Two places they [may have] totally lost the plot

First, at home, via the Wail:

Charlie Hebdo’s UK distributor gave police list of stockists ‘in case of community tensions’ … then officers went to newsagents to demand names of customers who bought it. Wiltshire Police requested details of people who bought Charlie Hebdo. Now officers in Wales and Cheshire have also approached shopkeepers. UK distributor passed details of shops stocking the magazine to police. Police chiefs then told specific forces where magazine was being sold. But chiefs say they never advised officers to take down names of buyers. Local officers may have understood advice or taken the guidance too far.

This is OK, is it? We’re meant to read it, nod or shake the head and move on? This is meant to be an at least partially libertarian site, OoL. We therefore let this go by without comment?

I’m going to explore mechanisms by which we can call for these officers to be brought to account.

Now one from away over there and it’s also a libertarian issue, though I might be on the side of wrong according to many libertarians:

Another day in academia, another twist in the bizarre world of identity studies. The Center for the Study of Sexual Culture at the University of California, Berkeley, is presenting a talk next week on“Queering Agriculture,” dedicated to the proposition that “it is absolutely crucial queer and transgender studies begin to deal more seriously with the subject of agriculture.”

Do animals have any rights in this? All very well defending the rights of these loons who’ve totally lost the plot but what about when they start interfering with unsuspecting animals? How far does freedom go?

[H/T Chuckles]

9 comments for “Two places they [may have] totally lost the plot

  1. James Strong
    February 12, 2015 at 7:46 am

    I hope you find ways of identifying the officers who decided to take the names of buyers of Charlie Hebdo.
    As I have said elsewhere, we are likely to get better decisions if we can identify a named decision-maker. Who was the sergeant/ inspector/ superintendent etc. who included this task in the day’s briefing?

    Sometimes, though, people like that are careful and clever about avoiding commitment.
    I worked for 15 years with a supervisor who never put his signature or initials on any piece of paper that might be awkward.

    It would not surprise me if some senior police officers are good at that, too.

  2. February 12, 2015 at 7:54 am

    “One Man and His Dog” as a rom-com. Had to happen;-)

    I read that article. I’m proud to say that I literally do not understand what the dubious barm-pot (here)

    is talking about, though it’s fairly obvious that it would prefer not to work in a warehouse or in a restaurant or road gang or other productive occupation.

    When you set out to destroy a civilization from its family system up, then a multiplicity of imaginary sexes just isn’t enough to dissolve the idea altogether. You have to change the fundamental assumptions underlying cis-normal leg-count preferences, for starters, which does tend to leave out the herpetophiliac community: an ancient civilisational mega-aggression from the Yucatan asteroid strike through to the Genesis story, Heracles’ abuse of the hydra and the Norse myths of Thor oppressing the World Snake.
    And why are we still upholding the ancient cerebrocentric unjust emphasis on high, unsustainable brain function anyway? Where is the place, where are the voices of the 135 gender-identity varieties of the Persistent Vegetative State community? Who speaks for them? And don’t even get me started on the Unpulsed: from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, through the Gospel to the Twilight Saga, the militaristic white patriarchal chains have never, for a moment, come off the way we are allowed to treat, and especially to love, the Departed.

    Tear this culture down!


    • Viscount Rectum
      February 12, 2015 at 8:31 am

      Queering Agriculture ?, thats new one, makes S Freud sound sane and the rest of us insane and while we ponder this crap the Common Purpose jehad gets on with it.

  3. Hereward unbowed.
    February 12, 2015 at 9:21 am

    “Sometimes, though, people like that are careful and clever about avoiding commitment.
    I worked for 15 years with a supervisor who never put his signature or initials on any piece of paper that might be awkward.”

    Oh dear.

    Until we have accountability there never will be responsibility taken.

    Nobody stands up to shout, “that’s just plain WRONG!”

    Thus, lack of responsibility and it turns a blind eye to all sorts of heinous sins. It eventually begets social and moral degeneracy, witness the horror Rotherham – but we all know well that: it is not just Rotherham is it?
    Right across the public sector, the PC Nazis of Common Purpose hold sway, ie run by idiots* for the benefit of idiots and such idiots proposing to “queer agriculture” are given a platform – because no one stands up to be counted to say,
    “queering agriculture – you need to see a head doctor”.

    We need to wrest back control of the public sector – they’re supposed to serve us – and not the other way around.

    *such as, Harman, Alison Saunders – DPP, Jenny Watson – electoral commission

  4. February 12, 2015 at 9:53 am

    To me, the simple answer to right or wrong is whether they’ll put their name to it, as mentioned above. In the last post of the Ukrainian woman saying no, you’ll get no more from us, there is the subterfuge going on at international level and in this post, down in among us at home. It’s the same rotten-ness which goes beyond rotten boroughs.

  5. February 12, 2015 at 6:18 pm

    Iv’e said it before and I will say it again, the worlds gone mad and I am tired to my bones of it.

    • Flyinthesky
      February 12, 2015 at 7:34 pm

      I’ve just read a fantastic rant, my only question is how to address any of it, any ideas?

  6. Greg Tingey
    February 14, 2015 at 9:51 am

    The language is disturbing, but the subject is serious (“queering agriculture” that is)
    In the sense of same-sex relationships in both wild & domesticated animals.
    I mean Sir Peter Scott noted that a certain small proportion of the birds he studied for all of his life had same-sex tendencies & relationships. It is now known that this certainly occurs, as far as we know in all mammalian & bird species.
    As a matter of animal husbandry & welfare, because better-kept animals that are killed quickly & as painlessly as possible tend to taste better, as do wild animals that are only disturbed in the moments before they are killed ( think Partridge & Pheasant, yum!) it is a valid sub-section worthy of understanding.

    But, I suspect that is NOT what these people are talking about?

    • February 14, 2015 at 9:58 am

      Good points, Greg.

Comments are closed.