Looked at another way, post-nominal letters and titles of all kinds serve as useful pointers for Joe Public.
(With the caveat that not all title-bearers and honours-recipients are miscreants on the psychopathy spectrum), folk ennobled or otherwise honoured by the British state have historically exhibited more grossly criminal or unbalanced behaviours than those who failed to attract such 'rewards' from the 'bestowers'.
Statically speaking, of course.
Inevitably there have been, and probably are today, some 'honourable' exceptions to this generalisation: Title-bearers or honours-holders who've performed genuinely meritorious works -- or who've at least refrained from actively doing gross evil.
Similarly, many grossly unbalanced folks with British citizenship will not have been gifted a title or post-nominal letters by the British state. Or not yet.
As common citizens seek to identify which individuals pose the greatest threats to our Commonweal at home and internationally, in order to protect ourselves and each other -- and bearing in mind the dictum that all power corrupts, and the same is true for social prestige -- post-nominal letters and titles from the British state help to suggest where we might most profitably direct our attentions and research efforts.
Think of damehoods, knighthoods, CBEs, OBEs, MBEs, inherited titles and the like as *possible*, but not infallible warning signs.
Don't unfairly prejudge the 'state elevated' ones -- they deserve to be presumed innocent of any acts of moral turpitude or gross criminality unless it can be proven otherwise.
Simply: Be at all times cognisant that historically and statistically, these folks have caused more harm per capita than the average, and so evaluate them with increased diligence and caution.
Looked at another way, post-nominal letters and titles of all kinds serve as useful pointers for Joe Public.
ReplyDelete(With the caveat that not all title-bearers and honours-recipients are miscreants on the psychopathy spectrum), folk ennobled or otherwise honoured by the British state have historically exhibited more grossly criminal or unbalanced behaviours than those who failed to attract such 'rewards' from the 'bestowers'.
Statically speaking, of course.
Inevitably there have been, and probably are today, some 'honourable' exceptions to this generalisation: Title-bearers or honours-holders who've performed genuinely meritorious works -- or who've at least refrained from actively doing gross evil.
Similarly, many grossly unbalanced folks with British citizenship will not have been gifted a title or post-nominal letters by the British state. Or not yet.
As common citizens seek to identify which individuals pose the greatest threats to our Commonweal at home and internationally, in order to protect ourselves and each other -- and bearing in mind the dictum that all power corrupts, and the same is true for social prestige -- post-nominal letters and titles from the British state help to suggest where we might most profitably direct our attentions and research efforts.
Think of damehoods, knighthoods, CBEs, OBEs, MBEs, inherited titles and the like as *possible*, but not infallible warning signs.
Don't unfairly prejudge the 'state elevated' ones -- they deserve to be presumed innocent of any acts of moral turpitude or gross criminality unless it can be proven otherwise.
Simply: Be at all times cognisant that historically and statistically, these folks have caused more harm per capita than the average, and so evaluate them with increased diligence and caution.