View Full Version : The Nanny State tries to increase its grip
This is the sort of thing that really grinds my gears:
Supersized” food and drinks should be banned by law in a bid to combat Britain’s obesity epidemic, the new head of the Commons health select committee has said.
Dr Sarah Wollaston, a Conservative MP and former GP, said the state had a “duty to intervene” to protect current and future generations from unhealthy habits threatening to shorten their lives.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10988623/Ban-supersized-foods-says-health-committee-chairman.html
How did we get to the point where the Government thinks it has the right to dictate in law what we eat? That is not the purpose of a government. I'm sick of this 'we know better than you so we will legislate for your own good' attitude. The smoking ban is bad enough - why should government be able to dictate to a publican or a resteraunt owner what he may or may not allow people to do in his own premises? - and of course it has set a precedent where these self-righteous do gooders now think it is possible to force us all round to their way of thinking on everything.
'Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.'
—C. S. Lewis
The Barbarian
26-07-2014, 13:23
They will go with it so you can get ripped off with a minature chocolate bar for the same money as a bigger one.. oop silly me they been doing this for years
Stratmangler
26-07-2014, 13:52
It's not just food portions they're getting involved with.
There's talk of returning to a Medieval practice of having a surname that describes what you do http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/literal-surnames-to-be-reintroduced-2014070388223
It's not just food portions they're getting involved with.
There's talk of returning to a Medieval practice of having a surname that describes what you do http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/literal-surnames-to-be-reintroduced-2014070388223
Good article. I can see how that could work quite well. This bit is a good illustration:
Office worker Tom Logan said: “I am not looking forward to being renamed Tom Office-Drone, although deep down I know it is completely accurate and slightly preferable to Tom Failure.
“One thing’s for sure, it’s not going to improve my chances with the incredibly attractive work experience girl, Emma Out-Of-Your-League.”
anthonyTD
28-07-2014, 08:53
If they just spent the money they are going to on just helping/educating people better, then maybe that might work!
Anyone who deliberately eats themselves to obesity, or death is either depressed, stupid, or just plain ole greedy!
This is the sort of thing that really grinds my gears:
Supersized” food and drinks should be banned by law in a bid to combat Britain’s obesity epidemic, the new head of the Commons health select committee has said.
Dr Sarah Wollaston, a Conservative MP and former GP, said the state had a “duty to intervene” to protect current and future generations from unhealthy habits threatening to shorten their lives.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10988623/Ban-supersized-foods-says-health-committee-chairman.html
How did we get to the point where the Government thinks it has the right to dictate in law what we eat? That is not the purpose of a government. I'm sick of this 'we know better than you so we will legislate for your own good' attitude. The smoking ban is bad enough - why should government be able to dictate to a publican or a resteraunt owner what he may or may not allow people to do in his own premises? - and of course it has set a precedent where these self-righteous do gooders now think it is possible to force us all round to their way of thinking on everything.
'Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.'
—C. S. Lewis
A government must govern, must prescribe and enforce laws within its sphere or cease to be a government. Moreover, the individual must be independent and free within his own sphere or cease to be an individual. The fundamental question ... is now, and always will be through what adjustments, by what actions, these principles may be applied.
IE. You empty my bucket...I FILL IT!
If they just spent the money they are going to on just helping/educating people better, then maybe that might work!
Anyone who deliberately eats themselves to obesity, or death is either depressed, stupid, or just plain ole greedy!
We need to educate more than enforce... Therefore, if the government *really* wants to do something about the current obesity problem, then their money should be spent on educating the 'ready-meals brigade' on how to enjoy a healthy diet, based on the budget they have to work with, instead of enforcing , by law, a standard that they deem as being 'correct'!
The smoking ban is bad enough - why should government be able to dictate to a publican or a resteraunt owner what he may or may not allow people to do in his own premises?
What about the customers - don't they get a say? ;)
For the majority of people (i.e. non-smokers), the smoking ban was one of the best things that's ever happened, as quite simply, there was no acceptable reason for us being forced to inhale someone else's toxic fumes (with the subsequent adverse health implications), or involuntarily go home after a night out in the pub stinking of an old ash tray!! :spew:
'Human rights' works both ways.
Marco.
We need to educate more than enforce... Therefore, if the government *really* wants to do something about the current obesity problem, then their money should be spent on educating the 'ready-meals brigade' on how to enjoy a healthy diet, based on the budget they have to work with, instead of enforcing , by law, a standard that they deem as being 'correct'!
What about the customers - don't they get a say? ;)
For the majority of people (i.e. non-smokers), the smoking ban was one of the best things that's ever happened, as quite simply, there was no acceptable reason for us being forced to inhale someone else's toxic fumes (with the subsequent adverse health implications), or involuntarily go home after a night out in the pub stinking of an old ash tray!! :spew:
'Human rights' works both ways.
Marco.
The problem is, Marco, that no-one forces anyone to go to a pub or resteraunt. If you don't like smoking then you don't go to places where people smoke. That's not difficult and it leaves everyone to make their own choices.
In addition you will recall that prior to the blanket smoking ban many pubs and resteraunts had introduced no smoking areas and installed extractor systems.
I worked in pubs and clubs that served both food and alcohol for years, never heard one person complain about smoking or suggest that it should be banned. People has been smoking in these places for three centuries in some cases. It really was not a problem for anyone except for the self-righteous wankers who think they are so superior to the rest of us that they regard it as their solemn duty to save us from ourselves.
