emmie - an awful waste whichever way you look at it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8011179/Caroline-Flack-took-life-minutes-best-friend-leaving-flat.html //
Your link encapsulates the utter hypocrisy of the press in its contribution to this poor woman's tragic death.
In it's print edition, their high priestess of moralising cant Sarah Vine tries to simultaneously point the finger of blame (entirely fairly) at the poisonous morons who populate social media with their vile vitriol against complete strangers.
Ms Vine simultaneously excuses her own rag and its types, because they are prevented from the worst excesses of hatred and bile by the restrictions of the Press Complaints Commision, which en effect, simply causes their writers to be somewhat more creative and inventive with their moralising and finger pointing.
But the galaxy-sized irony of this, is that while the Mail Online spends its time getting gentlemen of a certain age hot under collar with its 1972-level nonsense of 'hot bodies' and 'side boobs', both it, and the print edition posted an image of Ms Flack - in the print edition's, case it was printed nice and large right by Ms. Vine's tirade of finger-pointing 'not-us-gov!' piffle.
Was the picture of Ms. Flack at work, glammed up, talking to a camera on television? Not, it was a picture of her walking near her home, clearly 'off duty' - wearing a track suit, no make-up, hair scraped up, and sun glasses, the epitome of a famous person trying to do something normal, and not be recognised and bothered by the press doing it.
So what happens? A paparazzo takes her picture. Why? because a newspaper, in this case the moralising Mail, will pay him a fee for its use in their pages - because its readers, for some baffling reason, like to look at pictures of famous people being 'normal' like them.
The Mail actively encourages the level of rapacious and unending interference in the lives of famous people to feed its own readers' appetites, and increase its circulation, by paying a pap yet again for an image he should not have been taking, and using it to illustrate the intrusion of the press, while its head columnist tuts and hand-wrings over the evils of intrusion by strangers.
I hope, but seriously doubt, that the unbelievable absence of self-awareness that clearly infects the Mail's editorial when they see this juxtaposition of invaded privacy and finger-pointing superiority about privacy invasion, will give them cause to think that maybe they play a significant part in the invasion of privacy and pointless nasty gossiping and giggling that eventually led to the death of a seriously ill and suffering woman who could not live with the prospect of any more of their behaviour.
Shame on them all.