset about. The treatment of Lucy in life – and their utterly disrespectful treatment of her in death.
If you actually cared to read what people like myself, far closer to this issue than you, had written at length over the last few days, you’d have noticed that it is THOSE aspects of the case we are writing about, being very careful NOT to focus on the exact cause of death.
Because both those ways of treating a person are disgusting.
Also disgusting is your tawdry third level of attack, besmirching the name of a dead person by further insinuating into your crass piece speculation about Lucy’s state of mind.
Bottom line: this is about Lucy, her death. But in a much larger sense it has nothing and everything to do with her and everything to do with the behaviour of the press.