A public person’s private life remains private up to a limit.

One would not be interested in, for example, whether or not a politician/magistrate/police officer- is having a picnic on a beach with his/her children.

If, on the other hand, that same person is behaving inappropriately on a beach with some bit-on-the side, risking themselves being exposed to blackmail, then yes, the public has every right to know.

The above example is purely hypotethical, and has been given only to make things a little more clear for you, since you obviously fail to grasp the situation.

What happens as a result of that ‘private’ life is everyone’s business.

Apparently it’s yours too. See? Even you felt you had to say something about it.

“the Magistrate’s choices and actions in her personal life made carrying out the duties of her office vulnerable to blackmail”

Too true. It’s the *possibility* of blackmail that’s the point here. That possibility stands, regardless of whether it’s ever occurred so far. Could we be sure that the magistrate would call in the police if she were ever threatened with blackmail? More to the point, what guarantee is there that the police themselves are immune to blackmail in relation to this matter?

“The essential point that Daphne makes however, that the Magistrate’s choices and actions in her personal life made carrying out the duties of her office vulnerable to blackmail, is entirely valid.

I think she was right to make it and, in my view, the magistrate should now consider her position.”

Thank you, Georg. Sadly, not everyone has the guts to openly agree with Daphne, for fear of how it may affect them personally, for fear of retribution.

Such people do not realise that their silence is only tacit approval – and by that, I do not mean tacit approval of what Daphne has written. Anyway, you know what I mean.

The essential point that Daphne makes however, that the Magistrate’s choices and actions in her personal life made carrying out the duties of her office vulnerable to blackmail, is entirely valid.

I think she was right to make it and, in my view, the magistrate should now consider her position.

John Schembri: You could start a petition yourself.

Dave: Consuelo Herrera is not being criticised over a love affair. Still less is she ‘being made to go’.

The implication of that ‘love affair’ you mention is the weakening of credibility in her judgement. And that’s to say nothing of the implications of all the other shenanigans.