Why
Conservatives on this Side of the Atlantic Lose
I am
an expat U.S. citizen writing to you from Ireland. I doubt it will surprise you
that here, in Ireland, and across the nearby islands of the East Atlantic
archipelago (a/k/a the British Isles), there are few conservative newspapers,
podcasters, and other pundits. Amongst the handful of conservative commentators
is nothing like a spirit of cooperation. The larger number of them are prima
donnas who will bad mouth other conservatives for no apparent reason at all. And
for the crumbs of popularity and social media engagement, they are all too
willing to engage in random anti-Americanism and TDS-driven commentary.
Enter Laura Perrins—an Irish
commentator, educated in University College Dublin & Cambridge University, member
of the Irish and English bars, who had made a career in London, but who, now back
in Ireland, writes a Substack: The West Brit. It is a daring title. ‘West
Brit’ is a commonly used slur—directed by Irish nationalists against other
Irish perceived as pro-British, or, at the very least, insufficiently Irish,
politically or culturally, or both.
On August 24, 2026, on
her Substack,
Ms Perrins entered the Lindsay Clancy culture war—firmly on side-Clancy. And
she wants you to know that. Perrins wrote:
It was Ms Clancy’s
deep, deep misfortunate to suffer serious side-effects from the cocktail of
drugs she was prescribed by two practitioners who were not communicating with
each other and never met her in person. Lindsay Clancy did not choose to suffer
from serious side-effects that included 48 hours without sleep, the triggering
of bi-polar disorder and perhaps hallucinations and psychosis.
No, I do not
believe Lindsay Clancy chose, in a rational sense, to murder her three
children, one by one, by her own hands.
I
will make it simple. If Clancy was actually insane at the time she killed her
three children, then under settled state law and consistent with prevailing law
across the common law world, she should escape criminal punishment (although
she might have to be committed until her sanity is (re)established). But if she
was not insane, then she is a criminal, subject to the rigours of the law, as
would be any other parent who killed their children. Perrins wrote: “Lindsay
Clancy did not choose to suffer from serious side-effects that included 48
hours without sleep, the triggering of bi-polar disorder and perhaps
hallucinations and psychosis.” Suffering from post-partum depression (assuming Clancy
so suffered) does not amount to insanity. Drug-induced side-effects (assuming
Clancy so suffered) does not amount to insanity. 48 hours without sleep
(assuming Clancy so suffered) does not amount to insanity. And 100s of 1000s of
persons (if not millions) suffer from bi-polar disorder—that, without more,
does not amount to insanity. Hallucinations and psychosis—they do amount to
insanity, but here, Perrins does not affirm that Clancy so suffered; instead,
Perrins merely says “perhaps” Clancy was afflicted in that way. That’s a
problem for Perrins. If Clancy was not suffering from hallucinations or a
psychotic break, or both, then her killing her (and her husband’s) children
amounts to murder, and as such, she should be prosecuted.
I do not want to be overly harsh.
There are so few journalists and commentators in these islands and in
wider-Europe who hold anything akin to conservative sentiments, and for that
reason, I would eschew making negative comments based on a single word. But …
later in her Substack article, Perrins goes on to say:
Do you think this
[case against Clancy] is likely or logical?
Or do you think
that her postpartum depression, followed by the cocktail of drugs and negligent
care, her declining mental state, a psychiatric emergency, her insomnia,
anxiety, bi-polar, and perhaps mania, that she was having hallucinations
and on that terrible day she did indeed hear a ‘male commanding voice’ telling
her to kill her children and herself. That this was her only way out. (emphasis added)
Again,
“perhaps” rears its ugly head—why? Everything that comes before “perhaps” is
unfortunate—but those conditions do not, without more, support a finding of
“insanity.” What follows Perrins’ use of “perhaps” if established to a jury
could reasonably support an insanity defence—if and only if it happened. So why
the “perhaps”?
Perrins repeated use of “perhaps”
undercuts all her efforts to persuade the reasonable reader that Clancy is
innocent. And that is as it should be. Because the real question is a difficult
one. There are two possibilities. One possibility is that Clancy was insane at
the time she did the deed. The other possibility is that she was not insane at
that time, and at that time and since, she pretended to be insane to escape
punishment. That’s essentially going to be a determination for the jury, under
guidance from a judge, after hearing from witnesses and experts and arguments
from the state’s counsel and her own. In regard to the jury’s making that
determination, Clancy will have all the traditional legal protections, including:
a unanimous jury, the presumption of innocence, the burden of persuasion placed
on the prosecution, and every element of the charge must be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Today
is August 26, 2026—the presentation of evidence and argument is yet to
conclude. So why is Perrins convinced of Clancy’s evidence? Perrins makes
several arguments, but they are each thoroughly unconvincing. In saying that, I
am not asserting Clancy’s guilt—I’ll leave that question to the jury charged
with hearing all the evidence. What I am criticising is Perrins’ putting
forward arguments and evidence in her Substack that have little persuasive
force.