I stopped smoking from choice not enforcement. I now hate the smell of it but would not deprive the smoker of his/her right to do so. I would say that establishments that want smoking should be allowed but I doubt there would be that many now choosing it.
It would be a life-saver for those pubs that have not already been forced out of business.
Watching 'From Russia with Love' on Sunday and noticed how everyone smokes cigarettes, cigars and pipes. 'M' smokes his pipe whilst briefing Bond, as does the Jamaican High Commisioner. A far more civilised age.
Edit - the High Commisioner was Dr No the week before. But my point still stands.
Sure there are places where it would and it wouldn't bother me as a non smoker as long as suitable ventilation was provided etc. Not many went to the wall here but we could afford to lose some as there were too many tbh for a town this size.my mate still smokes and it doesn't really bother me if there is some ventilation.
anthonyTD
29-07-2014, 12:28
I am not a smoker, but i tend to agree with Martin, ever since i can remember, pubs had two rooms, a smoking room, and a bar, or lounge, either way,it was posible to make one a non smoking enviroment, since the smoking ban, you see queue's of people taking huge drags on their cigarettes outside the pub doors, [even in the rain] like its their last, because they cant smoke inside anymore!
The pubs are seriously suffering too from this unnecessary enforcement.
The problem is, Marco, that no-one forces anyone to go to a pub or resteraunt. If you don't like smoking then you don't go to places where people smoke. That's not difficult and it leaves everyone to make their own choices.
In addition you will recall that prior to the blanket smoking ban many pubs and resteraunts had introduced no smoking areas and installed extractor systems.
I worked in pubs and clubs that served both food and alcohol for years, never heard one person complain about smoking or suggest that it should be banned. People has been smoking in these places for three centuries in some cases. It really was not a problem for anyone except for the self-righteous wankers who think they are so superior to the rest of us that they regard it as their solemn duty to save us from ourselves.
There is a pub either end of my street, both substantial detached buildings, one Edwardian, the other Victorian. I used to drink in them a lot but both have now been closed for several years and are falling into rack and ruin. Eventually despite their historiic significance and unique architecture they will both be pulled down to build an unremarkable block of flats or some 'starter homes' and the gradual homogenization of England will continue. :(
That is entirely due to Government exceeding its remit and telling private private individuals what they can and cannot do. They long ago ceased to be our servants, they are now our masters and they are so arrogant nowadays that they don't even bother to pretend that isn't the situation.
There is a pub either end of my street, both substantial detached buildings, one Edwardian, the other Victorian. I used to drink in them a lot but both have now been closed for several years and are falling into rack and ruin. Eventually despite their historiic significance and unique architecture they will both be pulled down to build an unremarkable block of flats or some 'starter homes' and the gradual homogenization of England will continue. :(
That is entirely due to Government exceeding its remit and telling private private individuals what they can and cannot do. They long ago ceased to be our servants, they are now our masters and they are so arrogant nowadays that they don't even bother to pretend that isn't the situation.
:clapclapclap:
walpurgis
29-07-2014, 13:53
That will all change (I hope) when 'The right people ' come to power. Then (I hope) we'll be seeing many of the former establishment members on trial for crimes against the people and treachery! Shame Thatcher isn't about to get what was due.
Not sure who 'The right people' are. UKIP? I'm afraid I am too cynical to believe that there is any such thing as 'the right people' any more.
docfoster
29-07-2014, 15:22
In a country in which there is a collective responsibility for paying for the health care of the individual (state organised taxes to fund the nhs) I think it's right that the state *considers* ways of preventing expensive public health epidemics. Personally I don't feel especially strongly either way about this particular one.
The alternative is to make individuals freer to behave in ways that jeopardise their health, but also more responsible for paying for any consequences. My understanding is that in the US, in which things are slanted more in this direction, a lot of poor people die prematurely from drinking-, smoking- and eating-relating health problems.
Beobloke
29-07-2014, 15:28
The problem is, Marco, that no-one forces anyone to go to a pub or resteraunt. If you don't like smoking then you don't go to places where people smoke.
Sorry, but I disagree. I hate smoking but I love a freshly pulled pint of real ale. Last time I checked, a pub was the only decent place to get one of these, unless I particularly wish to shell out for a 72 pint keg from my local brewery.
As someone once said to me - "I have no problem with people smoking, but I object to them subjecting me to the unpleasant by-product of this activity without me having any choice in the matter. The by-product of the drink that I enjoy is urine, but I don't dispose of that by p*ssing all over anyone standing near me!"
Hear, hear, Adam! :clap: :clap:
*This* is the crux of the matter:
As someone once said to me - "I have no problem with people smoking, but I object to them subjecting me to the unpleasant by-product of this activity without me having any choice in the matter."
I don't give a flying f*ck if smokers want to smoke themselves to death in pubs - as long as I'm not subjected to their filthy habit in the process, simply by entering a pub to enjoy a pint of real ale and a nice meal with my wife, whilst exercising our right to inhale fresh, unpolluted, air.
When I'm drinking beer, the ONLY person being directly affected by that activity is ME. Smoking, in that respect, is a different matter entirely!
If genuine segregation within pubs were implemented (i.e. keeping smokers and their poisonous fumes/stench as far away as possible from non-smokers), so they were physically unable to inflict their dirty habit on others, then I'd have no problem with that. However, the reality more often than not, before the ban was implemented, was that that simply did not happen.
Martin, I'm sorry to say that some of your comments I've been reading elsewhere on this subject beggar belief! :rolleyes:
Marco.
