Alex Muller

Euan posted a photo to Twitter tonight from a tabloid (though I’m not sure which one). The headline read:

Beautiful Issy was sucked into drugs by the Internet… it killed her

This of course is the story of 15-year-old Isobel Jones-Reilly, who (at the risk of speculating a little) died after taking ecstasy at a friend’s house.

Euan’s dead on with his caption:

Oh FFS

Arthur Martin and Tamara Cohen, writing for The Mail (God, I hate it so), are reporting that she was “sucked in by the drug-taking exploits of the celebrities she idolised” and “was hooked on the internet”. Take it from somebody who, according to his mother (!), does have an unhealthy addiction to “that machine” (as she so affectionately calls it): I may be screwed up in all sorts of ways, but I’ve thus far managed to avoid ingesting lethal doses of various drugs. I’m not particularly sure the two are related.

The way they’re trying to spin this makes me so angry:

Isobel, described as a ‘member of the Myspace Generation’, used at least seven social networking sites

As do a huge number of 15-year-olds, I’ll bet. How many die each year?

Jaye Williamson, who was Isobel’s English teacher at Chiswick Community College, in west London, said: ‘She was into the kind of things that teenagers get into, but she got hooked on the worldwide web. She was part of the Myspace generation. She got caught and we are devastated.’

I’ve seen first hand the difference between the words a journalist hears and what ends up on the page, so I’m hoping that Ms Williamson doesn’t stand by that quote. What on earth does “she got caught” mean?

There’s already going to be a backlash of protective parents stopping their teenage children from leaving the house, at least in the short term. And thanks to articles like this, it’s going to extend to the web as well. Why do journalists (shudder) always feel the need to find something that’s obviously unrelated to blame? I’d love to be a fly on the wall watching articles like this being produced. The little jokes across the office, the one-line emails, the instant messages, would all be so revealing.

I don’t mean for this post to sound insensitive. While what’s happened is obviously incredibly sad, I wish the papers wouldn’t see it as an opportunity to push the bizarre agenda du jour.

The mother of a nine-year-old boy has lodged a complaint after her son was stopped and searched by police.

BBC News, August 18^th, 2009

So let’s take a look at the facts here:

1. with friends in Camberwell, south London

   South London isn’t a particularly nice place; and that’s not just me being stereotypical and rude. Take a look at South London Press Today, or the map I created of teenage killings in London.

2. Police are legally able to search children under the age of 10

   That doesn’t mean they should, sure – but they absolutely can. From the kick off, she doesn’t seem to have much of a leg to stand on.

3. “Looking at him you can see he is not a suspect,” she added.

   No, Sandra, you think he’s not a suspect. Because he’s your son. To me, my friends, the police and everyone else, he probably looks as thuggish as every other kid. Maybe more, maybe less.

4. “It is not possible for a nine-year-old to commit a criminal offence.”

   Whoop-di-fucking-do. We should definitely let all the nine-year-olds out there just walk around with knives that they’ve picked up from home then. In fact, let’s start handing them out. Jesus. Also, this quote is stupid; common sense dictates that it is possible for a nine-year-old to commit a criminal offence, but it’s not possible to convict them for it. IANAL and all that.

5. Jadan Shepherd was searched while he was sitting on a wall

   He’s called Jadan Shepherd. Kidding, kidding, that’s not a reason. Kind of.

Earlier this week, news that Nottinghamshire teacher Peter Harvey was arrested for the attempted murder of one of his students broke. BBC News is now reporting that he’s been remanded in custody.

Regardless of what you make of the story, it should be obvious that details are a little sketchy; things have only been going for a few days or so, and nothing major has got out yet.

Nevertheless, some people have managed to prove their stupidity by offering completely unwanted and idiotic opinions on social networking sites like Facebook. Here’s a couple that made me cringe:

Jack Waterhouse looks like a little shit that deserves beatings.

— from the Facebook group of the same name, by one Scott Haynes.

You are a hero to the average, respectable, working man. Kick these little gobshites back to their chavy council estates. Another fooking kid whose mother is sponging off the state

— Phil Mcavity

Jack Waterhouse is almost certainly a fresh-mouthed little smart arse that needed a good slapping. I blame the (single) mother.

— John Fitzgerald

Apologies for the language and distasteful comments, but I wanted to get this across. Why people think they have a right to do this on the Internet is totally beyond me – it’s not even like they’re doing it because of anonymity. It’s ridiculous; part of me hopes it’s illegal, because frankly I’d love to see what would happen if some of these people had legal proceedings taken against them.

Oh, I couldn’t help but update this post after seeing the latest comment on the original group, linked above:

He looks like a right cheeky shit , unaware of who his father is.. what the class put that teacher through was awful, no respect at all

That from Jake William James French of Coquet High School, Newcastle. No offence Jake, but if we’re judging based on looks—as I’d guess you yourself are—your profile picture doesn’t seem much better.

13^th July, 1am: I keep telling myself there’s no point arguing with trolls, and there’s no point arguing with idiots. I need to spend less time on Facebook, before it drives me insane. Joe Jimothy, from the lovely state of Pennsylvania, has this to say:

In my country we would have stoned him.

Really, Joe? Stoning’s legal in the US, is it? Moron.