First, Perrins reports
that Clancy’s killing her children was a complete break from her prior conduct,
and that she had no recognized priors. That’s true, but that is equally true
for every mass murderer’s first murder. We all have good records until we are
caught doing something wrong. Until a wrongdoer is caught, many will continue
to believe the wrongdoer is virtuous. Second, Perrins reports that
Clancy’s family, including in-laws, saw her as a good, dedicated mother. And
that’s true too, but it is not convincing. The question is: Were these people
on notice of red flags? And having reached this juncture, are these people now
afraid to report and to admit what (if anything) they had noticed in the past
but chose not to act upon? Third, Perrins points to the fact that Clancy
injured herself in her failed suicide attempt and is now partially paralyzed.
Perrins sees this as evidence of a psychotic break. And it could be. It could
also be the outcome of a crime that failed to play out as planned. Our jails
are full of people who miscalculated being caught and who miscalculated the
injuries they’d cause and suffer from during the commission of their crimes.
Poor planning is not evidence of insanity or innocence. Finally, Perrins
reports that Clancy worked in a hospital as a labour and delivery nurse. That’s
all true too. Hospitals are full of patients who are totally dependent on
staff—to be educated and to be moral. But not all staff are. For those
committed to do wrong, hospitals are places where the dependent can be murdered
almost with impunity, and the skills taught to save lives can be misused to
accomplish evil ends that terminate lives. All know this—at least all know this
who remember the trials of Lucy Letby, a British neonatal nurse, which ended in
2023 and in 2024—not so long ago. Perrins’ article is devoid of any reference
to Letby, and that’s a tell.
And
that’s also the heart of the dispute here. Perrins cannot bring herself to imagine
the possibility that some persons, and in particular some women and some nurses,
may actively choose to do evil. And the many, many men who have heard the sorts
of arguments advanced by Perrins and others on behalf of Clancy know—we know—to
a 100% certainty, that those types of arguments are not likely to be advanced
(and, concomitantly, much less likely to be advanced successfully) in defence
of a man with an arguably similar (alleged) psychotic break. In comparable
circumstances, a man (or father) would be seen by a jury (even if composed
entirely of men) as just as a stone-cold killer. More importantly, neither would
men’s organisations nor male-focused media nor men’s marches cry, scream, or
carry placards on behalf of such male defendants. For better or worse,
Clancy’s case is part of the culture war. Ms Perrins’ not seeing what many,
many men do see comes across as, at best, ill informed, and at worst, as
cowardly.
There
are far too many conservative politicians and commentators who lack spines. They
are afraid to stand tall, and they will retreat even before being criticized. Their
worst nightmare is an accusation directed against them for being racists,
and then, a close number two—being called misogynists, and finally,
being characterised as heartless, compassionless conservatives. Surrender
is their only true creed. Here, on this side of the Atlantic, all too many
conservatives have all these defects, supplemented with additional helpings of
Anti-Americanism and TDS. Remember Roger Scruton and The New Statesman? In
these islands, to be a conservative, is not so much a refusal to die on this or
any hill, as it is a continuing refusal to take any stand, on any issue, at any
time. Surrender is not put forward as a pragmatic response to a public beyond
persuasion, or even as a recognition of the political realities of a fallen
(political) world, but embraced as a (if not the only) guiding (political) principle.
This is why conservatives lose—even, here, in the land of Burke.
Seth
Barrett Tillman, Associate Professor
Maynooth
University School of Law and Criminology
Scoil
an Dlí agus na Coireolaíochta Ollscoil Mhá Nuad
(academic
affiliation for identification purposes only)
Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Why Conservatives on this Side of the Atlantic Lose,’ New Reform Club (2026), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2026/08/why-conservatives-on-this-side-of.html>;
Seth Barrett Tillman,
‘Different Rules for Women who Kill,’ Quadrant Online (Aug. 31, 2026) (Australia), <https://quadrant.org.au/news-opinions/qed/different-rules-for-women-who-kill/>.