I find the current government stance bewildering. People are said to be living longer. This has meant that the pension fund plundered by Gordon Brown is insufficient to fund all the "lucky" workers that reach retirement age, therefore the age at which you can collect your "free" pension is being increased all the time. If we all live such unhealthy lifestyles then we will kill ourselves and the problem of too many people reaching retirement age will be gone. Why then are the govt so consumed (pun intended) with saving us from ourselves?
Do they really want us to live such healthy lifestyles that the norm will be to live 'til 100?
It is likely that those in their 30's and 40's will not receive a state pension until they are 70?, if they live that long. Unless they make some other provision for old age they are unlikely to have enough income to continue to abuse themselves with fatty food, sugar laced drinks, booze, fags etc etc. So, do they really want to live to old age? The govt IMO have to tread the "oh we are really concerned about the electorate" line, when in fact they don't give a stuff. I am sure that in reality they hope that we all eat, drink, smoke, abuse ourselves to the max and die before aged 50, or earlier. You can read the headlines now....."we tried to educate and assist, but sadly they were set on self destruction".
When you look around you, you see those that really have no desire to live to a ripe old age. They neither have the desire, nor the discipline to conform to what the govt says is an acceptable lifestyle. If figures (another intended pun :) are kept by the govt then they must be applauding us for realising that we are all doomed and to eat and drink ourselves to death and that this is the only way to beat the system.
Some interesting and very pertinent points there, Rob!
Marco.
Reminds me fondly of Yes Prime Minister's "The Smoke Screen" episode. :eek:
awkwardbydesign
29-07-2014, 20:26
I worked in pubs and clubs that served both food and alcohol for years, never heard one person complain about smoking or suggest that it should be banned. People has been smoking in these places for three centuries in some cases. It really was not a problem for anyone except for the self-righteous wankers who think they are so superior to the rest of us that they regard it as their solemn duty to save us from ourselves.
And I stopped going to pubs because the smoke made me feel ill, and left restaurants when a table full of people smoked between courses. You wouldn't have heard me complain though; I'd be gone!
Yes, selfish and inconsiderate smokers in restaurants used to be a major problem, and fortunately, no more! :)
Marco.
Here's something to consider, which I think is rather pertinent to the discussion....
Let's say, for the sake of talking, that the current smoking ban was abolished, and in your local town a new gastro pub opens up. It serves the most amazing steak and ale pie you've ever tasted, along with your favourite real ales. There is nothing else like it near you.
Unfortunately, however, the owner couldn't afford to design separate areas in his establishment for smokers and non-smokers, so customers have to share the one communal area, both for eating and drinking.
Now, if I want to enjoy that marvellous steak and ale pie and drink those wonderful real ales, which aren't available in any other pub near me, why in order to go there, should I be forced to inhale the cigarette fumes of smokers, when it could damage my health and the stench makes me gag?
Or worse - be forced to go somewhere else, and thus be deprived of the aforementioned superb beer and cuisine, simply to avoid the smokers, especially as it is THEY who are in the minority!
Would any reasonable minded person consider that fair??
Marco.
walpurgis
29-07-2014, 22:59
I smoke (not heavily), but never in the house, always on the back doorstep even in winter and I'd not be happy causing discomfort to other people. But I think it was draconian to ban it altogether in pubs and restaurants, etc. If there was a separate area dedicated to smokers and hopefully with staff who smoke too, so as to not subject non-smoking workers to the fumes, that would be fairer. If an establishment does not have the means for two types of area, then fine. I wouldn't be smoking there, as applies now. This has destroyed the pub trade, as most regular drinkers have both vices and enjoy a fag with their beer. Nanny State? Definitely.
It is only in Britain where the Government brings in a law and everybody acts like they will get nicked for breaking it. I'm a regular visitor to the Netherlands and the smoking law was brought in there, what seemed to happen was the bars and restaurants which supported it and considered it in their interests 'enforced' it. Not that I saw any signs or threats of fines, they just put ashtrays and heaters outside and made comfortable environments for their customers. Others decided it wasn't for them or their customers and proceeded to ignore it, recognising it was largely unenforceable in any event. I've also seen the same in Italy, Spain, Greece and Turkey. In the US it seems to be a state by state law with California and New York taking a hard line on it and others such as Nevada deciding they preferred the status quo.
I guess its up to the populace how they respond to any new law the state brings in, if the majority ignore it then it quickly becomes unenforceable. I guess the closest thing we had to that here was the poll tax protests when huge chunks of the population decided to ignore it.
I find it hard to take the gov serious on the issue of food directions when they are more than happy to take a large slice of tax from fags.
If there was a separate area dedicated to smokers and hopefully with staff who smoke too, so as to not subject non-smoking workers to the fumes, that would be fairer.
Yup, Geoff. The problem is that the above, in the majority of instances (before the smoking ban) wasn't the reality - certainly outside of 'old man’s pubs' where they still operated the 'Bar/Lounge' concept. Almost everywhere else had communal areas, shared both by smokers and non-smokers.
The other thing you have to consider is that nowadays pubs are not simply just places to 'have a beer and a fag'; they're places where people (often families with children) go to eat, and as I'm sure you'll appreciate, being forced to inhale cigarette smoke, or sit at a table (sometimes before the staff have a chance to clean it) with an ashtray that is heaving full with fag ends, before or during a meal, isn't very nice.
Like I said, I have no objection whatsoever to people smoking - as long as I'm not forced to breathe in their fumes or inadvertently indulge in their (filthy) habit.
