The Tyranny Of The Aggrieved...

Two items in the 'Mail' this morning show where we're heading...

Dr Erin Pritchard, a lecturer in disability and education, told supermarkets that the term midget was 'a form of hate speech'.

Dr Pritchard acknowledged that some people may think the change is part of 'cancel culture' but argued 'when people scream the name at you in the street, it is only right that it is removed'.

'The change should have happened years ago. It is easy for people not called the word to think its removal is wrong,' Dr Pritchard, who also appeared in Channel 4's Dating with Dwarfism, said.

She added that she had asked Amazon to remove novelty items which use the term but acknowledged it would not be possible to rename items no longer in production such as the MG Midget car or the Daihatsu Midget minivan.

No doubt removal of any mention of them will be the next demand...  

And elsewhere:

The incident comes a week after a jury cleared four people of criminal damage despite the fact they did not deny pulling down the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol.

Earlier tonight, the man said the statue should have been taken down in the past. 'If this happened decades ago, I wouldn't be here would I?' he told the negotiators.

Predictably, like Pritchard, it's 'Me, me, me,,,' all the way through. Emboldened by the verdict, no doubt. 

Owen King, 52, who works in marketing, was cycling past when he saw the man chipping away at the statue. He said: 'I saw all the police and I presumed he was protesting about Eric Gill and his background. Then the fire brigade were here as well. People are just wondering, 'why don't they take him off the sculpture?'

'So I think they're just waiting for him to come down. He's got this tiny little hammer and he's bashing away at the leg there. Not much is coming off and he seems to be resting a lot.'

Well, since the police stood around like they usually do, paralysed by the thought that taking action might rebound on them if the miscreant was injured (which is why neighbours' lives are disrupted for a fourth day in Coventry), he had plenty of time. 

And no, he's not supported by anyone outside the unhinged: 

He added: 'Someone shouted to him, 'get off it, you ugly person, an ugly person desecrating a beautiful thing'. And he shouted 'you paedo'. And then everyone was laughing at him. I think you (should) separate art from the person.'

Responding to the man's comments calling people paedophiles, he added: 'I think it's really reductive.' Moments later one woman, who was walking past the scene, shouted: 'Art should be separated from the person. You should spend your energy and time with something else. Art can be beautiful by itself.'

Why are we allowing people who don't represent the will of the majority to ride roughshod over the rest of us due to the cowardice of the state and the corporations? 

There's Nothing New Under The Sun...

...even cancel culture:

Dr Tucker began his academic career after serving in the Second World War as a pilot, joining the museum in 1949 as a scientific officer in the department of zoology. He rose up the ranks and became a principal scientific officer in 1957.

However, when Dr Tucker was 39, his career came to an abrupt end. In 1960, he was fired for alleged insubordination, which stunned colleagues and sparked decades of speculation over his beliefs about Loch Ness.

The newly uncovered documents, from the museum's board of trustees, reinforce the view that his dismissal was down to his belief in the creature rather than concerns about his professional behaviour.

A memo issued to staff by the board in 1959 warned: 'The trustees wish it to be known that they do not approve of the spending of official time or official leave on the so-called Loch Ness Phenomenon.' The memo added: 'If, as a result of the activities of members of the staff, the museum is involved in undesirable publicity, [the trustees] will be gravely displeased.'

And indeed, they expressed their displeasure with ferocity worthy of any prehistoric predator: 

In a newspaper cutting from the time, held in the museum's archive, he is quoted as saying: 'I put the project up to the Natural History Museum. The museum does send out expeditions to collect specimens. But they didn't like the idea of a Loch Ness expedition at all.

'They refused me leave to lecture on the subject. Since I was sacked, they have banned me from the library. I had an international reputation as a zoologist. Now I'm like a struck off lawyer.'

Poor man. These days, of course, you can believe any barmy thing you like... 

"...it's 'not something that I feel I have to speak about publicly'..."

Goodness me! Has Lewis Hamilton finally run out of things to pontificate about?

The world Formula One champion has disowned his team Mercedes' sponsorship deal with Kingspan, which made combustible insulation for the tower block – but the firm's logo was still emblazoned on his car during the race.

Hamilton initially refused to answer questions on the matter at a press conference ahead of the race in Jeddah saying it was 'not something that I feel I have to speak about publicly'.

But for once, the journalists did their job: 

But when pushed he said: 'It was news to me when I heard this week.

'We know there has been a huge outcry and an amazing amount of support by people in the community.

'It is really nothing to do with me and I know Toto (Wolff, the team principal) is sorting it. Unfortunately my name is associated with it because it has been on my car, but whether that remains the same, we will see.'

Now, personally, I couldn't care less. It's another case of cancel culture, that I should be hoping fails. But isn't it nice to see Hamilton squirm, for once?  

The Mistake Would Be To Think That It's Just Amazon...

Ross Douthat, a columnist with the New York Times suggested Amazon was 'conducting an experiment in what they can get away with.'

Well, they are, yes. Because they - and all other large corporations - can get away with a hell of a lot, after all, so long as they are with the cancel culture mob, and not against them... 

The author responded with fury to Amazon's explanation of the ban, saying the company had relied upon mischaracterizations from his critics.

'Amazon appears to have never read my book, but relied on hit pieces. As I pointed out before: “Please quote the passage where I ‘call them mentally ill.’ You can’t quote that passage because it doesn’t exist,"' tweeted Anderson.

'Gender dysphoria is listed in the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which Amazon sells. So the real deciding factor seems to be whether you endorse hormones and surgery as the proper treatment or counseling,' wrote the author.

We long ago left logic behind, sadly.