Essential Snobbery 101: Never consider wagging your tail in court

Wagging for position

When the term WAGs (wives and girlfriends) of high-profile England football team players was coined and moved into popular usage to extend to the female partners of high-profile sportsmen, I do not think it had any encomium quality apart from being dismissive and probably derisive, but it had some currency in the gossip columns, if that was your fare and where you got your news, in the tabloids.

To the snooty, a WAG’s profile depended on the fortunes of her spouse, though many are typically good mothers, generally independent women, good at keeping their men grounded and focused; some even have careers that predate any association with their men of celebrity, they make news and money on their own account, and they should be commended, as exemplary people.

Wagging societal status

However, recently, the high court has witnessed the libel trial that has taken Wagatha Christie into folklore, Coleen Rooney the wife of Wayne Rooney, one-time the captain of the England team and a with a very successful playing career that has moved into less laudable coaching, suspected someone was selling personal information to the papers from her Instagram account, so, she laid a trap of posting false stories exposed to certain individuals to see which one would end up in the tabloids. She revealed that Rebekah Vardy, the wife of Jamie Vardy, a prolific goal-scorer and England team player, was the one.

It takes no guessing that the detective work by Coleen Rooney was given the moniker of one of the most famous murder mystery writers of the 20^th century, Agatha Christie, WAG conveniently attaches to it as tabloid journalism is wont to ululate and grab our attention. For publicly pointing the finger at her, Rebekah Vardy has taken Coleen Rooney to court, and we had a feast of revelations, even as this case should never have gone to court if wiser heads had prevailed.

These ladies, awash with money and influence, though it would be profligate of one to add class, have presented an interesting characterisation of being not only upwardly mobile but that people with a typically working-class upbringing can visit the courts on matters of reputational damage that used to be the preserve of the gentrified signifies how much English society has changed.

Wagging a sausage

Obviously, there are swipes, muggings, drive-by shootings, and collateral damage, like gangland warfare, not literally, but herein is the corrosiveness of gossip; there is someone not involved that gets hurt in more ways than necessary. As we learnt with no substantiation to the veracity of the claim that Rebekah Vardy had alleged to someone that Peter Andre, a one-time chart-topping musician who is the star of musicals and reality television shows, wields a manhood that could be described as a chipolata.

A chipolata is a kind of sausage, and we can leave the rest to the imagination. Peter Andre would appear to be a man hard, wrong choice of word, anyway, the allegation would suggest Rebekah Vardy has met Peter Andre in a state of the Emperor’s New Clothes to have examined the goods and come away unimpressed.

A situation, the hard, wrong choice of word again, the apparently wronged man cannot seem to recall, and since this revelation was made in court and published for public amusement, he is considering going to court to restore his reputation to ensure than endowed is qualified and never alluded to on matters of his appendage. [The Independent: Peter Andre ‘considering legal action’ over Rebekah Vardy’s chipolata jibe about his manhood]

Don’t wag this tail

In my view, this would be totally ill-advised, nothing good comes out of it, it is one thing for someone to describe your private parts to court, it is totally another for the courts to be persuaded to examine your goods for the purposes of the verification according to the description given for length, girth, colour, distinctive characteristics and whatnot, it is not an identity card.

Besides, this apparent chipolata functions majestically; it does not shoot blanks. He has 4 beautiful children who probably would not want this part of their father’s natural endowments exposed to the spectacle of an unseemly legal charade. The associated members of Michael Jackson, Rolf Harris, and Max Clifford came up in their sexual abuse trials, for which the latter two went to jail, and no matter how you imagined it, what came to light was not pretty.

Much as any man, except if in the sex industry with something to talk about, would not want to have his entities on display or as a subject of public commentary, I am unsure that court action would quieten the sniggers, snide comments, or jibes. It is the kind of thing you should allow to die, suffocated by public spectacle, except if Rebekah Vardy decides she has no heart for another court battle and totally recants the allegation, possibly with the added statement that she has never met Peter Andre to be that acquainted with him.

I have no interest in knowing what Peter Andre measures, which might go for a lot of us. Personally, I would have sought a means to view a slight in jest and move on with my life, for if I had means, opportunity, and clout, it would not be expended into proving, curvature, cut, or colour. I am not as invested in my phallic appendage as to put it on show. Peter Andre might be hard done by, but he is not hard-pressed to prove anything – let it go.

When the Free Speech brakes fail

The right to self-destruction

Expressing themselves clearly

Just as people do not appreciate, the value of good health until when struck down by illness, so do people maintain an atmosphere of indifference until someone abuses the right to free speech or self-expression.

As it happens, the issue of freedom of speech never arises until someone says or writes something that excites commentary. The proponents then seek the refuge of free speech to no avail.

Two events stand clear in this rush to the free speech refuge but the caretaker refused entry for all the banging and pleading at the gates.

Senator Trent Lott, the former Senate Leader of the US Senate at a birthday speech in celebration of the late Senator Strom Thurmond's 100^th birthday.

Robert Kilroy-Silk, the talk-show host of a programme bearing his name, a former member of the British parliament and occasional newspaper columnist, the news column being the trigger for his misfortune.

Oops, that is offensive

Interest follows observing the similarities between both cases, in that the speech referred to the past and the column was once published eight months before.

Concerning the speech, the celebrant ran on a segregationist presidential ticket in 1948, Mr Lott in his speech apparently reminisced about how American might have been different if the celebrant had won.

Mr Kilroy-Silk had written the piece in the heat of the second Iraqi war, then focus was on events in Iraq, with a commentary by-line questioning the value of Arabs to modern society.

The comments caused great offence and an avalanche of recriminations.

Congenitally predisposed to pre-judge

The common saying that we judge others by their deeds and ourselves by our good intentions always fetches true in situations like this.

Nobody would feel elated when offered a frank assessment of his or her personality, creed, culture, views, identity, appearance or expression, which contains disparaging language that belittles, demeans and possibly offends.

Expression is not always necessary for a frank opinion, even though it might be true and valid. Everyone has a degree of subjective leaning, however, when expressed that becomes a kind of prejudice.

Frank is not necessarily objective; it is a facet of observation by the purveyor of the expression.

Be nice or be silent

Anywhere the free speech advocates rear their heads, the dichotomy of political correctness receives much commentary. For any issue, there is opportunity to project benevolence or malevolence; however, beneficence never attracts much attention except in recognition or award.

Malevolence demonstrated as a characteristic of the exercise of free speech is disingenuous at best and blatantly horrid at worst. It serves no particular purpose than to tug at the fragile seams of society and create division in an uneasy accommodation. It is the lit fuse to a bomb without knowing what would be the extent of the havoc caused.

It is no doubt that silence is never a virtue of the malefactors who are presumably expressing the views of the silent majority affected by the issue addressed. The expression is an incitement, though it may not receive enough momentum to spill into the streets.

Whose free speech?

The affected in the debate about the exercise of free speech usually have no clear forum of advocacy to seek redress. Redress for where free speech is abused is the exclusive preserve of the rich.

The law offers censure for slander, libel, blasphemy or sedition, which are loose synonyms of the abuse of the free speech. Only those who can afford the expense of the legal process can exercise the right to challenge offense.

That group of people who are subjected to the pique of inconsiderate and self-serving pronouncements either grin and bear it, or may have the fortune of a representative organization that seeks censure.

Free speech becomes the property of the broad audience of society, ownership is exercised by the all sides that are affected by the commentary, no matter how strong the retraction, it cannot be wrestled back from the offended.

Speaking up for a demise

In the two cases that feature in this article, none of the advocates of free speech could save the proponents from the consequences of their machinations.

The great lament about the ascendancy of political correctness over freedom of expression serves no beneficial ends for the perpetrators. Instead, it creates a finer focus on the offense and a greater outcry for a lynching.

The offended usually demand incessant apologies, which do not go far enough to ameliorate the feeling of wrong. The thirst and baying for blood only gets sated with the loss of a valuable position.

Mr Lott resigned the leadership of the US Senate and Mr Kilroy-Silk resigned from hosting his own talk show, considering none of what they said or wrote happened at the Senate or on the BBC talk show.

If there is any morale in these episodes, people who express themselves without restraint or an understanding of responsibly enhancing a harmonious society stand to lose the pedestals from which they pronounced their opinions and folly.