Marco.
I think that by introducing the smoking ban they have concentrated on the habit that is/was most visible and you could not of course mistake the acrid smell. What I suspect it would now like to do, but would be impossible, is to ban people from eating a whole host of foods, drinks that do as much damage to our insides as smoking......or do they?
I am still of the opinion that the govt has to be seen to educate us and warn us of our evil ways, when on the other hand they are reaping the benefits of consumer spending whether it be on Mung and Aduki bean stew with wild rice, or the latest 15 pounder stroke burger with extra lard.
You can see that some peoples eating habits have a very detrimental effect on their health. This is likely to impact on health services who they will only visit when it is probably too late and they require a "quick fix" to shed the gallons of fat they have accumulated. The HS is duty bound to help them despite the fact that for X years they have eaten tons of shit, done no exercise and ended up obese and with Type 2 diabetes......Oooh can't I just have a few pills that will make it all go away?
You cannot educate those that won't listen or are too ignorant to see what they are doing to themselves.
I think that by introducing the smoking ban they have concentrated on the habit that is/was most visible and you could not of course mistake the acrid smell. What I suspect it would now like to do, but would be impossible, is to ban people from eating a whole host of foods, drinks that do as much damage to our insides as smoking......
If those are the government's intentions, then I don't support them. Like I said, in that respect, they should be educating, not enforcing.
Of course one should support the notion of healthier eating, and I do (I have rather passionate views on that subject), but I also have no objection to people eating whatever the hell they like, as unlike smoking in enclosed public places, their eating habits don't adversely impinge on my lifestyle.
Marco.
Huge point being missed by everyone - It is not the Governments place to tell someone what they can and cannot allow in their premises. So in the case of a pub or resteraunt it should be up to the owner to decide if he wants to allow smoking or not. If all places were given that option and they all decided to go no-smoking then I would accept that. Your 'right' not to breathe in smoke is irrelevant it us the business owners' right to decide that is the crucial point.
As a compromise solution how about all the smokers stay inside and all the non-smokers stand outside to drink in the 'fresh air'? Watch out you don't breathe in all those diesel particulates though! They'll kill you quicker than a bullet to the head.
Beobloke
30-07-2014, 08:41
If there was a separate area dedicated to smokers and hopefully with staff who smoke too, so as to not subject non-smoking workers to the fumes, that would be fairer.
I used to visit one or two establishments that tried this method. Unfortuantely that naughty old smoke just won't stay where it's supposed to!
Huge point being missed by everyone - It is not the Governments place to tell someone what they can and cannot allow in their premises. So in the case of a pub or resteraunt it should be up to the owner to decide if he wants to allow smoking or not. If all places were given that option and they all decided to go no-smoking then I would accept that. Your 'right' not to breathe in smoke is irrelevant it us the business owners' right to decide that is the crucial point.
As a compromise solution how about all the smokers stay inside and all the non-smokers stand outside to drink in the 'fresh air'? Watch out you don't breathe in all those diesel particulates though! They'll kill you quicker than a bullet to the head.
:thumbsup:
It is generally forgotten these days that the government is put there by the people to serve the people. Politicians are the worst offenders in this respect...
I used to visit one or two establishments that tried this method. Unfortuantely that naughty old smoke just won't stay where it's supposed to!
those wall things would solve it, maybe add some of those door things so people can get in and out?
awkwardbydesign
30-07-2014, 13:54
Huge point being missed by everyone - It is not the Governments place to tell someone what they can and cannot allow in their premises. So in the case of a pub or resteraunt it should be up to the owner to decide if he wants to allow smoking or not.
So should that apply to seat belts and crash helmets? Fox hunting?
Actually I am against banning smoking in pubs, even though it makes me ill. I agree it is (was) part of pub culture, I just think your arguments against the ban are a bit disingenuous.
And if it is the business owners' right to decide, what about the Christian hotelier who won't let unmarried couples share a bed? Especially if they are gay? Should that also be their right?
Gordon Steadman
30-07-2014, 14:44
those wall things would solve it, maybe add some of those door things so people can get in and out?
You would need a lobby between the doors with a full extraction system to make sure the poisonous fumes don't drift between the two rooms. However I would disagree with banning if the landlord wanted to allow smoking. I certainly would go anywhere near that pub though. I reckon people should be allowed to kill themselves any way they want (my sister died of cancer from overindulgence in the weed) but I want to choose my own method thanks.
]So should that apply to seat belts and crash helmets? Fox hunting?[/B]
Actually I am against banning smoking in pubs, even though it makes me ill. I agree it is (was) part of pub culture, I just think your arguments against the ban are a bit disingenuous.
And if it is the business owners' right to decide, what about the Christian hotelier who won't let unmarried couples share a bed? Especially if they are gay? Should that also be their right?
Yes, and Yes. Absolutely. If people are stupid enough to not wear seatbelts or crash helmets, then the gene pool will soon redress the balance. Actually though, I don't think that the owner of a public house can be put on the same health and safety pedestal as seatbelt or helmet legislation. People have free choice as to where they go to eat, no one forces them. The risk of death or serious injury through even a relatively minor shunt is far higher if you don't wear a seatbelt, and not wearing a crash helmet is just suicidal, so one can see the sense in legislating for road safety standards, because the tally for annual preventable deaths is far more tangible and preventable without any knock on affects to wider business, employment or tradition/culture.
