Empty vessels aren’t the only ones that make a lot of noise; a broken one can fair ring down the ages too. It doesn’t require great skill to smash a pottery vessel, but breaking up the resulting shards of clay is near impossible, as the ancient
Romans Greeks!, and many an archaeologist, has discovered.
Romans Greeks [Ed: Wake up woman!] put those pot shards to good use. Three and four centuries before Jesus was a twinkle in The Holy Spirits eye, they were using them as a handy, and flat, surface to write on. The potshards, or ostrakon, were handed out to citizens, and every year they were invited to write down their ‘allegations’ as to why any particular citizen should be declared ‘potentially dangerous’ and removed from their society. In an early re-run of ‘similar facts’ evidence, if 6,000 citizens all named the same man, then he was declared ostracised and ritually humiliated by being kicked out of Athens. Near two and a half thousand years later we eschew the humble pot shard, and 5,998 of the votes and use a suitably supine section of Taxus baccatato achieve the same process.
An important part of winning battles to the early Romans, was the process of deditio, or unconditional surrender. The best the vanquished could hope for was clementia but there was no guarantee that this would be granted. The Romans themselves regarded any surrender as a disgrace – one for which they could expect to be ostraca. So in demanding surrender of their enemies, they were imposing a ritual humiliation.
Every social group, belief system, political organisation, or army goes through a process of making sure that new members are thoroughly converted to the ‘new’ message. They do this by some form of ritual humiliation; forcing them to execute a humiliating, public act. It pulls the older members into a cohesive group, giving them a legitimate focus to abuse the ‘outsider’.
It appears bizarre at times, to witness a generation which has never been more sexualised, which calmly accepts the delights of dogging, which upholds sodomy as a legitimate expression of love, which reacts with outrage at the notion that any sexual behaviour should be considered outré, but which is also devouring the spectacle of the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons forced to defend himself against claims that he touched another gay man over his clothing and breathlessly reports every last detail of Max Clifford’s penis size to an avid readership.
It can hardly have gone unnoticed that you will not find an example of an intelligent, responsible, middle class white male in any advertising programme – they are flummoxed by their broad-band, unable to figure out that they need a plane to get from Hong Kong to London, and completely adrift when it comes to feeding the kids and answering the telephone at the same time. The only advertisement which features an intelligent middle class male lauded for his rapport with children and his all round incredible accomplishments is a young male of African descent who ‘deserves’ to be rewarded with an outsize mortgage loan. It has been a standing joke for years that in any given American mini-series, it will be the Afro-american or the woman who ultimately gets to save the world – white males bumble their way from disaster to disaster, invariably proving to be the cause of the disaster in the first place.
Clifford may have thought he was on the ‘side of the angels’ in that ostensibly he was the champion of the emerging victorious group – women. He invented the ‘kiss and tell’ genre that allowed them to ritually humiliate discarded males in their life. There are many who have every reason to cheer from the sidelines as he is treated to the ultimate state sponsored ‘kiss and tell’; women of varying senility claim that when they were 15 they were such an expert on the varying degrees of ‘penility’ that they could confidently state that the ‘Mini’ Clifford was of less than standard issue – but laugh at your peril.
We are watching as the potshards are collected. The allegations are sufficient to mark the man out for ostracism for life. Already it is starting to rebound on women.
Last week a 12 month old baby was ‘torn from her Mother’s arms’ as Christopher Booker might well posit, and put up for ‘forced adoption’, by some coupling that is more acceptable to the new moral guardians, were it not for darker ‘factoids’ that emerged in the case. Actually, Mr Booker has been noticeable by his absence from commenting on this latest example of ‘secret courts’ and ‘forced adoptions’.
The Mother’s crime? Being ‘fond of’ and ‘close to’ her own Father. Her Father’s crime? Being accused of ‘associating with known sex offenders’. He was ‘suspected of abusing his daughter when she was a child’. Not that there had ever been any criminal proceedings, nor had his daughter ever made any complaint – indeed, as stated her crime was having a loving relationship with her Father who had had the finger ritually pointed at him long ago.
It is not just the men who are ostracised – it is all who associate with them. Including that baby.
[Ms R: Forcibly edited many hours later as a result of several e-mails telling me to beware of Roman’s bearing gifts and not fiddling wiv’ me blog when Greece is burning…]
[Have I got it right now Ed?]
March 19, 2014 at 1:01 pm
Ancient Greeks Anna! The glory days of Athens preceded the Roman Empire.
