What if, instead of a school's secretary, she happened to be a doctor… would the headline then be “PERVERT DOCTOR’S £150 AN HOUR FOR ON-THE-SIDE OPERATIONS”?
What if, instead of a school's secretary, she happened to be a renown lawyer… would the headline then be “SHAMELESS LAWYER CHARGES £150 AN HOUR HER “OTHER” CLIENTS”?
What if, instead of a school's secretary, she happened to be a big businesswoman… would the headline then be “DISGRACED MILLIONAIRESS CHARGES £150 AN HOUR FOR “BUSINESS” MEETINGS IN BED”?
What if, instead of a school's secretary, she happened to be a magistrate… would the headline then be “KINKY JUDGE DISHES OUT “SENTENCES” FOR £150 AN HOUR”?
Within the Maddie Affair context, all these are rhetorical questions, for everyone knows the answer to ALL of them is: “No, because she has the necessary connections to stop that headline from ever appearing”.
This headline, however, shows quite clearly what was, is, and will remain to be for a long time coming, at stake the moment poor Madeleine died, just because both her parents and her parents' “friends” were where they wanted nobody to know they were, and this because they were doing what they couldn’t afford anyone (read, you) to know what they were doing.
None of them could EVER afford a similar headline.
Once this particular child died, they couldn’t do anything about having be known where they were (some were able to), but could, and did, do something about being known what they were doing.
But even the best Chef under pressure spoils a recipe, and in this case, with the haste and the amount of “excuses” to be found, the whole broil was overcooked. But did that spoil the serving? Of course not.
All the "guests" had instructions, to save their own backsides, to say how “delicious” the food was even if it was evident to all that it was over burned, overcooked and looked just like it tasted, but won't describe it as it would need the use of rather unpleasant wording.
“DELICIOUS!!!” did they all unanimously shout out, the loudest manner their lungs allowed, with the biggest grin they could muster. Some even went to the point for asking for seconds and thirds (here do read about the “hamburger theory”), avoiding the grimaces that their taste buds demanded, so much was what was at stake... They shouted out then, and will continue to shout as long as this farce will be allowed to last.
About this particular woman, a school's secretary and apparently also a hooker, let me just ponder a minute with you, if you will, on how she found herself to be such “headline news” and an exclusive at that. It’s something that is very relevant to be understood.
Did she call the tabloid? I don’t think so.
How then did the reporter get to know about this?
Two ways, as far as I can see, either from investigative journalism or from someone who knew her and called the tabloid to denounce the situation.
The first, if true, it would make one wonder what kind of journalism we’re before. Has the reporter gone through a thousand of these adverts in hope of finding similar cases to expose? If so, how many prostitutes did he "visit" before he stumbled on this case? All in the purest “line-of-duty”, of course. Where will he now take his investigative journalism? One is afraid to ask, much less venture an answer…
The second possibility, much more likely, does bring up question as to why didn’t the person who denounced this situation report it FIRST to the proper educational authority, starting, for example, with the school’s principal? That would be the responsible thing to do if one was REALLY worried about the children’s care.
Only after faced with inaction, should this individual pursue further on his or her concerns, and if need be, involve the media.
That doesn’t seem to have been the procedure in this case. The reporting went through the straightest and shortest possible way to a reporter, of a tabloid.
Out of spite, out of greed, or out of whatever reason, but with the exact same objective, to tintillate the populace’s voyeurism, which, as we can witness, is ruthless but fundamentally profitable. A tabloid sells. and not in small numbers...
These kind of "news" quench the mob’s thirst to be judgmental and, through that, feel superior.
I personally feel really sorry for the poor woman who was exposed, as long as all her clients were consenting adults. Both parties, the service provider and its receivers, appear to have engaged in said activity voluntarily. A private issue that should have remained private.
Prostitution clients include pillars of the community, such as magistrates, businessmen and bank managers, to name a few. Many people we would know in positions of authority, politics, business or law…
A heterogenic group, very much like the rag readers one, you know, all those that just love sleaze. Do check what’s the most read story, and related ones, if you doubt it.
Back to the article and its journalistic content, it does make one wonder what some people do for a living, and I’m not talking about the school's secretary/hooker.
Did those present in PDL REALLY have something to fear if word got out about what they were up to?
You tell me. A hint, could it be something like this?