Interesting article and a story which I've read a little about over the last week or so. Yes it is right that they should be treated in a similar manner to the rest of society - equal pain for all and all that, but I can't help but take a dislike to the gleeful way in which the reporter has a pop at these two.
Yes they were having an undercover (excuse the pun) relationship and were unfortunately blackmailed. As legal people they should have known better and ought not to be able to influence the system any better than most. What bothers me generally is the way in which people are hounded by the press to reveal every last shred of their dignity because the press feels it is newsworthy and that the public should know. Whilst there are elements of truth in these statements when it comes to politicians and other prominent figures in the community, there are none when it comes to the average Jo or Mary living in normalsville, UK. I just hate to see these vermin overturn the lives of generally good people in the name of "the public should know"
These two judges will now be disciplined for doing something which regrettably goes on throughout society and, last time I check, wasn't illegal. What will happen to our Brazilian blackmailer? A small house and full benefits in the suburbs whilst they take seven years to figure out her entitlement to stay and then give up and just give her a passport.
Not at all shippers. I'm not saying they're perfect here and whilst it is probable that educated people such as these two would have guessed the validity of their cleaning friend, in this land we're still innocent until proven otherwise.
My real gripe is that in the land of the UK Press, most people are guilty until proven innocent and when they are thus proven, the press are rarely interested any longer. That's the real crime.
I'm in favour of our press as averse to the European model, where the politicians have them screwed to the deck.
They're not allowed to expose politicians' private lives.
That means that any politician expounding a "back to basics" policy, such as John Major did while carrying on alarmingly with Edwina Currie, would mean the press was muzzled.
They would be forbidden by law exposing him for the hypocrite he was.
All professions are expected by their own codes to conform to a set of rules. These two didn't and were caught red-handed, QED - they should be sacked on the spot, but not necessarily because they employed an illegal.
I'm disappointed with the legal profession, although far from surprised, that they do not treat their own profession with the same attention to detail as they do others.