Nothing sweet about politics

It’s been a week of Puritan insanity. The radio tells us that the medics now claim ‘no safe level of alcohol’ which is not a mistake. Not a misunderstanding. Not a misreading of research data.

It is a lie. An absolute and utter lie, and they know it even as it passes their Righteously zombie-chapped dry cracked unkissed lips. There is no error in the medical world, there is only deliberate falsehood and propaganda. They are not mistaken. They are lying. If you trust them they will kill you because that is all they do now. Fit the mould or be exterminated. There is no more medicine and no more science. Learn that or die.

You only have to worry about dying prematurely if you put your trust in modern medicine. Killing you off is what they do.

With predictable money grabbing greed, the Cameroid has changed his mind about a tax on sugar. It has nothing to do with obesity and everything to do with grabbing more money from us all. The fattophobes claim the opposite but as usual, they are lying. They think nobody sees them but we do, and we won’t forget this new Nazism just as we haven’t forgotten the last one.

But Tam Fry from the National Obesity Forum and expert advisor for campaign group Action on Sugar told us to have an impact the tax should be considerably higher than the proposed 20%.

Oh but it’s not about revenue raising to pay Tam Fry’s taxpayer funded salary. It’s about health. If you believe that, even for a moment, then frankly you are a fucking idiot. it is all – ALL – about paying for Tam Fry’s taxpayer funded whining nagging control freakery. It is about nothing else and never has been. Just like all the other taxpayer funded fake charities.

Now the Cameroid is about to prove he is no more than a sweaty flaccid cheesy bellend on the end of a sadly short and floppy shaft by giving in to the demands of made up science about made up problems by people who are barely worthy of the word ‘human’.

Really. They will tax sugar. That should get Tam Fry a nice retirement nest egg but apart from that, nothing else will change. This is utter idiocy and anyone who isn’t dim enough to be a politician or a medic can surely see it.

Can we have an IQ minimum for members of Parliament yet? It must surely be overdue.

I suggest 80. It would be a vast improvement.


28 thoughts on “Nothing sweet about politics

  1. If it were true that “There is no safe level of alcohol” then clearly all alcohol service in pubs needs to be stopped. Why should innocent young workers be forced to inhale deadly alcohol fumes, coating their throats and larynxes and mucous membranes with a chemically discrete Class 1A Known Human Carcinogen simply because the lushes object to taking their swill out back and chugging it by the dumpsters after a meal?

    No one’s trying to BAN it after all, so why the fuss? I’m tired of having to step over dead bodies all the time when I walk into restaurants to enjoy a healthy salad and nice healthy glass of seltzer water. SOMETHING *MUST* BE DONE!

    – MJM

    Liked by 3 people

  2. Love your description of Cameron 😉

    Some of us have been warning since 2007 that the tobacco template would be applied to alcohol. “Oh no, that’s completely different,” came the reply.

    Liked by 4 people

    • ‘a sweaty flaccid cheesy bellend on the end of a sadly short and floppy shaft’

      Yeah, Leggy does have a lovely turn of phrase… even Clicky gets it, watch…

      Clicky! Describe David Cameron.

      Even 3 million years into the future, and lost in space, Leggy’s description of Dai Cameroid lives on 😉

      Liked by 2 people

    • Yes, Mudge. “No slippery slope,” was the standard reply, but it was, as Leggy points out here, yet another lie. It’s possible, of course, that in the minds of the more active of the anti-smoking brigade, smoking was “uniquely dangerous.” Perhaps they never thought – maybe even still don’t – that anything else, whether alcohol, sugar, salt, fat or whatever, was as “dangerous” as smoking. But, having lain a whole lot of pre-existing illnesses solely at the door of smoking on the basis of extraordinarily flimsy “evidence,” (or no evidence at all), and then also wholly manufactured the “passive smoking” scenario, and got away with it, then surely it takes a very special mindset, i.e. one which is totally incapable of looking beyond their own personal little crusade, to fail to see that exactly the same tactics and techniques could just as well be used by other “crusaders” in different areas. It is truly astonishing that, even as increasing numbers and varieties of other “health evils” rattle past them at increasing speed down the very “slippery slope” which they so vehemently denied would follow their own successes, they still can’t bring themselves to admit that it even exists!

      But take heart, Mudge. There’s a way to go yet for anti-alcohol, and they know it. These are just the first few steps. The danger arrives once they discover the gold-mine that is the “passive” angle, because that’s what really gets the public behind their campaigns, as the anti-smoking lot know only too well. You know the sort of sentiment: “Your right to a drink finishes at my child’s right to cross the road in safety.” That sort of thing. But before they get to that stage, they’ve got to get a whole lot more people to take the pledge (well, Joe Public isn’t going to bleat for restrictions on something which he himself still does, is he?). Hence the scaremongering about “health risks,” and “no safe level” and all that jazz. It’s early days. Just keep an eye out for Passive Drinking, because that’s the big one.

      Liked by 1 person

      • “The danger arrives once they discover the gold-mine that is the “passive” angle, because that’s what really gets the public behind their campaigns, as the anti-smoking lot know only too well.”

