Thursday, 17 March 2011

And what, precisely, does that have to do with ANYTHING?

And so begins the article;  "THIS is the face of killer Beverley Briggs – carer by day and phone-sex worker by night."

Sorry, what? Please, tell me what the hell her PSO work had to do with her crime? Reading further into the article, we're told she was deep in debt and had stolen from the pensioner she killed. In that sense, holding down a second job gives further information to her background and possibly to her financial situation - but I am damned sure were it any other kind of second job she worked, say as a cleaner, or in a call centre, it wouldn't have been "THIS is the face of killer Beverley Briggs - carer by day and call centre worker by night". It would have, possibly, been mentioned somewhere in the article.

Just checking; I haven't got mixed up have I? It is 2011? Are we still morally staining people for legal, legitimate work? (Aside from the question of declared earnings, but as there was no mention of her not declaring that would be assumptive.)

Surely the headline should have focussed on the fact that she killed an OLD LADY in her CARE? How is her PSO work more important?!

I have nothing more constructive to say right now, I just needed to rage somewhere.

NK x

No comments: