Nanny’s Ludicrous Proposal to Fine Supermarkets Over Shopping Basket Calories

 

 

In a move that could only be described as a masterclass in bureaucratic overreach, the government has floated a proposal to fine supermarkets for failing to reduce the calorie content of customers’ shopping baskets. Yes, you read that correctly—supermarkets, not individuals, would be penalised for the choices shoppers make. This harebrained scheme is not only impractical but also a textbook example of government meddling in personal freedom, dressed up as public health policy. Let’s unpack why this idea is as unworkable as it is infuriating.

 

First, let’s address the sheer impossibility of enforcement. Supermarkets sell thousands of products, from fresh produce to processed snacks, and customers buy whatever suits their needs, preferences, or budgets. How exactly is a supermarket supposed to control the calorie content of a shopper’s basket? Are cashiers expected to scan each item, tally up the calories, and then—what?—politely ask customers to swap their ice cream for kale? The logistics are a nightmare. A single shopping trip could include a mix of high-calorie treats, low-calorie vegetables, and everything in between, varying wildly from one customer to the next. Short of installing calorie police at every checkout or forcing shoppers to submit their receipts for a nutritional audit, there’s no feasible way to monitor or enforce this policy without turning supermarkets into dystopian surveillance hubs.

 

Then there’s the question of responsibility. Supermarkets don’t force anyone to buy anything. They stock shelves; customers make choices. Holding retailers accountable for individual decisions is like fining a car dealership because someone drove recklessly. People buy food based on taste, cost, dietary needs, or cultural preferences—not because Tesco or Sainsbury’s whispered sweet nothings about chocolate cake. Punishing supermarkets for offering variety ignores the fundamental reality that personal responsibility drives purchasing decisions. If the government wants to tackle obesity, it should focus on education or subsidies for healthier options, not scapegoating retailers for stocking what people demand.

 

The economic fallout of this proposal would also be disastrous. Supermarkets operate on razor-thin margins, and fines for something as nebulous as “calorie reduction” would likely force them to raise prices or cut costs elsewhere. Smaller chains or independent grocers, already struggling against retail giants, could be driven out of business entirely. And who pays the price? Consumers, of course—especially low-income households who rely on affordable food options. Forcing supermarkets to police calories could also lead to reduced stock of popular items, limiting choice and driving shoppers to less regulated markets like corner shops or online platforms. The ripple effect would be a mess, with no guarantee of healthier outcomes.

 

Let’s not ignore the absurdity of the government’s underlying assumption: that supermarkets can magically engineer a nation of healthier eaters. Even if retailers slashed the availability of high-calorie foods, people would still find ways to satisfy their cravings—whether through takeaways, black-market biscuits, or home baking. The idea that fining supermarkets will somehow transform the public’s eating habits is laughably detached from reality. It’s like trying to fix a broken bridge by ticketing the cars crossing it.

 

This proposal also reeks of authoritarian overreach. The government’s job is to provide infrastructure and guidance, not to micromanage what goes into our shopping trolleys. By shifting the burden onto supermarkets, they’re effectively admitting they don’t trust citizens to make their own choices. It’s a slippery slope—today it’s calories, tomorrow it’s sugar, salt, or maybe even “unapproved” food combinations. Where does it end? A state-mandated meal plan for every household? The nanny state has never looked so intrusive.

 

In short, this calorie-fining fiasco is a policy so divorced from practicality it could only have been dreamed up in a Whitehall bubble. It’s unenforceable without draconian measures, economically reckless, and an affront to personal freedom. If the government wants to promote healthier lifestyles, it should ditch the fines and focus on empowering people, not punishing businesses for doing their job. Supermarkets aren’t the problem—bad policy is.

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

What a Load of Bollocks - The Police Are Fucked!

 

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

I Hear You're A Terrorist Now!