        Which is why I like to go for a pre-emptive strike and go straight for a parody of their endstages with posts like this:

        just as I pointed out elsewhere on here with regard to alcohol, sunshine is *also* a Class A1 carcinogen with theoretically “no safe level of exposure” according to the no-threshold standard of carcinogenesis. EAF (Environmental Alcohol Fumes) are quite real, even though you don’t see them or smell them.

        If you want to be *totally* safe, live and work only in buildings that ban smoking and alcohol while also boarding up all their windows. Make sure you don’t work on the first floor because first floor offices almost always have higher radon counts, and there is no good reason why your employer should be allowed to force you to risk your life simply because they’re too cheap to give you a safer second-floor workspace. As an alternative, a first floor workspace can be fully encased by 3″ thick lead paneling.

        Join CAUSE (Citizens Against Unsafe Spaces of Employment) and fight for your rights!

        – MJM
        P.S. Make sure they don’t cheap out on armoring that second floor workspace in case a low flying plane crashes into it.

        and this:

        Alcohol is a Class 1A Human Carcinogen. That means that, just as with secondary tobacco smoke, there is officially “no safe level” of exposure in terms of carcinogenicity. Alcohol is also a highly volatile liquid. A burning cigarette puts out roughly a dozen chemically discrete Class A carcinogens, but added together they total roughly just 1/2 milligram in weight/mass. A standard martini sitting on a table in a restaurant puts out 2,000 times that amount of alcohol, 1 full gram, into the air that all the other customers are, completely without their awareness or consent, being forced to breathe.
        In apartment buildings, the alcohol fumes from an alcoholic’s apartment behave in the same manner as tobacco smoke. If you live in a so-called “smoke-free” building, not only will you be unaware if the building is not up to building codes that are designed to protect you from smoke deaths during fires in other apartments, but also unaware that you may be breathing in those alcohol fumes.
        If you support banning smoking in apartment buildings due to health concerns about secondary tobacco smoke seeping out of your electrical outlets and other such craziness, you should also support banning all alcohol consumption in such buildings. And if you support either of those things and you die from smoke inhalation due to construction/maintenance defects during a fire… well… you’ll have to lay at least some of the blame at your own doorstep.
        Is worrying about stray wisps of tobacco smoke or EAF (Environmental Alcohol Fumes) from others’ apartments crazy? Yes. However worrying about HUD and other apartment managers banning smoking because they’re too cheap to adequately protect tenants from fire smoke spreading in case of a fire is not crazy. Want to be safer? Move to a building that allows smoking but in which you don’t smell it in your apartment, or, if you live in one where you DO smell it or in which a sneaky or cheap landlord has banned smoking, demand a full fire code inspection/testing each year with adequate repairs being made.
        – MJM


        The Slice By Slice approach is what made the Antismokers’ campaign work. They were always quite careful to disavow further intentions, but effectively used each little piece of territory they grabbed as a basis for launching a new attack. How many times have you heard variations of “Why should XXX workers be the ONLY workers in this state left unprotected from carcinogenic workplace smoke?” or “We’re not talking about a smoking BAN… we’re just asking smokers to step outside….”

        Liked by 2 people

  3. Out of concern for our politician’s health and the ‘no safe level of alcohol’, I propose that all the bars within the Palace of Westminster immediately become alcohol free. 😈

    Those bars are heavily subsidised by taxpayers, so an added benefit during these times of austerity will be that some of that money will be released to more-needy causes.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Joe, I fully agree. The scourge of EAF (Environmental Alcohol Fumes) and Passive Drinking must be ended. It has long been known that alcohol drinkers tend to smoke significantly more than the general population. So far as I know, no study has ever been properly done to assess the impact of the direct inhalation at the source of alcohol fumes on the development of lung cancer, and most certainly no study has been done on the impact of EAF on those who have regularly worked or frequented bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.

      As noted above, no one is calling for a ban on your apres repas $300 bottle of Dom Perignon. Jjust be a decent human being and take it out back by the dumpsters to satisfy your addiction. However, until plain packaging is fully implemented with bottle-covering pics of faces of battered wives and the dismembered roadside corpses of children and their drunk-driving-spread entrails, those bottles should be presented by the waitstaff properly enclosed in plain brown paper bags.

      – MJM

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Delighted to say that today, by bedtime, I will have exceeded my “allowance” for the next week (and some). Thank God that I’m nearer the tomb than the womb. These people are dangerous and the way our politicians listen to them, life will not be worth living in twenty (conservative estimate) years time.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Interesting what the effect this bollocks will have on the poor cane farmers who are currently dealing with a wholesale raw sugar price of USD $0.15 per pound. The EU subsidies to the growers (Fiji) are very large and yet here they try to reduce demand. Of course they could always turn it into ethanol….oh wait….

    Liked by 1 person

      • Or brew the Reinheitsgebot way and use solely the maltose in the malt ? No extra sugar needed if you crack and sparg your wort properly (awards self extra scrabble word scores for using obscene sounding words in a sensible comment).

        Same goes for wine making. Grapes and raisins have enough natural sugar. Sod trying to get some root vegetable to ferment. Real Cider needs no sugar either.

        Liked by 1 person

First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s