« Obama - Whiter than White | Main | Friday Night is Music Night (Punk Beginnings Edition) »

Sneezing to be outlawed

GEOFF BAKER'S Exclusive:: Sneezing to be Criminal Offence

An official UK Government report has revealed that sneezing in the street could become a criminal offence under emergency laws now being prepared for dealing with a flu pandemic.

"A National Framework For Responding To An Influenza Pandemic"
reveals that sneezing in the street could become a criminal offence under shock laws to halt the flu.

"Powers in an emergency lie with local authorities and include the powers... that a person be examined, removed and detained …and [the creation of] criminal offences where people expose others to risk of infection ...powers to require the provision of information to help control the spread of disease. " Page 12

Comments

There are recent signs of human to human with H5N1. Sensible precaution in that instance.

Sensible precation indeed, if you are completely infuckingsane - How in the name of fuck are you meant to not sneeze if you need to sneeze?


(Overheard in the subway one day this week, in London:)

"Ker-CHOO! Er...sorry, cock, 'tis just me gleet playing up again!"

("Shock laws" my rosy little round and budlike you-know-what!)

Life imitates The Onion.

I can imagine the scenario.

You're nicked chummy! Caught in possession of a box of Kleenex.

Tell people to bend their elbows and hold them in front of their faces when sneezing. The crook of your arm muffles and contains a sneeze very efficiently when you can't get a handkerchief up in time. This is presuming you are wearing sleeves.

If you aren't and you're in the train, don't be wiping the inside of your bare arm off on the top edge and grab rail of the seat in front. The railroad cops will drop you like a Brazilian plumber.

And have Sharon Shoesole assess your family childcare practices as part of her pension & perks reinstatement eval!

My goodness, I should have been locked up days ago, as should my wife & son & daughter, daughter's boyfriend, along with my father-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, 3 nieces + significant other, sister-in-law's mother, & our friends & neighbours. Is it now the case that anybody with a contagious/infectious disease is a potential criminal?

What a State we're in!

Funny that link to geoffbaker has gone. He's either got flu or has been arrested whilst sneezing

The second link is even more worrying:

Download Pandemic flu: (PDF, 1732K)

Would a virus checker cover this do you think?

Well Geoff Bakers blog has been down for sometime so I went directly to the site He reckoned that He found the stuff about being arrested for sneezing. I opened up every single pdf file and searched each one (ctrl + f) and found no reference to what He was talking about. Was this merely a wind up?

A wind up, you say, Tony? How about an OM for the laddie (or an OBE, anyhow) in the next honours list, for supplying the beaks with yet ANOTHER brilliant idea all cooked up and nicely steamed and seethed over salvers of badger (you guessed it!) pee-pee?

Anyone here ever read anything by Albert Jay Nock?

Emmett, dunno what you've been smoking but get me some for Christs' sake. That is truly one of the most bizarre postings I have read this week. I'll go one better.

No wind up. Only the penguin flying at dawn believes the fly. No Sir, make haste but beware the dark one, the one they call pee-pee. Anyone read anything by Hans Gutter Janus?

Emmett, dunno what you've been smoking but get me some for Christs' sake. That is truly one of the most bizarre postings I have read this week. I'll go one better.

No wind up. Only the penguin flying at dawn believes the fly. No Sir, make haste but beware the dark one, the one they call pee-pee. Anyone read anything by Hans Gutter Janus?

Ah, Blair, er, Tony...there you go with some more of that double-entry bookkeeping. A Semitic innovation, nicht wahr?

Anyway, here is a link to Albert Jay Nock (1870-1945), specifically his 1927 article on how he found out the state is not our friend, and cannot be:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/nock/nock9.html

Ah Emmett. I didn't realise you were an anachist. Bless. How quaint I havent come across any anachists for years now. How is the old right hand? Stll clenched fast brother? Good keep up the erm good work.

It is a real riddle...what is needed is a word to describe the sociable and competent, adult, person not ridden by ticks and megrims and fits, and who altogether has self-control enough to deny any excuse whatsoever to the other-directed over-controlling under-personalities in the primate biological mass, for imposing government especially in such factitious terms as "human rights" and "the greatest good for the greatest number."

Such a developed primate of course is not an "anarchist" -- there are after all functional rules contingent on our perfectly social species! -- and "autarkist" doesn't quite work because no homo sapiens by zoological definition can be really all-selfsufficient. The use of language alone puts the lid on that misleading image! Except the Swiss in WW II were collectively pretty autarkic, and yet even though they produced virtually all their own food and fiber they still had to trade too. The Swiss are interesting because throughout the late middle ages and right from the early modern period to our own early postmodernity, from the 13th century to today, they functioned in an evolving pattern of peasant yeoman communal liberty, that only in turn yielded place to our common North Atlantic idea of biological and social, physical and legal "individuality."

Personality no matter how scintillant is but a secondary product in the main of display (porno) and dialog (parlement) -- it appears only in a kind of space /between/ people -- so there is I perceive some real confusion in all our minds between physical and legal, animal, "individuality," and the stuff that is actually interesting. I mean the traits or qualities of our kind, shared or fought over, that the less imaginative are scared to death of and therefore try to control, with fantasies of good governance. About the only task for collective action I can come up with is defense, but even that real need does not of itself validate universally nationality:

My associates and I all are exclusively high-class personalities of unexceptionable psychological awareness and moral insight, and we are moreover characters who indulge even in our perversions like gentlemen, and yet even we so high above the common ruck-- especially we! -- have to take counsel to plan for our mutual defense, against goons, halfwits and the statistically "normal" illiterati. Needless to say, there is implicit a split in /this/ conception of the "common defense", and any uncritical matter of just generally undertaking to fight always for the state, which in the end, is susceptible to terminal decline into pseudo-eleemosynary fraud, and to become mainly just another expensive part of the entertainment industry for the statistical deficents....

Post a comment