It seems that a gentleman has met his death while engaging in the practice of an unusual, but commonly known (and practiced), sexual activity.
Let me upfront say that I think that that what is done in PRIVATE between CONSENTING and ABLE adults is no business but of their own and I’m not one to pass judgment on how people obtain pleasure in, I repeat, a CONSENTING and ABLE manner.
But Britain thinks otherwise.
Yes, you may right now say that you, like me, agree that this shouldn’t even be news, but I’m not referring to individuals, but to the attitude of the nation as a whole.
The U.K. has been through many a sex scandal, which I might add, they are, were and will be, the main fuel feeding an industry that Britain invented, and is a master at, the tabloid news.
But out of all those sex scandals, I ask, how many of those who played a part in them came out unscathed?
Better put, how many of those were NOT publicly insulted with “perversion” and “shame” right off the bat?
This gentleman, was, as the tabloid so rightfully says, a “respected jeweller Mr Webster, a Sunday league soccer chairman” who “on the day he died he told wife Jackie, 46, he was visiting an engraver.”
Instead he was “secretly visiting the Richardsons at their quiet suburban home next to a primary school”.
Apparently “Mums at the school near the Richardsons' home said they were stunned to hear of the bondage dungeon. One said: "It was such a shock because this area is so quiet and well-to-do."“
But who are the Richardsons? Well, according to the tabloids they are “Shamed ... Anne and Colin Richardson”.
Will ever Anne and Colin Richardson be able to walk in their neighborhood in peace? If they work, although by the ages referred are not likely to, how will they feel, or made to feel, there? And what about their family? What will their children / grandchildren / in-laws / parents-of-in-laws / etc., think and act towards them from now on?
Their lives ruined. Their crime? PRIVATE Pleasure.
Yes, they received money and were professional enough to have a panic button, but the tone of the article is not against prostitution, but rather in the type of the sexual activity engaged, which, as far as I know, is not illegal in any way.
I ask you, and this is the message that I would like to get across, what WOULD the Richardsons do if they COULD to hide this from the rest of the world?
What WOULD the Richardsons do, and GET OTHERS to do for them, if they had the right connections and contacts?
And if some, or all neighbors of this “so quiet and well-to-do” area were also in on this, what WOULD they do to help in whatever the Richardsons WOULD, if they COULD, ask them?
No, not saying they are, just raising the mere possibility…
If they COULD, what WOULD the Richardsons be able to get away with?
We know that “they tried to lift dad-of-two Mr Webster - but he was too heavy. And they could not release the collar because he had locked it and hidden the key in his orange boiler suit”, so at least we know that they wouldn’t go for an “abduction-scenario” cover-up…
Is this in any way related to the McCanns?
I’ll leave it up to you to judge.
No, it’s got nothing to do with a coincidence of a surname. Coincidences do happen, just not as many times as some are so hard trying to make us believe they do.
And wouldn't the natural reaction of the Richardson's family be to do everything they could to save the family's reputation? I certainly think they would.
ReplyDeleteDisagree that this shouldn't be news. It's important to educate people of the dangers an consequences of certain practices, sexual or non-sexual. S&M can be dangerous and people should be alerted to that fact.
ReplyDeleteAgree that what is private is private, so these people have nothing to be ashamed of, nor be called shamed.
Agree that if I were in their position, I would do all to keep the lid on this thing. And yes, Anon 10:30, I would help close family to hide this. There is no crime involved, it was an unfortunate accident, and, as Text says, nothing would stop the witch-hunting.
Starting to understand the swinging angle on the McCann case.
"Vícios privados, publicas virtudes" or in English, private vices, public virtues, is common in any civilization, but has been taken into exaggeration in the anglo-saxonic world.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that what is private and consent does not relate to anyone else.
ReplyDeleteIt is only news when a death occurs and the emergency services are called. And know that more cases like this with public figures. The emergency services have to report to the authorities, hence the publicity or lack of knowledge, of such powerful, to stifle the truth. And the comment of "public virtues" translates very well what is happening in Uk, but always.
On the other hand, when I went looking for more data, I noticed a comment of respect for the person. Nothing more.
A person who has had bad luck despite having a panic button.
Not the same button JG. And it definitely did not fake credit cards.
Maria
If they can, the Richardson's will get ride of the body (that is a normal reaction and the first when somebody face a serious cenario which cannot be reversed) and after, they will set a story to blame others and take the attention out of their house and them.
ReplyDeleteMccann's have done that with many mistakes. They just got away with their crime because two countries let them go. Why? that is the question for Mr. Socrates and Mr. Brown. I hope one day, a serious and independent journalist will follow the smell and force them to publicly explain 'WHY'?
Without going into a moral judgement on sexual games, I have serious doubts about not classifying that one as a crime. They are adults, then they should know that there is serious risks on games like that. Consenting them or participating on them, is saying yes to a crime if something went wrong, even if the victim was not forced to do anything and payed for such services. There is a limit for everything and that went too far.
ReplyDeleteAmazing the age of the Richardson's but is always like that: 'The surprise came from where noboby think.'
I couldn't disagree more!
ReplyDeleteThis method of doing things is not for everyone. Each one of us has a moral code that would define your answer to life circumstances - no matter how hard they may be!
When you make a pact with someone to cover up anything serious you never know how far that thing goes.
Even, among their friends I can - almost - assure you that not all feel comfortable with the situation, a part from having more money from British press - they know how dirty this money is.
And specially because does not provide any cure for pain and guilt.
The hardest thing in live is that you have to live with yourself - even if you change the country, house or the color of your air.
This takes us to the crucial point - you will know the truth about what really has happened on May 3rd, or earlier - when someone among them break down and tell because as I told you before there was no stone unturned ... meaning... no trace left behind... at least good enough to build a case strong enough to be taken to the court house!
Maybe mother keeps returning to PDL to make sure no one there is having existential doubts...
Agree with you Anon. 8:01.
ReplyDeleteKate alone in PDL was not because of Madeleine or her absolute need to pray for her daughter. Pray is universal and democratic, can be done anywhere, specially in Madeleine's quite and emotional room.
Was not Madeleine who made Kate fly to PDL and spend some money. She did not went out of the flat when the girl disappeared to look for her, then why going to PDL now? Some mouths need to be under control. Some places need to be out of public and police suspiction. Some friends, who could not be really friends, need pressure to still quite. No stone should be left unturnned on the biggest cover-up of our time. She have to travel.
No jogging now Kate? How convennient was the jogging after May 3.
Who are the Hubbards and what made them arrive to PDL, few days after Madeleine went missing? There is no coincidences on that saga.
"Death mystery of Nelson man after Maddie hunt This Is Lancashire"
ReplyDeleteBy Jon Livesey
11:07am Thursday 7th October 2010
"A FORMER soldier who left Pendle to search for missing toddler Madeleine McCann died in mysterious circumstances after returning home to Nelson, an inquest heard.
Ex-paratrooper Colin Sahlke sold all his possessions around May 2007 to raise £5,000 to fund a trip to Praia de Luz with pal Steve Taylor, so they could join the hunt for the missing youngster.
The pair, who united while working at a shower factory in Nelson, met Madeleine's father Gerry before they searched the coast and waste ground around the resort for clues.
But Burnley Coroner's Court was told that by the time Mr Sahlke returned to East Lancashire, he was drinking heavily and lived latterly in a flat in Carr Road.
His body was found by his landlord on April 19 after he got no response at his front door, the inquest heard..." ( the rest of the story is at Mccannfiles-Latest news. What made that guy sale all his belongs and fly to PDL when a team of very specialized polices, including FBI, with a good badget was looking for Madeleine? To fly there. he must be sure that the official police had no chance to find the girl. Annother innuendo and a strange character to add to Mccann's gallery. He sales everything around May 2007. Was it before or immediately after May 3?)
Anon 8:01
ReplyDelete'..there was no stone unturned ... meaning...no trace left behind...'
Well said.
Anon 8:01,
ReplyDeleteIf "no stone unturned" you mean leaving no evidence... then i must disagree, but if you mean guarateeing that pressure was put on anyone that could help them, willingly or not willingly, achieve their objectives, then, yes, you have my full agreement.
The fall of Gamble means to the McCanns the exat«ct same treatment that they gave Tanner when she started to be cocky... and that, as they so well know it, is one frighteming nightmare. Just ask Jane.
Below is a quote from an Oree. I suggest people read it carefully before 'jumping to conclusions'
ReplyDeleteQuote:
Gamble also called for a new crime of adults having "cybersex" with a child avatar, or character, in a virtual online game.
"If you want to have sex with a child and would fantasise about having sex with a child, either in this one or a virtual one, we need to investigate whether they are a danger to children,"
Unquote- from JG.
response from an Oree:
Let's imagine what might happen if these thoughts were spoken on a psychoanalyst's couch, rather than into the all-too-credulous ears of a paedo-hounding journo. Psychoanalysts listen out for where you put the disavowed parts of yourself; the clinical question, in other words, is not "How can we catch these terrible predators?" but "Who are you pinning your most feared and powerful desires upon?" and even "Why do you become consumed with fears of sexual predation as soon as you mention children?"
A recurrent preoccupation, Mr Gamble (and Mr Carr) might do well to take note, is often a powerul clue as to where you've planted your split-off and projected desires. And the more censorious, punitive and disgusted the tone of the projector - the more driven he is to cleanse the social body of the scapegoats he loves to hate - the greater the likelihood that he can never find peace from the terrible insistence of his unwanted desires. If a senior policeman were to show that he lacked the ability to discriminate between fantasy and real conduct, and was prepared not only to squander huge amounts of public money in pursuit of his pathological confusion but to shatter the lives of all those whom he points an accusing finger at, it would be a VERY alarming clinical sign, more befitting of a psychiatric ward than the holder of a powerful public office.
Arrogant, ill-tempered certainty is usually an attempt to conceal profound confusion. Sadly, it also seems to be the kind of characteristic that will get you promoted to positions of frightening power in the British police force, if a formerly highly influential senior officer is anything to go by.
I would suggest some parents in Leicestershire give that a great deal of thought.
TC
TC A very good line of reasoning. Self-hatred of the parts of oneself manifested by protestation. Edgar Hoover in a dress comes to mind.
ReplyDelete