Monday 5 January 2009

Before, During, and After

Having spent a few days enjoying the company of family, installing a shiny new PC with the biggest screen in the world, and generally drinking irresponsibly while eating tins full of Celebrations and watching darts on TV, a quick butcher's around seems to show that the Righteous don't bother much with the season of goodwill. They like to fuck us up all year round!

Nanny Knows Best highlighted the leaflet that did its level best to stop us enjoying the festive period prior to the event ...

Nanny's knobheads from Ed Balls' Department for Children, Schools and Families have issued 150,000 of the leaflets called "Tis The Season To Be Careful".

The BBC propaganda division (there is only one division in the BBC) then faithfully reported on a plan to take away driving decisions from motorists, in favour of those of oh-so-reliable computers ...

Speed-limiting devices should be fitted to cars on a voluntary basis to help save lives and cut carbon emissions, according to a new report.

The government's transport advisers claim the technology would cut road accidents with injuries by 29%.

Err ... no, that's bullshit. It could cut road accidents if computer models are correct. I'll say it slowly, real ... life ... is ... different ... to ... a ... computer ... simulation.

To tick another box, Mark Wadsworth highlights another huge BBC lie

Ministers warned that, if left alone, obese and overweight people would cost the taxpayer in England £50bn by 2050.

Notice the word 'would' again, instead of 'could'. These morons must have a bloody time machine to be so certain. Hope I can have a lend and move back to the 1970s to enjoy my life again, pretty please?

Then this copper-bottomed over-exaggeration,

By 2050 90% of today's children will be overweight or obese, it predicted.

There surely has to be a competition somewhere in the public sector to produce the most unbelievable line to fool the sheep in this country. This is close to top spot in my opinion.

So, that's drinking, eating and driving sorted. What about smoking? Well, they haven't been as successful there. They've lied so much that even the sheep are starting bite back at the shepherd. Plus, the weight of the lies is threatening other areas, as the likes of the Telegraph are starting to look a bit more closely at the crapness of health consultations, after the laughable manipulated results Labour produced recently.

The finding has prompted critics to accuse the Government of spending taxpayers' money on establishing groups designed merely to back the Government line on public health issues.

Ministers have effectively been accused of "astroturfing" - cultivating a fake grassroots movement in order to make a position appear more popular than it really is.

Matthew Elliott, the chief executive of the Taxpayers' Alliance, said: "This is the Government funding bodies to lobby itself. The consultations appear to be biased in favour of the Government's preferred position."

No fucking shit, Sherlock.

The Government also published responses to a consultation on alcohol consumption earlier this month, in advance of a Policing and Crime Bill currently passing through Parliament, which proposes giving the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, sweeping powers to control licensing in pubs and clubs.

The consultation attracted 2,336 responses. Almost 2,000 of these came either from a survey by Alcohol Concern, a charity which last year was given almost £400,000 by the Department for Health and raised nothing through fundraising, or postcards distributed by the Department itself, which posed the question: "Fed up with alcohol problems where you live?"

Pay me out Ladbrokes. I mentioned this lot in an earlier article.

Perhaps the outrage was too big to allow the Government-funded Alcohol Concern to carry on with their crap. (Note: I am guessing they are Government-funded as it is usually the case - I am a betting man and reckon it's odds on that I'm correct).

So what, exactly, has the Government spokesmong to say about being caught with their hands firmly shut tight in the till of consultation fraud?

"This work is vital in the plight to reduce the 87,000 unnecessary deaths a year in England alone, and bring down costs to the NHS of between £1.5 billion and £1.7 billion per year."

That's right, they answer a newspaper's uncovering of their lies with an impossible to prove computer-modelled hypothesis, followed by another outright lie.

Listen, here's the maths, OK? Even a Labour educated drone could work this one out. There are 9 million smokers in this country. Say each smokes one packet of cigs a day. That makes, based on 77% tax on a £5 packet of smokes, according to Comrade Beeb, an input to the treasury of just over £1,400 per smoker per year. £1.7bn cost divided by 9 million smokers results in a cost to the NHS of £188 per smoker, per year. Smokers massively help the economy, NOT cost it.

So, a big fat whopper of a lie that is repeated over, and over, and over, again.

I've an idea. If the Government really wants to cut the cost of unhealthy lives on the NHS, scrap the whole damn thing and let us all go private. My policy is detailed here

Just think. No more worries about how anyone doing anything non-Righteous is harming the finances of the health system. What a result, eh? You could then even stop wasting our taxes on telling us what to do, and go get a job that isn't a massive waste of our fucking taxes yourselves. Genius, huh?

Before, during, and after Christmas, the Righteous didn't rest. They just grabbed a turkey sarnie in between jobs.

The contempt I have for these arseholes is beyond compare.


Large Melot Please said...

Hi Dick, you are right it is funded by the DoH.

"Alcohol Concern is governed by a Board of Trustees elected from its members. It is supported with funding from the UK Department of Health. It also receives income from charitable grants, consultancy and training fees, contracts and sales from its bookshop. Alcohol Concern also receives substantial and important income from membership fees."

Anonymous said...

Trouble is Dick, if the surplus tobacco revenue was seen to be going directly straight to the NHS, smokers could quite easily argue that they are subsidising the health care of non smokers.

...'For every pack of 20 purchased, some one, somewhere will receive a daily dose of life saving drugs (currently denied to them by order of NICE)'....

Or...'every cigarette smoked helps keep our hospitals cleaner and safer.....'

Anonymous said...

Hi Dick

Just catching up with blogs. Regarding the government consultations on tobacco and alcohol, a further piece of the puzzle is that Deborah Arnott, ASH director gave a talk to the Alcohol Concern AGM in 2007 on Lessons to be learnt from Tobacco Control with some very useful messages such as splitting the opposition.

Sue said...

In fact, if the government had been a little more flexible (or God forbid "democratic") and allowed choice as to whether a pub was non smoking or smoking or even allocated smoking area's, it would have saved an awful lot of businesses and jobs (and revenue)!

The dictatorial stench from this government grows by the day and I for one, am sick to death of it!

Mark Wadsworth said...

Ta for mention.

Dave beat me to it on Alcohol Concern. And it gets worse.

Good maths on the taxes on fags. I pushed the boat out a bit and made it £27 billion per annum that we 'cough up'.

That 90%-ill-be-obese in fifty years is stupider than I first thought, I think we could expect about 10% of people to have died by then anyway.

timbone said...

Felis Nievo Ano Dick. Of course, I see today that we have a new year revelation - 3rd hand smoke - yep, that's right. When I read the article on the Telegraph online, I thought it was April 1st.

vincent1 said...

I am glad you got your new machine Dick, this crap going on is enough to drive a saint to drink and smoke.
Ditto to your last line.
They cannot afford to the kept the pensioners now, who miraclously even got to be pensioners. Living through wars and the biggest so called passive smoking eras ever.
It will not be tobacco control they will need in a 100 years, it will be population control, like China, millions of abortion or one child per family. Wow what the antis do for the children, just amazes me. Mind you I think they want to kill us all off with stress.
Happy new year (we wish) anyway. and thank you for letting me rant.
mandyv for smokers and non-smokers alike, fighting for choice and TRUTH.

Micheal Siegel, has something to say about the so called "Third Hand Study". Wait a couple of monts for the forth and fifth. That should be interesting, lol

banned said...

I've long been aware that as a drinker, smoker and driver ( though I can no longer do any of these things at the same time except smoke and drink in my own home ) I don't get my monies worth from the NHS and have considered demanding a refund.
I predict that within a few years we will have to apply for tobacco and alcohol 'permits' ( via our voluntary ID cards ) to protect the kiddies.
Our permits will ration our consumption and the state will find another revenue stream by fining us for illegaly trading quotas among ourselves.
Buying alcohol for someone else ( including a round down the pub ) will become anti-social behaviour on the grounds that it might discourage those attempting to lessen their consumption.

Smoking in school; smoke behind the bike sheds gets you a detention, smoking in the bike sheds gets you a detention and a £80 fine.