Nanny's Fag Fetish

Farking hell!

Nanny is still going on about farking fags!

She really ought to get some therapy over this unhealthy obsession with smoking and fag related issues.

Anyhoo, this time Nanny has decided that taxation, banning adverts, banning smoking in public places etc is still not enough to demonise the evil weed. Nanny now wants fags to be sold "under the counter", shops will be banned from displaying tobacco products. Vending machines in pubs and restaurants will also be banned.

Why?

Nanny seems to think that this will reduce the number of children who start smoking.

I didn't know kids regularly wandered into pubs, unchallenged, and bought fags.

Nanny's best chum Dawn Primarolo (once known as "Red Dawn" for extremist left views), the Minister for Public Health, says that this new measure if implemented will save lives:

"It's vital we get across the message to children that smoking is bad. If that means stripping out vending machines or removing cigarettes from behind the counter, I'm willing to do that."

How very "noble" of her!

The consultation process will begin in late May, once complete Nanny will then ignore the results and push ahead anyway.

OK, so here's why this idea is bollocks:

• This will drive fag selling to the underworld, thus boosting the revenues of criminals and low life scum (just as drugs, gambling and booze bans have all done in the past).



• Children are instinctively drawn to anything deemed to be naughty or illegal, this makes fags even more tempting to them.



• Small/corner shops do not have the space to have an "under the counter" operation. This will effectively destroy the corner shops, and leave the supermarkets in control of what we buy.



• Aside from fags, shops sell a whole myriad of products that Nanny hates (sweets, chocolates, booze, porn, pies, pasties, patties etc); will these be banned too? Another nail in the coffin of the corner shops, which only survive because they sell these products.



• We live in a free market economy, shops have the right to display whatever products they wish in any manner that they wish. Consumers have the right to buy whatever they wish.



• Fag packets have to be least inspiring piece of marketing design on the planet, there is nothing intrinsically attractive about them; ie they are not at all tempting.



• Nanny makes a nice little earner from the tax on fags, what is she going to do without that revenue stream?



• Once Nanny has banned fags, she will ban; booze, meat, fat, milk, eggs, cheese, sweets, chocolate etc. The fanatics who push for these bans "get off" from the power kick it gives them, they like to control the lives of others.



• The argument put forward by Nanny and the butchers' profession that lives and money will be saved, misses a rather essential point. Fags generate tax revenue, which in part goes to pay for the health care of those who become ill from fag related issues. Remove the fags, and you remove the revenue stream and allegedly "grant" people a longer life.
  
  However, those that live to a "ripe old age" are invariably condemned to years of senility, dementia, frailty, pain and misery in one of Nanny's horrific geriatric wards; ie they are condemned to a living death. These wards cost money to maintain, but the costs are not offset by taxes on fags; therefore the costs to society of an ageing population in terms of money and suffering terms are higher.



• Nanny and the butchers' profession ignores the fact that it's not the length of life that counts, but the quality.
  
  We as a society are ignoring the fundamental problem that extending people's life spans, without taking into account the quality of those extended lifespans, is storing up trouble for the future and wrong.
  
  The butchers' profession and Nanny do not have the moral right to force us to live longer than we were physically/mentally designed to do.

All in all the proposal is truly appalling, on so many levels. Unfortunately, Nanny will implement it because she doesn't give a fark about the consequences.

Background on Red Dawn:

Dawn Primarolo spent ten years at the Treasury as a minister under Gordon Brown, a sentence longer than many serious criminals have to serve. In that job, it is fair to say that she was not universally commended for her competence, more often than not being wheeled out to take a Commons beating for some Treasury blunder or other.

Despite campaigning against the first Gulf War in 1991, she voted in favour of invading Iraq in 2003, and against any investigation into the invasion after it had taken place. She has voted in favour of ID cards and increased university tuition fees.

As Paymaster General, Dawn Primarolo was responsible for the administration of the Tax Credits system, intended to provide working families with financial support. This system is of course a complete shambles (see www.hmrcisshite.com).

In 2003, a Treasury select committee member accused her of "losing control of her department" after it became known that Inland Revenue buildings under Primarolo's control had been sold to tax-haven companies. This came shortly after she had "insisted ... the Child tax credit scheme was a "success"", despite Inland Revenue staff walking out in protest against the pressure they were being placed under.

In 2005, PM Tony Blair was forced to apologise after a report by the Parliamentary Ombudsman that Primarolo had failed to give Parliament accurate information. Primarolo admitted at the same time that she had been fully aware "about the extent of the problems".

She was responsible for introducing the controversial IR35 tax rules.

In July 2007 she was appointed minister of state at the Department of Health.

How many hospitals has she ever visited, during her tenure in orifice?

ZERO!

She doesn't like fat people either.

Here is her email address primarolod@parliament.uk, why not drop her a line?

A Nation of Fat Bastards

It is official!

Nanny has decreed that, unless something is done, we will become a nation of fat bastards by 2050.

In the largest ever UK study into obesity, backed by Nanny and compiled by 250 "experts", it was concluded that excess weight is now the norm in our "obesogenic" society.

Odd...have these people never read any womens' magazines, or gone to any fashion shows, which feature only skinny waifs?

Anyhoo, since it is a Nanny report we can only assume that it must be 100% factually correct.

The good news is that individuals can no longer be held responsible for obesity.

Great, so it's not our fault!

Isn't that marvellous?

Maybe not, for you see if we are not responsible for our actions (such a lame excuse, and so readily used by Nanny) then Nanny must do something to "help" us; ie she will enforce thinness.

The report concludes that "dramatic and comprehensive action" is required to stop the majority of us becoming obese by 2050.

Errrmm...so what precisely will be the nature of this "dramatic and comprehensive" action?

The report doesn't say, in fact it goes on to say that there is "scant proof" that any anti-obesity policy works.

However, let us not worry about facts or failed policies. The report is clear in that "every level of society, from individual to the upper echelons of government, must become involved in the campaign against a condition which carries such great social and economic consequences".

The new age Nazis are on the march, this time it is not the Jews that will be frogmarched off to the camps but those deemed to be "obese".

Pass the sick bag, these zealots make me puke!

Sir David King, the government's chief scientific advisor and head of the Foresight Programme which drew up the report, said:

"There is a danger that the moment to act

radically and dramatically will be missed.

It is a problem that is getting worse every year."

The irony being that the reason, according to the report, that we are all so fat is that we now live in a society that has abundant energy-dense, cheap foods, labour-saving devices, motorised transport and sedentary work.

Now call me stupid, but isn't that something worth celebrating?

Mankind for millennia has struggled with famine, diseases related to malnutrition, and backbreaking work that sent us all to an early grave by the time we hit 35-40.

Now, at least in the West, we live "farking well"; way beyond the dreams of our ancestors.

Would Nanny rather we went back to the days of malnutrition, and working 7 days a week in fields just to harvest a few mouldy spuds???

You know, I think she would.

The reason that we are fat is because we have a genetic inheritance that stores calories in times of plenty. There are really only two ways to keep trim; eat less, exercise more.

People know that, but really dislike being bullied to do so. The more Nanny shrieks at the top of her annoyingly shrill voice that we are fat, the less likely it is that anyone will take notice.

Sir David ignores this truism, and said that "it was clear" that Nanny needs to involve herself.

Ugh!

Nanny's Public Health Minister, Dawn Primarolo, is going to hold further consultations to decide how to proceed.

Be prepared for fat taxes...totally unworkable...but of course Nanny would feel that she was doing something.

I warn you again, we will all end up being frogmarched off to "fat camps".