If it isn't the government telling us what do do, what morals to hold (coming from an institution without any themselves), then it's often another section of society having the arrogance to decide for all of us what is right and isn't right, usually from people with no experience of what they are talking about, or where they never suffer the consequences of the downsides of what they propose. As for small family run guest houses, I think it is the same argument. They should be allowed to decide for themselves just who they can allow and who they don't want staying in their premises. It's their premises, their home after all, not yours or mine or the governments.
Political correctness has been allowed free reign to extraordinary lengths in this country to the extent where positive discrimination is carried as a flag to force all owners for B&Bs into catering for groups and couples who they may genuinely have difficulty with for their own sincerely held beliefs. Whilst they may not align with yours, they have every right to hold those beliefs, and equally as much right as you do to hold your beliefs. That should be left as the owner's prerogative. Not in the case of large hotels though, just in the case of small family run businesses. Whether we agree with them or not I think is irrelevant, but I do happen to hold dear their right to make their own decisions. That is what this thread is about...government interference in decision making where the government I believe have been increasingly moving goal posts for years and are interfering in ever more pedantic, focussed and worryingly Orwellian ways which had someone outlined a generation ago, we could have hardly believed or understood why.
It is even more insidious when one delves into who it is who actually holds the reins of power, and it isn't the politicians. It's those who lobby parliament behind the scenes out of self interest and whom provide the jolly's and the backhanders to garner influence.
Perhaps Dave but what I find equally as worrying is that new laws that affect us all can be passed at the whim of politicians reacting short term for whatever minority vote. That's equally insidious in my book as laws which only a small minority might want are used by politicians to rail-road through extra votes come election time.
awkwardbydesign
30-07-2014, 15:24
Yes, and Yes. Absolutely. If people are stupid enough to not wear seatbelts or crash helmets, then the gene pool will soon redress the balance. Actually though, I don't think that the owner of a public house can be put on the same health and safety pedestal as seatbelt or helmet legislation. People have free choice as to where they go to eat, no one forces them. The risk of death or serious injury through even a relatively minor shunt is far higher if you don't wear a seatbelt, and not wearing a crash helmet is just suicidal, so one can see the sense in legislating for road safety standards, because the tally for annual preventable deaths is far more tangible and preventable without any knock on affects to wider business, employment or tradition/culture.
If it isn't the government telling us what do do, what morals to hold (coming from an institution without any themselves), then it's often another section of society having the arrogance to decide for all of us what is right and isn't right, usually from people with no experience of what they are talking about, or where they never suffer the consequences of the downsides of what they propose. As for small family run guest houses, I think it is the same argument. They should be allowed to decide for themselves just who they can allow and who they don't want staying in their premises. It's their premises, their home after all, not yours or mine or the governments.
Political correctness has been allowed free reign to extraordinary lengths in this country to the extent where positive discrimination is carried as a flag to force all owners for B&Bs into catering for groups and couples who they may genuinely have difficulty with for their own sincerely held beliefs. Whilst they may not align with yours, they have every right to hold those beliefs, and equally as much right as you do to hold your beliefs. That should be left as the owner's prerogative. Not in the case of large hotels though, just in the case of small family run businesses. Whether we agree with them or not I think is irrelevant, but I do happen to hold dear their right to make their own decisions. That is what this thread is about...government interference in decision making where the government I believe have been increasingly moving goal posts for years and are interfering in ever more pedantic, focussed and worryingly Orwellian ways which had someone outlined a generation ago, we could have hardly believed or understood why.
I don't disagree with most of what you said, I was just asking the question. I would make seatbelts compulsory for passengers, but banned for the driver. That would concentrate a few minds! Same with crash helmets, especially as it is well known that people take more risks when they feel safer. I ride faster when I am wearing leathers and armour, and with more care when I have (had) a pillion and wore shorts and sandals. Special motorcycling sandals!
As for government interference, would we have got drink driving limits without it? It seems to me that people are only against said interference when it annoys them personally. Take fox hunting; I think it is fairly barbaric, and I'm vegetarian too, but I don't support the ban. The idea that someone would enjoy hunting and killing doesn't particularly offend me, I think that smacks of double standards in many cases. Eating meat is OK for most people, keeping them in conditions which makes their shopping bills lower is OK, killing them is OK, but someone actually enjoying hunting and killing them? Oh dear me, no!
Perhaps Dave but what I find equally as worrying is that new laws that affect us all can be passed at the whim of politicians reacting short term for whatever minority vote. That's equally insidious in my book as laws which only a small minority might want are used by politicians to rail-road through extra votes come election time.
I can't argue with that Paul... ;)
awkwardbydesign
30-07-2014, 15:34
Political correctness has been allowed free reign to extraordinary lengths in this country to the extent where positive discrimination is carried as a flag to force all owners for B&Bs into catering for groups and couples who they may genuinely have difficulty with for their own sincerely held beliefs. Whilst they may not align with yours, they have every right to hold those beliefs, and equally as much right as you do to hold your beliefs. That should be left as the owner's prerogative.
And it wasn't that long ago that signs saying "No blacks, no Irish, no dogs" were rife. Were they sincerely held beliefs? Where exactly SHOULD the line be drawn? Apparently most people in this country would bring back hanging for certain crimes; probably different crimes in many cases, but politicians seem to believe that would be wrong. Should they follow popular opinion or hold to their own beliefs (if that is what it is)?
I don't disagree with most of what you said, I was just asking the question. I would make seatbelts compulsory for passengers, but banned for the driver. That would concentrate a few minds! Same with crash helmets, especially as it is wll known that people take more risks when they feel safer. I ride faster when I am wearing leathers and armour, and with more care when I have (had) a pillion and wore shorts and sandals. Special motorcycling sandals!
As for government interference, would we have got drink driving limits without it? It seems to me that people are only against said interference when it annoys them personally. Take fox hunting; I think it is fairly barbaric, and I'm vegetarian too, but I don't support the ban. The idea that someone would enjoy hunting and killing doesn't particularly offend me, I think that smacks of double standards in mnay cases. Eating meat is OK for most people, keeping them in conditions which makes their shopping bills lower is OK, killing them is OK, but someone actually enjoying hunting and killing them? Oh dear me, no!
I'd go along with that. I ride safer when kitted up because there's no distractions like flapping trousers round trainer'd feet etc and it always feels like you're not completely in control when you don't have the confidence to corner smoothly, sometimes at extreme angles for example, so in fact not kitting up properly means to me that I cannot be fully in control.
I think that drink driving limits are inherently understandable and no-one wants to lose a loved one through a drunk driver. I've been hit by a drunk driver, and my mother and brother both have and in every case the drunk failed to stop and injuries were incurred. Anyone getting into a car drunk deserves prison, simple as.
Fox hunting is more difficult. I definitely do not hold with animal cruelty or suffering but I do think that fox hunting was one of those minority group bans where the government shouldn't have gone. I happen to think that transporting live animals over hundreds of miles is far more barbaric and cruel, yet this is exactly what the desolation of our regional abattoirs did post F&M epidemic, another knee jerk from government who handled the whole affair appallingly. So bad, that MAFF ceased to exist. Personally, I see nothing wrong with hunting for the pot, but I'm not at all supportive of hunting for sport. That doesn't mean that I have the right to tell others what to do. I have nothing in common with most of the fox hunting fraternity but I was dismayed when yet another tradition was stamped all over by central government; the very same government who supports selling arms to Russia, Israel and other warmongering nations; the same government who are responsible for illegal invasion of other countries and turning a blind eye to the slaughter of innocents where political expediency demands or at least where economic or European interests are best served by not pursuing action to defend the innocent. It's disgusting. Over 600 have died in Gaza, mostly as the result of indiscriminate shelling from Israel (and possibly their own side) and what has the international community done to stop that? Our government seems more interested in pursuing new legislative measures against its own population for things like speeding, smoking or drinking in public places etc. It sort of puts things into perspective for me.
awkwardbydesign
30-07-2014, 15:36
I can't argue with that Paul... ;)
But wouldn't that LOSE them votes, as the majority don't want them?
awkwardbydesign
30-07-2014, 15:38
I'd go along with that. I ride safer when kitted up because there's no distractions like flapping trousers round trainer'd feet etc and it always feels like you're not completely in control when you don't have the confidence to corner smoothly, sometimes at extreme angles for example, so in fact not kitting up properly means to me that I cannot be fully in control.
Lol! Isn't that actually the opposite of what I suggested?
awkwardbydesign
30-07-2014, 15:40
Anyway, I have stairs to veneer, so I'm out for a while. (If it doesn't move, veneer it. If it moves, glue it down and THEN veneer it!)
Lol! Isn't that actually the opposite of what I suggested?
It is but it serves to illustrate two completely different view points of the same thing. My point was that it's difficult to be in complete control if not properly kitted out and your point was that you ride more carefully when not properly kitted out. Each case is a valid viewpoint but having come off in my "youf" without proper gear, I learnt my lesson and never go out these days and take the same risks. I Always go properly and safely kitted out. The riding speed etc is more about flicking that sensible switch in your head; maturity on two wheels should mean knowing when it is safe to push on a little and where it isn't. What one wears shouldn't come into it unless it in some way impedes control of the motorbike which is where I was coming from.
simple rule of the thumb - if only you will come to harm then no legislation necessary - e.g seat belts, crash helmets, smoking.
If others may also come to harm then legislation necessary - e.g drink driving
It's not rocket science people!
The problem we have is that politicians are not very bright these days. Thinking up efective solutions is a bit dificult for them so they go for the simple answer which is 'ban it'. This of course is not only ineffective (drugs have been banned for years but no shortage of vendors or users) but is also prone to the law of unintended consequences.
The sign 'No Blacks, No Irish No Dogs' was pretty commonplace in my early childhood. Nowadays you would struggles to find anyone who considers that to be acceptable. But have attitudes changed due to legislation on racism or despite it? I would argue it is the latter. Drink driving is a good example of this , it was always illegal but it was still widespread and just considerd a bit naughty, a bit roguish, until they began to concentrate on making it socially unaceptable and then guess what - the rate of DD dropped sharply.
jandl100
30-07-2014, 16:41
simple rule of the thumb - if only you will come to harm then no legislation necessary - e.g seat belts, crash helmets, smoking.
If others may also come to harm then legislation necessary - e.g drink driving
It's not rocket science people!
Others come to harm from "passive smoking" - clinically proven and a real danger to others.
Helmets and seat belts - why should the NHS have to pay out more to patch you together?
awkwardbydesign
30-07-2014, 20:01
The problem we have is that politicians are not very bright these days.
Lol! When exactly were they?
awkwardbydesign
30-07-2014, 20:09
Helmets and seat belts - why should the NHS have to pay out more to patch you together?
Ah, now there's a dangerous idea. Rugby, horse riding, skiing, mountaineering, how far would you go? Penalise activities that contain danger, and they will go underground, or those that need some excitement will start to do things that hurt others. I ride motorbikes, on track sometimes, I also still skate (longboards). I would probably cost the NHS more if I stopped- obesity, diabetes, heart problems, etc! I'm 65 BTW.
Ah, now there's a dangerous idea. Rugby, horse riding, skiing, mountaineering, how far would you go? Penalise activities that contain danger, and they will go underground, or those that need some excitement will start to do things that hurt others. I ride motorbikes, on track sometimes, I also still skate (longboards). I would probably cost the NHS more if I stopped- obesity, diabetes, heart problems, etc! I'm 65 BTW.
Very good point. Go to A & E and see all the nonsense people have been up to that now requires them to be patched up and treated. Either we have a health service free at the point of delivery or we have everyone pay for any care they need. 'How did you break your ankle? Jogging? Well sod off that's your own stupid fault.'
A system that only treats people for injuries and health issues that are not their fault would be unworkable. So it is either one or the other and the former is still the best option although it could be done a lot cheaper than it is.
awkwardbydesign
31-07-2014, 08:14
I seem to recall that in Canada insurance companies (or was it medical insurance?) wanted to penalise motorcyclists in this way. The motorcycle organisations managed to alert all the other "dangerous" sport organisations who created such an uproar (because they might be next) that the idea was dropped. I used to be in MAG and the BMF, so heard a lot of this stuff.
And about seat belts being made compulsory; didn't injuries drop initially and then rise again as people started to feel safer, so took more risks?
But if you really want to talk about state interference, have a good look at the EU. Again on motor bikes, a particular commissioner wanted to cap engine power for "safety", even though there was no evidence to support this. I then found out that the European parliament could only block proposed legislation (not initiate it, that was down to the council of ministers or the commission), and even then only if an ABSOLUTE majority of EMPs voted against it. Which was 369, one over half of the 736 EMPs. Not half of those PRESENT at the time, so the commission tried to arrange the vote for when the EMPs were away, or in recess, or at lunch time, etc. The FEMA, MAG, BMF, etc, had to repeatedly notify individual EMPs that the commission was trying to bypass them and make them irrelevant. Of course most EMPs don't care about bikes so we had to appeal to their pride!
The commissioner involved went on to be a financial commissioner, and when he left took up a financial post in the private sector. The EU then had to prosecute him as he took insider knowledge to his new job!
...not to mention the EU stance and the UK DTp lobbying for motorcycle leg protectors, basically bars at shin/knee level that were meant to protect motorcyclists in the event of an accident. Because there wasn't a single brain cell between the people involved, never mind a motorcyclist, what they came up with was an exceptional design for a leg breaker, and something which would inevitably ground out on cornering...genius! The BMF, MAG and others effectively got this piece of nonsense wiped from the agenda but civil servants are still working on ways of interfering using the pretence of safety when they ought instead to be concentrating on raising driving standards, particularly the car driving test. It still appears that a trained chimp could pas the test with a little help to do the theory part. Its driving standards we need improved, not theory tests which are meaningless unless the drivers can effectively deliver better standards of situation awareness, hazard recognition and car control. The easy cop out and revenew generator is though to introduce ever more draconian theory tests, increase the cost of the tests and claim progress.
jandl100
31-07-2014, 10:09
Tee hee - yeah, I thought I'd get that sort of response about helmets and seat belts. :D
No comments on this bit, though .... ;)
Others come to harm from "passive smoking" - clinically proven and a real danger to others.
Tee hee - yeah, I thought I'd get that sort of response about helmets and seat belts. :D
No comments on this bit, though .... ;)
I donlt think anyon would disagree that if you were shut up in a poorly ventilated room with a smoker for several years that it would have a deletrious effect on you. in a reasonably well ventilated location for a short period of time there would be no appreciable effect. Certainly it would be a lot less harmful than standing next to a busy road for an hour or two.
The EU once proclaimed that 75,000 people died in Europe every year from passive smoking. When asked in parliament to name just one of the victims they were unable to. It turned out the figure was 'an estimate' worked out, like so many of these 'statistics' on the back of a fag packet using the imagination. Lying, in other words.
jandl100
31-07-2014, 10:32
What doesn't seem to have been addressed here at all, is another side of the equation.
Viz. the food industry that makes unhealthy foods available at a cheap price.
For example; sugar makes food taste nicer (to many people, especially kids) so let's load up on the stuff and sell more, selling more we can lower the price further and sell yet more unhealthy muck.
I really do think that needs government regulation, as left to themselves major parts of the industry seems incapable of addressing the problem.
And going back to the OP, I think the same of the "supersize scam" and "twofers" (2 for the price of 1). This does need serious looking at, imo.
I agree about the sugar Jerry.
20 years ago (or so) we were told that fat was bad for us and the Government introduced recommended targets for daily consumption. They had no experts within government but a fresh faced minister who took a medical degree but never practised was given the job, as he has "PhD" in his initials. He went on to crusade against fat in diets and raised it with the GMC amongest others. It was blamed for obesity, hi cholesterol and diabetes.
20 years on, and surprise surprise, when proper independent research, peer reviewed is undertaken, it would appear that the governments' interference has actually made things worse and may even be a significant contributing factor into increased high cholesterol levels and diabetes. Why? because full fat anything doesn't cause as significant an increase in blood sugar levels or cholesterol as increased sugar levels. The industry though reacted with new low or zero fat options but what most people fail to grasp is that these are higher in sugar...much higher. Even semi skimmed milk contains more sugars than full fat milk. Ever wondered what happens to excess sugar not metabolised? Increased levels of triglyceride form in blood, lower HDL (good cholesterol) levels form and higher cholesterol in the form of raised low density lipoprotien and raised triglycerides formed when the liver cannot absorb excess sugars results. This clogs arteries and results in increased risk of heart attacks and diabetes. Spectacular home goal by a knee jerk government decision, not backed by proper science and typical of so many government interference outcomes in all walks of life.
In our family, we now enjoy full fat everything having kicked out the low fat nonsense but limit our sugar intakes (carbs) and get plenty of exercise. Jerry's right. Industry sees this as another cash cow avenue but one directly caused by government interference in the first place. It looks likely that without intervention, the food industry will not voluntarily do the right thing so the direct result of inept government tinkering is that yet more legislation may well be necessary to curb the ludicrous situation now well developed within the food industry. Our kids will suffer and the NHS will be more severely taxed if it isn't tackled.
awkwardbydesign
31-07-2014, 11:47
in a reasonably well ventilated location for a short period of time there would be no appreciable effect. Certainly it would be a lot less harmful than standing next to a busy road for an hour or two.
Come on, like for like please! You may be correct in your assertion, but mixing time scales weakens your argument.
True -but my point is what if you live or work next to a busy road and have the windows open all day? Many people do. Perhaps a ban on using diesel engines on built up areas is required?
awkwardbydesign
31-07-2014, 15:05
True -but my point is what if you live or work next to a busy road and have the windows open all day? Many people do. Perhaps a ban on using diesel engines on built up areas is required?
Of course the government encouraged everyone to go diesel, and now want to penalise them! I have one of each, but the people carrier, which seats 8, is the diesel. So I can take the whole family into town in that, rather than needing 2 petrol vehicles. So which is the worse option?
Rats exposed to fumes from fuel became more likely to scratch and fight each other, scientists found.
They were also more likely to display signs of anxiety while the chemicals caused damage to their brain cells, a team from Cairo University have discovered.
The researchers warn that fumes which humans are exposed to on a daily basis could be affecting their mental as well as their physical health.
Amal Kinawy, who led the study, said: "Heightened aggression may be yet another risk for the human population chronically exposed to urban air polluted by automobile smoke.
“Millions of people every day are exposed to gasoline fumes while refuelling their cars.”
Related Articles
Gene 'causes blood pressure levels to rocket in stressful situations' 24 Nov 2009
Regular exercise 'can cut chance of developing breast cancer' 01 Oct 2009
Sleep disorder 'could be accurately diagnosed from sound of sufferers’ snoring' 12 Oct 2009
The rats were exposed to fumes from either leaded petrol, unleaded petrol or clean air.
Those which inhaled the chemicals were much more likely to attack each other or take up “belligerent positions” than those which breathed only natural air, the study found.
The effects were the same whether they took in leaded or unleaded fuel, although those who inhaled the unleaded fuels were slightly more likely to become aggressive.
An analysis of the animal’s brains showed that the fumes had caused damage to cells.
The findings were published in the journal BMC Physiology.
Previous studies have linked toxic traffic fumes to an increased risk of miscarriage, of developing dementia and of suffering from allergies.
Leaded fuel has been banned in Britain since 2000, because of fears over its effects on health, particularly that of children.
Of course the government encouraged everyone to go diesel, and now want to penalise them! I have one of each, but the people carrier, which seats 8, is the diesel. So I can take the whole family into town in that, rather than needing 2 petrol vehicles. So which is the worse option?
Both...make 'em walk! ;)
The answer depends entirely on the condition of the engine. Fact is these days that a well maintained diesel in tip top condition, with an effective DPF chucks out very little except under heavy load when the throttle is wide open (unlikely in the event of a casual saunter in a 30mph zone). One look at the exhaust on my D5 shows hardly any staining at all; it looks like parent metal...an indication that very little in the way of particulates are being discharged compared with our other, older car which has a very soorty pipe (yes, it's running properly). A knackered/tired engine will spew out loads more harmful fumes, petrol or diesel.
Stratmangler
31-07-2014, 23:22
I see Martin has given up digging a deeper hole.
Now if we use the medieval practice of logical naming it seems reasonable to change his username from Macca to Macca Digitdeeper :)
I see Martin has given up digging a deeper hole.
Now if we use the medieval practice of logical naming it seems reasonable to change his username from Macca to Macca Digitdeeper :)
Hey! Don't make me moderate your ass!
I wasn't digging a hole anyway it was more of a slit trench ;)
awkwardbydesign
01-08-2014, 08:11
Both...make 'em walk! ;)
Yeah, right. Try that in Plymouth! I've only ever walked down (and back up) to our village twice; it took several days for my ankles to recover, the hill is that steep! Cyclists get off and walk around here. And my wife walks with a stick, at least we can park for free as she has a disabled badge.
Yeah, right. Try that in Plymouth! I've only ever walked down (and back up) to our village twice; it took several days for my ankles to recover, the hill is that steep! Cyclists get off and walk around here. And my wife walks with a stick, at least we can park for free as she has a disabled badge.
I used to live in Plymouth. Walked or cycled everywhere when I was there...until some beggar nicked my bike.
awkwardbydesign
01-08-2014, 11:17
I used to live in Plymouth. Walked or cycled everywhere when I was there...until some beggar nicked my bike.
I'm at the top of Tamerton Foliot. Only masochists cycle up our hill!
saw a woman cycle past my house today going up a hill.....about 1:101.....she was really wishing she'd taken the car. :lol:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.