March 19, 2014 at 1:05 pm
Gad, I really shouldn’t write before I wake up….
March 19, 2014 at 1:49 pm
So we have guilt by association and unprovable anonymous accusations. I guess all these men charged cannot go near their own children, grandchildren, neices and nephews, step children unless they are ‘minded’ and spied on and ‘clipboarded’ while they do the visiting. The pool of misery is spread very wide. Me too accusations in other parts of society have trod in the footsteps of this 21st century witch hunt after JS scandal. Ritual humiliation is a good phrase Anna to give to all this nonsense and kneejerk reactions. No wonder there are so many knee replacements done these days! Just been reading bits of Mr Chalk and PC Copperfield books on Kindle again. Nothing to lift the spirits there, in schools and Plodland I fear. Good news today. The Vandal Tree out front has gone into the chipper today. A lot of letters and emails to the council have, at last, had a result….yippee.
March 19, 2014 at 2:56 pm
“Doctor had raised health concerns about the mother, saying she probably suffered from epilepsy and “possible non epileptic attacks with a psychological basis”. A psychiatrist had described the mother as “immature and child-like” and said she “struggled to keep herself safe” and had self-harmed. Worries had also been raised about the toddler’s father. A psychologist said he had “domestic violence” issues and problems with “inter-personal relationships”. The judge also said concerns had been brought up relating to the father regarding “anger management” and “violence to women”. And a social worker had said the parents lived in “filthy” home circumstances, had “deep-rooted” difficulties and a “fragile relationship”.
About time the lower classes were dealt with summarily.
I think a TV Company should now underwrite this sort of thing and track the children as they grow up so that evertone could see how it was all for the best in the end. I’m sure 7-UP would be only too pleased to sponsor the series. The drink of the new generation, or has that slogan been done already.
March 19, 2014 at 3:53 pm
I’ve no doubt the child will be perfectly happy growing up with a non-smoking morbidly obese one legged lesbian asylum seeker and her various partners, and if he/she should grow up and turn into a drug addled alcoholic with relationship issues it will just prove that the moral guardians were right all along about the grand-father and what else could you have expected of such a vulnerable child…
March 19, 2014 at 4:01 pm
The Marriage Foundation – Slogan: At current rates a child born today has a 50:50 chance of living with both it’s parents at age 16
Among those who have agreed to be named as Founding Supporters of the Marriage Foundation are:
………… HH Judge Richard Scarratt
I wonder if he’s running a book with Paddy Power………
March 19, 2014 at 4:32 pm
Superb spotting Moor, well done.
March 19, 2014 at 5:22 pm
If we allow that forced adoptions must take place sometimes, then this case looks to be perfectly reasonable.
March 19, 2014 at 6:42 pm
“We also look at the circuit bench and talk to HHJ Richard Scarratt, a former joint editor of Family Affairs and a well known figure on the circuit. With applications for Recordership and to the Circuit bench at an all time high (and only partly due to the armour plated pension attached to the job) scores of our readers will even now be considering, or progressing, their application to the Circuit bench.
Dickie’s comments are unlikely to dissuade any applicants from that particular calling.
March 20, 2014 at 7:15 am
Really, Duncan? Frankly, I’d have put little Rio Smedley well ahead of these people…
March 19, 2014 at 4:09 pm
In Huxley’s “Brave New World”, the term “father” was regarded as a sick joke; and children that didn’t play with each others genitalia, were sent to the ‘nurse’.
In our State controlled culture, the Social Service wonks, scrutinize every detail of the heterosexual family, for any signs of psychological aberration from the orthodox ‘norm’; yet the grubberment votes in radical fostering rights for Sodomites, and homosexual awareness for Ritalin doped juniors, safe from their parents concerns, in State run ‘schools’.
Is ridicule a State guided technique, to hobble the masculine spirit, and its duty to rebel against cultural subversion? Not so much a brave new world, as a mocked old one.
March 19, 2014 at 4:26 pm
I will forgive you mixing up Greeks and Romans —after all one man’s Mead is another man’s Persian —-Why ? because Taxus Baccatta is possibly the wittiest word play I have come across —Well Anna they say good writers borrow, great writers steal and your wit in this case is one for my swag bag
March 19, 2014 at 4:35 pm
Sorry spoilt the pun —Mede rather than Mead I think
March 19, 2014 at 6:08 pm
Yew are having a larf. Brilliant!
March 19, 2014 at 6:17 pm
Re: “women of varying senility claim that when they were 15 they were such an expert on the varying degrees of ‘penility’ that they could confidently state that the ‘Mini’ Clifford was of less than standard issue”
They could have got that info from an angry ex I suppose – the way gossip spreads these days….
March 19, 2014 at 6:37 pm
That sounds fishy to me!
March 19, 2014 at 7:11 pm
Just hope I live long enough to see this whole fiasco collapse in ridicule when enough people see it for what it is. The same way the ‘satanic abuse’ did though not before a lot of children were really abused by the system.
March 19, 2014 at 9:19 pm
I don’t have access to the whole of the Times article – I have not bought a copy since their terrible ‘outing’ of ‘Nightjack’ and never will again – but from what I can read of the start of the online spiel, this doesn’t sound altogether unreasonable a course of action, especially as the court will have access to a whole load of stuff we will, quite properly in the circumstances, never see.
Being as contrarian as ever, while neither the landlady nor myself might like the privacy measures that courts HAVE to take on issues like this, if there were good underlying reasons for the court’s decisions in both cases, I struggle to see any real difference between the likes of Booker disputing an outcome without portraying the whole story too well because he doesn’t like how it’s done, and the landlady’s disliking the outcome because she don’t like how that may be implemented
Maybe I’m getting too old….
March 19, 2014 at 9:50 pm
The child is described as a toddler though… 2,3,4? Why now? Why wasn’t the child taken away at birth if the mother is so incapable and the family so incompetent? To do it now seems very odd. The child is just reaching an age where a regular social worker can communicate and give the child a voice, and yet now is the time they do this? It really does seem quite dubious to me.
March 19, 2014 at 11:36 pm
Are we writing about the same case? Times article I saw started:
‘ A one-year-old girl is to be put up for adoption because her grandfather is a suspected child abuser who would pose a risk to her, a judge has ruled.’
And the child might well have been in care for some time, even since birth. In the absence of proper, detailed, information, it’s like..well..trying to work out exactly why an airliner might disappear. Every crackpot can come up with something plausible
March 19, 2014 at 11:39 pm
Not that I am saying that either the landlady or yourself are crackpots. Rather, that you may be more like me, just not perfect all of the time
March 19, 2014 at 11:59 pm
No, I was referring to my comment from earlier in the day. wherein I used a local Canterbury newspaper source, which described the child as “a toddler”. Us lower orders cannot/will not afford subscriptions old chap.
I quite agree that the Social Services cannot afford to allow another Daniel Pelka case to occur on their watch. It does make me wonder why we let these sorts of people breed at all. I read someplace else recently that compulsory sterilisation is now being adopted. Eugenics always had a lot going for it, so it’s good to see the liberal Establishment now beginning to grasp the nettle.
March 20, 2014 at 12:24 am
This is the full extent of the Times article Ho Hum:
A one-year-old girl is to be put up for adoption because her grandfather is a suspected child abuser who would pose a risk to her, a judge has ruled.
Despite opposition from the child’s parents, Judge Richard Scarratt ruled that the girl must be guarded against grooming after hearing that her grandfather associated with known sex offenders. He said that the grandfather was suspected of abusing his own daughter, the toddler’s mother, when she was a child, although there had been no criminal proceedings.
A psychiatrist had told how the girl’s mother had a “very close relationship” with the grandfather and “could turn a blind eye to the risk posed by him and his associates”. The mother was also described as immature and child-like, and someone who “struggled to keep herself safe” and had self-harmed.
Worries had also been raised about the child’s father, who had “domestic violence” issues and problems with “inter-personal relationships”, according to the psychiatrist.
Details of the case emerged in a written ruling after a county court hearing in Canterbury last month. No one involved was identified.
March 20, 2014 at 2:15 am
Thanks, ma’am. There was clearly less hidden under the ‘would you like to pay to see the rest of this?’ than I had thought. Glad paying never crossed my mind. I’d have felt cheated!
But it still tells us diddly squat about the real detail. Sometimes, however unfortunate, we just have to trust someone acting on our behalf to be trying to do their best and get it right, even if that is often on the balance of probabilities, or maybe just deciding if the baby should either be cut in two from top to bottom, or across the middle.
That works both ways. After all, if it weren’t so, just how many people would bother to even read this blog? I’m betting that much of the real detail is not stated openly. If we didn’t, in part, trust you to be trying to use the underlying info dealt with properly, and with some integrity, for the more general good of the population now and the future of its children, how many ppl with any sense would read any of what appears here? It would be just another Ikean Corner in the one of the Net’s more obscure Looney Toonsvilles. And there is still a risk that it might be:-). And how many thousands fewer would read Moor?
March 20, 2014 at 9:10 am
@the real detail
The crucial point to my mind is whether this child has been in care from birth. If that is the case then it seems to me at least that the continuum to permanent adoption is fair enough, and no worse than the way babies in the past would be taken from unmarried mothers who were adjudged incompetent at that time, although “Society” and the “Media” seem less than sanguine about that historical happenstance. The report does say “the parents lived in “filthy” home circumstances”, not stating that that the child has done so. So perhaps we can make a firmer conclusion and in that Ho-Hum’s contention seems valid. It does seem to me that the news reports could have made this whole thing less emotive if they had made clear that the child had been “in care” since birth. Without that vital piece of information the notion of a mother having her infant “plucked from her arms” is created. It would be nice to think the journalists never thought to include that fact, rather than leaving it out merely to make the story have more “human interest” than it merited. In fact, with that “fact” it’s hard to see there is any story of public interest at all.
March 20, 2014 at 10:34 am
The problem with the report is that it relies exclusively on the judgements of the Social Services; the Court is merely reporting the rhetoric of the details presented to it by the SS.
And the problem in general, is that no system has an incentive to contradict itself; hence the fait accompli of a snatched child will be reported as a necessity regardless of the reality.
March 20, 2014 at 9:25 am
@Moor Larkin —Eugenics always had a lot going for it, so it’s good to see the liberal Establishment now beginning to grasp the nettle.
Beware what you wish for Moor —-the problem (inter alia) with Eugenics is who draws the lines and where –in a manner of speaking who plays God . The greatest exponents and supporters of Eugenics apart from the ‘racial hygienists’ of Nazi Germany (oh and Sweden up till the 1970s) were that political grouping much beloved by you —-the Fabians !!!!!! —The Fabians to play God in your Universe Moor? Well it could just as easily be them as……well…….anyone who thinks they should and can gain power……and funny history indicates its those of ‘the left’ who think themselves most capable of so doing
March 20, 2014 at 11:46 am
There seemed an element of eugenics pervading the Savile Revelations actually. His older brother who died many years ago was drawn into “the story” you may recall. Possibly feeds into the “Ritual Humiliation” angle.
March 20, 2014 at 9:37 am
…..those of the ‘left who think themselves most capable of so doing —playing God that is !!!!
March 20, 2014 at 9:42 am
Last, my brother (30) gleefully recommended a new ‘app’ for my phone called Tinder. He’s what you might call ‘a bit of a one’ as it is. http://www.dailystar.co.uk/showbiz/370385/Celebs-join-new-craze-to-find-fast-love-on-Tinder-app
It’s supposedly a ‘Dating’ app, though from what I can gather from the pictures of the ‘fit birds’ pouting and showing off cleavage. “She’s alright, her – 27 school teacher from Hornsea” etc. He then rattled through a few more photo’s of enlightened products of caring sharing feminism clicking either a green tick (‘yes I would’) or a red cross. The women do the same, and if two ticks (say it slowly!) come together they can meet. Now I am no prude – and I certainly wasn’t back before society hit meltdown – but I can see the wood for the trees. Meanwhile all the kidults can meet, snort & f*ck til the cows come home (or the police come a-knocking (they’re probably all it themselves too) whilst we express shock at what 20-something “dirty old men” did with their hands and their ‘micro-penis’ in the 60s & 70s
It highlights just what is stated in the article above – we have a desensitised generation of open-minded, anything-goes (often anything too – various recreational powders seem as prevalent now as cancer-in-a-tin ‘energy drinks’ to mix with your ‘shots’ and triples of spirits) and with ‘having fun’ the most important thing on the agenda. This is also the generation that never grows up: the generation of 26 yr old female “paedophile” school teachers going to jail for shagging 17 year olds, of 22 yr “paedophile” teaching assistants jailed for texting (nay ‘grooming’) 15 year buxom ‘school children’ and of 19 year old “paedophiles” that ‘groom’ girls 3 or 4 years younger than them.
Lemmings – all highly sexualised yet all unable to see the ‘honey trap’ they are falling into. No doubt the Slater & Morons will, in a few years time, be planning a ‘class action’ against all of these social networking sites on behalf of ‘the victims’ when they are all knackered after twenty years of an extended adolescence in which they consume every drink & drug under the sun.
Who’s grooming who?
I keep thinking of that old Coasters song “Sorry But I’m Gonna Have To Pass” myself
Rihanna’s very popular with kids. Tattoos, ‘beats’ and empowerment, yeah! Let’s have a look at a sample of her song lyrics:
“Suck my cockiness
Lick my persuasion
Eat my words
And then swallow your pride down, down
Place my wants and needs
Over your resistance
And then you come around
You come around
You come around
I want you to be my sex slave
Anything that I desire
Be one with my femin-ay
Set my whole body on fire
They mad at Rihanna game
Taking over your empire
She may be the queen of hearts
But ima be the queen of your body parts
No one can do ya
The way that I do
Boy I wa-a-ant
I love it, I love it
I love it when you eat it
I love it, I love it
I love it when you eat it
I love it, I love it..”
“It’s not even my birthday
But he want to lick the icing off
I know you want it in the worst way
Can’t wait to blow my candles out…
I know you wanna bite this
Its so enticin’
Nothin’ else like this
I’ma make you my bitch
And it’s not even my birthday
But you wanna put your name on it
And it’s not even my birthday
And he tryna put his name on it
Ooh, I wanna fuck you right now
Just get up on my body
I’ll do anything”
March 20, 2014 at 10:03 am
Well as political correctness would have it Rhianna’s words have no less value and are equally worthy of respect and admiration to Shakespeare
March 20, 2014 at 10:07 am
Perhaps the mighty Max trial will lead to calls from the left for penile reform.
March 20, 2014 at 5:41 pm
Re: “Well as political correctness would have it Rhianna’s words have no less value and are equally worthy of respect and admiration to Shakespeare”
Well some of Shakespeare’s plays are very violent – yet they often study it in schools.
Was Marvin Gaye much better with some of his songs?
March 20, 2014 at 9:17 pm
I am not sure Shakespeare’s plays could be termed gratuitously violent —that is the violence for the sake of violence itself —if one likes an incitement or exhortation to violence— so I am not sure the analogy you suggest may be valid–Rhianna’s lyrics as I have interpreted them (blush) might be construed rather differently —-I think the point made Chris that is that it might be considered an exhortation or an incitement targeted given what he says is Rhianna’s fan base, to those under 16.
I suppose the 1812 overture might be considered an incitement or even a glorification of violence if that is how one wished to interpret it —-quite what to make of your Marvin chappie I don’t know —-couldn’t understand a word he was singing (singing?) Given his second name is it some sort of homosexual anthem???
March 20, 2014 at 10:25 pm
Certainly a lot of dead bodies lying around the stage by the time Hamlet has made up his mind, and the gouging out of an eye live on stage in King Lear would raise a few eyebrows. Macbeth is gory too. I can’t imagine Shakespeare saying, “Ooh no ducky, I couldn’t do Macbeth as a tradge. So brutal! Can’t we make it a light comedy and call it Macbeth and Wife?”
Marvin Gaye was best known for his gloriously paranoid song I Heard It Through The Grapevine.
March 20, 2014 at 10:36 pm
Re: “quite what to make of your Marvin chappie I don’t know —-couldn’t understand a word he was singing (singing?) Given his second name is it some sort of homosexual anthem???”
I don’t think Rhianna’s words are that easy to make out either when she’s singing – given most of her fans are children some of her songs do seem a bit absurd I suppose – Marvin Gaye probably attracted listeners of a (slightly) older age group I suppose.
Here’s the lyrics to Marvin Gaye ‘sexual healing’:
March 20, 2014 at 10:45 pm
…thought I can’t imagine this one attracting to many adults if it wasn’t for the video…
March 21, 2014 at 8:34 am
Marvin Gaye was best known for his gloriously paranoid song I Heard It Through The Grapevine.
I am starting to get lost —is Grapevine some code in the Gay lexicon?
And in case you are wondering if I have Scandinavian ancestry at this point —you should— (Tr(l)ol(l))
March 20, 2014 at 1:00 pm
But the kids really respect her for the intellectual superiority she demonstrates by conveying her message in more than 140 characters
I wonder if the next Wittering Twit exposure will be on ‘Eatophiles’? There could be a lot of meat in that too.
I’d better stop there before I get totally carried away
March 20, 2014 at 10:54 pm
I severely doubt whether Rihanna writes her own lyrics. She is just a tool (or lady tool) of the Jay Z musical empire. Of course she is a major talent, and anyone who thinks it is easy to sleep one’s way to the top should realize that it means working late many nights, staying away from home, snorting cocaine, and putting in a lot of elbow grease, twerking, etc. as well as rehearsing with choreographers, recording, making personal appearances, usually en deshabille, etc. The whole Chris Brown/battered girlfriend thing was probably scripted to fit the narrative, and if it wasn’t then her handlers probably wish they had thought of it first. This has also helped Brown’s career immensely as now he is constantly in the news for breaches of probation, to the glee of his publicists, no doubt and is known as the “bad boy”of pop.
Marvin Gaye, sadly, seems to have suffered from mental illness compounded by drug abuse and he was shot dead by his own father, coincidentally called Marvin Gay (without the ‘e’) in a family argument over an insurance policy.
March 20, 2014 at 11:26 pm
Re: “I severely doubt whether Rihanna writes her own lyrics. She is just a tool (or lady tool) of the Jay Z musical empire”
She is a bit crude I suppose:
I think Marvin Gaye had a bit more class at least….
March 20, 2014 at 5:32 pm
Re: “and with ‘having fun’ the most important thing on the agenda”
I think having fun should be the most important thing on everyone’s agenda, as long as it isn’t at someone else’s expense or something that could be problematic in the long run….
March 20, 2014 at 9:34 pm
Actually Lucozade I couldn’t agree more about having fun being the most important thing in life . I think I might suggest though that listening to Rhianna for one’s fun might indicate a certain poverty of understanding of how ‘fun’ in life might be achieved. —–I assure you I am not sniffy about those who listen to Rhianna to have fun —-or those who read the red tops to get their ‘news’ —–or those who eat a Mc Donalds when they want to go to a ‘restaurant’. I just think such people deserve access and opportunity to different choices which appear to me to be denied to them. If they choose to listen to Rhianna on their I pod,whilst eating a McD’s best, whilst reading the Sun that’s a matter for them but I question whether they have had access opportunity or choice of anything else.
March 20, 2014 at 9:48 pm
Gotta agree and can only hope it’s always remains so…………..
March 20, 2014 at 5:25 pm
It’s alright when I was a kid I couldn’t make out the words to most songs anyway and still can’t with Rihanna.
She’s obviously a bit of randy woman, but I think she’d be better off singing about things her fans might actually understand or might be helpful to them (given that most of them are under 12). They don’t really need to know how horney she is most of the time. But I think it’s mostly up to the parents to explain that to their kids i.e you don’t want to pay attention to anything Rihanna sings about it’s a load of nonsense etc. Music was nearly as bad in the 90’s and sometimes the 80’s and 70’s to at times. Their going to know what sexual intercourse is – they should just understand that Rihanna’s instability and mental state isn’t really something anybody should really want to look up to or emulate just because she’s a pop star….
March 21, 2014 at 9:58 am
Actually Lucozade whilst I may have heard of Rhianna and Marvin Gay before posting I was unaware of the violence that seems to have accompanied their lives till you and Jonathan Mason drew my attention to it. And I think I would seek to attack notions of equivalency in politically correct thinking based on outcomes. If outcomes are poor —filicide in the case of Mavin Gay and domestic violence tolerated or otherwise by Rhianna then valid questions are raised about whether listening to and admiring Rhianna for instance is a route to ‘fun’ —whether for someone under 16 or otherwise —I may seem a little ‘Pooterish’ (perhaps I am) but one can elide or be persuaded into the idea that emotion is reason —what one is attracted to emotionally or what excites ones emotions somehow is rationally ‘good’ —its at the heart of the Savile matter I speculate —Paedophilia is bad and excites emotions of disgust quite rightly so —-emotions need an object —-reason directs that emotion to its rightful target —-the actual Paedophile —-emotion alone directs it to what emotionally one ‘feels’ is a paedophile. I don’t know if Savile was a perv or not —for the moment such reason as I possess does not allow me personally to make a conclusion. Its a poor outcome if I ( or much more importantly Society) decide that issue without employing reason.
Ohhh and please don’t get the idea that I am advocating the abandonment of emotion—it would I think be impossible to argue life would have meaning without emotion —-only that emotion is guided by reason if one seeks a good (for which read fun if one likes unless fun is defined as simply feeling emotionally ‘good’ in a subjective way —say for some bear baiting ) outcome. Equally poor outcomes might be expected I suggest if the emotion (such as it may be engendered) by Rhianna’s performance is directed without reason.