The UK government’s Prevent policy is not just misguided—it’s a grotesque betrayal of liberty, weaponising counter-terrorism to silence anyone who dares question the erosion of British culture amid unchecked migration. By labelling these concerns as tantamount to terrorism, Prevent has become a dystopian cudgel, stomping on free speech and turning citizens into suspects for thought-crimes. This isn’t a policy; it’s a scandal, and the government’s refusal to dismantle it is an affront to every value it claims to uphold.

Cultural Concern Is Not Terrorism—It’s Human

Prevent was meant to stop violent extremism, not police opinions. Yet, its ludicrously vague definition of “extremism”—opposition to “fundamental British values”—has been twisted to target people worried about rapid demographic shifts and the dilution of their cultural identity. This isn’t nuance; it’s madness. Fearing the loss of British traditions, from pub culture to shared history, isn’t a manifesto for violence—it’s a natural response to seismic change. But under Prevent, such thoughts are enough to get you reported, surveilled, or worse.

 

The government’s message is clear: shut up or be branded a terrorist. Teachers, employers, and neighbours are conscripted as snitches, turning communities into Stasi-like networks of suspicion. This isn’t safety—it’s state-sponsored paranoia, designed to crush dissent and dodge the hard questions about migration’s impact.

A Policy of Persecution

Don’t take my word for it—look at the evidence. In 2022, a West Yorkshire schoolboy was hauled into Prevent’s net for saying immigration might strain local resources and alter his community’s character. No threats, no hate—just a kid thinking out loud. In 2019, a man faced scrutiny for a social media post questioning whether British culture could survive in high-migration areas. These aren’t terrorists; they’re people grappling with change in a country they love. Yet, Prevent treats them like jihadists.

 

Home Office data lays bare the scale of this insanity. In the year ending March 2024, over 6,000 Prevent referrals flooded in, with nearly a third tossed out as baseless. That’s thousands of lives disrupted, reputations tarnished, and trust shattered—all for expressing views shared by millions. The 2023 Shawcross Review slammed Prevent for targeting non-violent concerns, warning it fuels alienation. The government’s response? Crickets. It’s not incompetence—it’s intent.

The Lie of “British Values”

The gall of it all is the hypocrisy. The government preaches “British values”—democracy, tolerance, free speech—while wielding Prevent to gut them. Democracy demands debate, not dossiers on dissenters. Tolerance means enduring discomfort, not ratting out your neighbour for lamenting cultural loss. And free speech is a sham if you’re one comment away from a Prevent referral. This isn’t about protecting Britain; it’s about controlling it, papering over migration’s challenges with surveillance and fear.

 

By framing cultural anxiety as a terrorist gateway, the government ducks accountability for overstretched schools, hospitals, and housing. It’s easier to vilify the worried than to fix the system. But this betrayal cuts deeper—it tells Britons their heritage, their identity, isn’t worth defending. That’s not governance; it’s cowardice.

The Human Toll—and the Danger

Prevent’s victims aren’t just numbers—they’re people. Those referred face ruined careers, broken families, and the stigma of being labelled an “extremist.” Even if cleared, the scar remains. Communities fray as trust erodes, and the public learns to self-censor, lest they end up in the government’s crosshairs. This is the stuff of authoritarian regimes, not a free society.

Worse, Prevent is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Silence legitimate concerns, and you push people to the fringes, where resentment festers and extremists prey. By refusing to engage with cultural anxieties, the government isn’t preventing terrorism—it’s sowing the seeds for division and unrest. It’s a dangerous game, and we’re all paying the price.

End This Travesty Now

The government must gut Prevent’s overreach and limit it to actual threats of violence. Worrying about British culture isn’t a crime—it’s a conversation, one this country desperately needs. Migration and integration are thorny issues, and dismissing public fears as extremism only deepens the divide. A government that trusted its people would face these challenges openly, not hide behind surveillance and smear campaigns.

 

Prevent, as it stands, is a stain on Britain’s soul. It’s a policy that punishes patriotism, strangles free thought, and betrays the nation it claims to protect. The government has a choice: restore liberty or tighten the noose. If it chooses the latter, it’s not just British culture at risk—it’s Britain itself. Scrap this travesty, or history will judge you as the architects of its decline.

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts