That's Ketchup Tackled, Now For The Bacon Sarnie

You can almost smell it, can't you?

Yesterday, I mentioned the significance of Heinz surrendering in the face of legislative threats from public health interventionists.

The capitulation of Heinz is a major scalp. It's the significant domino which authoritarians worldwide have been praying for. Other companies will soon fall into line once they realise that even a massive company like Heinz has been brought to heel.

You see, it's a feature of such campaigners that once they have achieved one 'goal', they immediately dust their hands off and look around for a more challenging target. Or 'the next logical step' as they like to term it.

And because there are so many of them, interfering with government money, it's usually a safe bet that another branch will have laid the groundwork in preparation.

So it was less than surprising to see yesterday that, having seen off Heinz, they've already found bigger, err, bacon to fry. (emphasis mine)

Eating processed meat such as sausages increases the likelihood of heart disease, while red meat does not seem to be as harmful, a study suggests.

A Harvard University team which looked at studies involving over one million people found just 50g of processed meat a day also raised the risk of diabetes.

This is defined as any meat preserved by smoking, curing or salting and includes bacon, sausages, salami and other luncheon meats.

Salt can increase blood pressure in some people, a key risk factor for heart disease.

Diabetes and heart disease, and there's that wicked salt again. But that's not all. Oh no, it's far more dangerous than that.

Not so long ago they told us that processed meat causes cancer too.

A dramatic fall in the consumption of processed meat such as bacon and ham would stop around 3,700 people a year from developing bowel cancer, scientists warn today.

Professor Martin Wiseman, scientific and medical adviser to the World Cancer Research Fund, said: "The evidence on processed meat is convincing and our scientists estimate that up to about 3,700 cases of bowel cancer could be prevented every year in the UK if everyone ate less than 70g of processed meat a week, which is roughly the equivalent of three rashers of bacon."

That's just about everything in place for a full frontal assault. Invocation of the public's most feared conditions - cancer, heart attacks, diabetes - along with a previously prepared culprit, salt, and just to top it off, a very precise scary number of possible deaths to add to the 'definite' ones they already attribute to salt.

More than 14,000 people are dying each year because we are overdosing on salt, it claims.

And, as they never tire of telling us, something will most definitely have to be done about it.

If the humble ketchup can be forcibly doctored by pressure from government, can anyone confidently rule out the same for bacon, salami or sausages on this 'overwhelming evidence'? And before you answer that, please take into account the general dozy and gullible nature of our politicians.

At the moment we are still at the advisory stage, but that's quite normal procedure. Sooner or later, such an approach will be deemed to have failed and stronger, coercive, action will be demanded.

Elimination of salt is almost a definite, banning preservatives could feature too, both of which will make processed meat very difficult, or impossible, to produce without significant cost to the consumer I would imagine. Not to mention perhaps making it unattractive to buy purely in taste terms.

Maybe they'll follow the course trodden by anti-alcohol campaigners and call for bacon to be sold in smaller portions - say, packs of 3 slices only. And you can bet your mortgage/rent/grandmother that there will soon be calls for processed meat to be officially banned in kids' lunchboxes.

Then, once another little avenue of pleasure has been closed off for us, they will direct their co-ordinated efforts towards the 'next logical step' for a pristine health-religious life ... for everyone, whether we like it or not.

Red meat itself, probably. They won't be happy till we're all feasting on mung beans and pine nuts.

It's all for your own good, doncha know.

Choice Must Be Eliminated

An unseen public rebellion has been taking place ... apparently.

You may not have noticed it - I know I didn't - but the pressure from hordes of angry letter-writers must have been intense as Heinz, the multi-national conglomerate, the fourth largest food company in the world, the supplier of ketchup to 200 countries, are changing their recipe.

For the first time in 40 years, Heinz ketchup is changing its famous recipe - by lowering the salt content in an effort to appeal to more health-conscious consumers, the company said yesterday.

Of course, as a private company they are fully entitled to. But their claim that they are appealing to a groundswell of public opinion isn't really the case, is it?

There is no uprising from the public, no crippling reduction in sales as customers flock to more healthy alternatives. Nope, precious few have demanded this, and the precious few are almost exclusively state-funded public health advocates.

Jackson said the company had been planning the change for about two years. But it is coming just as Mayor Bloomberg and other politicians are leaning on big food companies to kick the salt. Heinz was one of 16 major food manufacturers that last month signed onto the National Salt Reduction Initiative, a plan led by Bloomberg to get companies to cut back on the salt in their products.

It's state bullying of a private enterprise, pure and simple. Reduce your salt, or we will legislate to force you into it. No-one asked for this except the tax-sponging righteous who constantly seek to dictate how you live your life. Those who believe they have the right to tell you what you should put in your own body, and if you don't comply, they will contrive to leave you no other option.

Now, New Yorker Bloomberg, the guy who wants smoking banned in public parks, is a hideous dictatorial scumbag, but don't ever think that we in the UK can be in any way blasé. The same bansturbatory elements over here have been dreaming of this for quite a while.

Heinz ketchup, Kellogg's cornflakes and a host of traditional foods from Cornish pasties to Stilton cheese are under pressure to slash their salt content. The Food Standards Agency says radical action is needed to cut salt in a vast range of popular foods. More than 14,000 people are dying each year because we are overdosing on salt, it claims. Bread, ready meals, cakes and savoury snacks are also under scrutiny.

The capitulation of Heinz is a major scalp. It's the significant domino which authoritarians worldwide have been praying for. Other companies will soon fall into line once they realise that even a massive company like Heinz has been brought to heel.

There are, of course, available alternatives for those who truly care about salt content, as the Guardian reported in October.

Customers searching for the healthy options on supermarket shelves may be better-off choosing the cheaper deals, according to a study which has found that own-brand and "value" ranges have the lowest levels of salt.

Fantastic for the salt-averse, then. Not only are the lower salt options easy to source, they are also cheaper. But it's not enough, you see, because the popular brands (that is, the ones which everyone likes) are still serving those who really couldn't give a toss one way or another as long as it tastes nice, and that just won't do for any self-respecting righteous hector.

OK, maybe that was a bit harsh. I mean, perhaps some who don't like salt would really love to buy Heinz ketchup but can't because of the salt level, and feel they are missing out. It's not fair, they might argue, that Heinz are forcing them into a Hobson's Choice on the country's favourite ketchup.

Well, no. That doesn't hold true either, because Heinz already produce a low salt and low sugar version of ... Heinz ketchup. It's pictured above and can be bought from every supermarket in the UK.

The choice is there already. For everyone. But some (in fact, the majority) are bound to choose incorrectly, so there must be no choice at all. Nanny knows best and you cannot be allowed to wriggle out of her all-encompassing net.

Or maybe I've just been talking with my tinfoil hat on. Perhaps Heinz really do see this as a marvellous opportunity to ride the wave of popular opinion. But if so, they have a funny way of publicising it.

Marketing strategists are surely thinking back to the days of New Coke, a massive PR failure, but the Heinz ketchup reformulation has some important differences. For one thing, the catalyst for the change would appear not to be PR but rather public health. Spokeswoman Jessica Jackson told the Post that the company was keeping "the needs of our consumers and our commitment to health and wellness" in mind. The other major difference is the lack of a glitzy ad campaign. Bottles containing the new recipe will have no hint on the label; customers will have to look at the nutritional data in order to tell the difference.

Err, how will all these health-conscious customers, who have been feverishly calling for this measure, know it's happening?

Well, they won't as they don't exist to any significant extent. But at least the loyal Heinz customers, in the main, will be blissfully unaware so sales won't be hit as Heinz dance to the selfish, holier-than-thou, public health tune.

If, however, you prefer your food untainted by government interference, I'm afraid your preference doesn't count. Your choice must be eliminated ... for your own good.

More Lefty Tantrum Fun

Kudos to Stewart Cowan for highlighting another disjointed Labour nose to add to the growing list of blubbering, sore lefty losers. They really are great entertainment.

The latest is tinfoil mad hatter, Michael Meacher, who had this to say about the Con/Dem coalition on the 8th.

The difference between the two parties on fundamentals like the EU, immigration, Trident and early spending cuts are large, probably too large. [...] The chances of any deal now with the Tories that passes this very high democratic bar must be exceedingly small.

In hindsight, such a prediction must be rather embarrassing even for the doyen of doolally himself.

Which could explain Sunday's bitter grizzling at those who are in the jobs which Labour MPs so jealously covet.

The grand talk of a reformist coalition is already looking bare even before it’s started. With the neocon Trident-hardliner Liam Fox as Defence Minister, the anti-EU fanatical and Ashcroft-corrupted William Hague as Foreign Secretary, the inexperienced weakest link George Osborne as Chancellor, the anti-State ultra-marketeer Michael Gove as Education Secretary, and the anti-abortion and anti-gay rights Teresa May as Equalities Minister, it’s a throwback to the Thatcher era, in reactionary instincts if not in the same form.

Someone give the guy a hankie, for God's sake!

Pffft.

Calling Carl In Hull

Via Julia, I see something rather sinister has been mooted in Hull.

Residents are being asked to report neighbours for 'environmental crimes' such as putting their bins out too early or late.

A council is urging householders to snoop on fellow residents and fill in 'diary sheets' to log incidents - the same way it tackles violent anti-social behaviour.

In fact, more than mooted. It is being reported as a done deal.

Now, this is all rather disappointing as I've met the leader of Hull City Council and he's a good sort, quite the anti-authoritarian, in fact. If only there was some way of asking him to comment on what does appear to be a quite appallingly illiberal, and socially divisive, policy, eh?

Hold on, I have just remembered that he reads here! Or used to, anyway, though it's possible he could have got bored with all my 'tabloid' crap.

Perhaps if we get in a circle, hold hands, wear flowers in our hair and chant in unison, we can tempt him to say hello. It's worth a try, no?

So, altogether now, breathe deeply, meditate, and repeat after me ... Carl Minns, why the blithering fuck are your lot even considering this nonsense?

Bled Almost Dry

There's nothing like submitting year end returns, as I have done today, for focussing one's mind.

Last year, my small business paid over £130,000 in tax and national insurance contributions to HMRC. And the reward for working hard and winning sizeable enough contracts to keep a substantial number of people in employment (on generous salaries, I might add) is ...

... a further tax bill, reflecting my partnership share, for having the temerity to actually make a living, of £22,000. And they want it, err, immediately.

Now, if in the future, as has been mooted, the NHS begin to ration healthcare for those who enjoy a pint and a Castella, the person who is ever tasked with explaining the policy to me - by hinting that I am a cost burden on the country - may well experience the most difficult day of their entire working life.

Lefties Still Crying

Come on guys and girls on the left. I know you're hurting and can't help whinging like a compo-seeking chav, but isn't it time to start growing up and accepting defeat with some semblance of good grace? You know, take it on the chin and start thinking positively, instead of moaning that everyone else is being unfair.

Idly wandering around the severely deluded areas of the lefty blogosphere, with a rather large beam on my face it has to be said, I came across this amusing contribution from Jane Watkinson. Anyone know her? Like a lot of socialists who always seem to have a disproportionate amount of indolent time on their hands, she also tweets a lot, apparently.

Frank Field and Philippa Stroud have been appointed as part of Ian Duncan Smith’s (the backbone to the ‘Broken Britain’ narrative) Work and Pension department. Wow. This department is becoming increasingly powerfully armed with people who are very controversial when it comes to promoting socially just polices to tackle inequality in society. It will be a deadly cocktail of right-wing, homophobic, traditional and sexist thought, resulting in ineffective and inequality promoting ‘polices’.

So many scary accusations, so little evidence. None less so than this one, outdated even before she wrote it.

And now, [Philippa] Stroud. Well she doesn’t really need an introduction does she? But the reports claiming she was involved in a movement that sought to try and drive ‘demons’ out of homosexuals and transsexuals didn’t seem to put IDS or Cameron/Clegg appointing the Conservative MP to a senior role in the department. So much for equality, hey?

Yep. That's exactly what the reports did 'claim'. One particular report, to be exact, in the Observer on the day that they turned to the Lib Dems, who were coincidentally Stroud's opponent in a tight Tory/LD marginal. Fancy that!

You can read it at this link. Or rather ... you can't read it at this link. Anymore.

I wonder what happened there, eh? The only story which unequivocally asserted that Stroud was a homophobic lunatic has disappeared. Without so much as a by-your-leave. Bloody inconvenient, isn't it?

Lefty twitterers (what's the collective noun for them? A 'tantrum', perhaps?) made a lot of noise at the time about the fact that the press didn't take up the story with gusto while they were still laughing, as we all were, about Brown's iconic moment in history.

Channel 4's Ben Cohen tactfully suggested one possible reason for that on May 3rd.

It’s interesting to look at the number of people reTweeting messages like the ones above using the #philippastroud hastag who have “vote Labour” profile pictures. I’m NOT suggesting there’s a conspiracy theory going on here, that the Labour Party are responsible for a reTweeting army, but there could be political motivation behind some, but clearly not all the Tweets.

Indeed. And considering that the Observer article has now been unceremoniously pulled, I'll bet that Channel 4, and others in the MSM, are mighty relieved that they left it well alone.

I mean, just go with me here, if you will. Imagine, just for a minute or two, that it wasn't true. Eh? Well, could 'appen, couldn't it?

I reckon the Guardian's Andrew Brown, in a particularly observant and astutely suspicious moment, may have smelt the coffee quite early.

[...] a couple of days into the arguments about Philippa Stroud and her church in Bedford two people who knew her or belong to her church turned up. So I am copying them up here, for the perspectives they offer on the question of homosexuality and homelessness.

He quotes one of them thusly.

As one who knows the church that the Strouds established, is a christian, worked on the social action project that supported the rough sleepers of Bedford and is bisexual i can CLARIFY that the church does not / has never cast demons out of gay people - I am loved and accepted in my church. I know 3 of the gay people who are quoted in the article and all 3 are using this 15 min of fame to air their anger and personal issues .

I don't feel the need to public argue against the lies that they are spreading and I imagine that P.Stroud's silence is because these are people that she knows, that she has supported through their chaotic lifestyles ( and no i am not using that term in relationship to their sexuality but addictions, depression, self harm etc etc) people who she wants to see the best in and who she would have promised confidentiality to. Philippa is a women of integrity ...

Hmmm. More than a little doubt there, Jane, doncha think?

But why should Jane care? After all, it's a bit more mud to sling around, in between munching on sour grapes, while the real job of running the country falls to the other two parties (rankles, doesn't it?). If this Observer article turns out to be the lie that got its boots on early, and its abrupt disappearance from the net would tend to suggest there is at least a case to answer, the #philippastroud hash tag becomes nothing more than desperate lefty smearing.

Face it, Jane, apart from people who would vote for a cardboard box if it wore red, your truth-bending and character assassinations were roundly refused by the country. Get over it and try something new.

Labour's poor campaign consisted entirely of 'the others are rubbish, vote for us', yet despite the Tories being incapable of punishing it, and the Lib Dems being their usual wishy-washy selves, you still lost.

It was a failed approach before the election, and just because May 6th has come and gone, it doesn't mean that the same negative scaremongery is all of a sudden going to work now.

Still, I suppose it's your right to continue whining like stuck pigs, so feel free to keep it up if you so wish. Especially when such laughable public hand-wringing is also devoid of the merest glance toward integrity or cursory research.

How long is this puerile collective lefty sulk going to continue? Porridge made us laugh for five years. With any luck this petulant socialist comedy could keep us entertained for the same length of time.

There's None So Blind As A Scottish Publican

Sure. A decent education has never been a pre-requisite for running a pub, but one would have thought that, when their business is threatened, an ability to at least attack the correct target would come in handy.

MANY struggling pubs across Scotland can now only afford to open at weekends as drinkers turn to cheap supermarket booze, beleaguered landlords have warned. Scores of bars have been forced to close during the week due to a devastating dip in trade.

Some pubs in Glasgow are only open for EIGHT HOURS a FORTNIGHT - relying on punters watching big football matches to survive.

Yep. It's a dire state of affairs, so it is. Time to fight back.

Jim McClelland, 57, has owned the Thistle Inn, in Crossmichael, Kirkcudbrightshire, for 35 years.

But for the last six months he's been forced to shut up shop on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.

Jim groaned: "It just doesn't make any sense to pay staff when there are no customers.

"I've been running my bar for 35 years and this is the first time I've had to shut during the week. It's heart-breaking."

Jim reckons supermarkets and the smoking ban is killing the industry.

So what's your plan, Jim?

He said: "These supermarket giants are being allowed to crush our small businesses. They have so much power and the politicians seem scared to act."

Supermarkets?

Err, Jim, how have they changed their business plan in the past ... ooh, I dunno ... 35 years? They have always sold beer cheaper than you. Considerably so, in fact.

So much power and politicians scared to act? There is certainly an industry to which that could apply, but it ain't the supermarkets. Try again.

Publican Tommy Muir has run the Fiveways Inn at Bridgeton Cross for 16 years.

Since 1994, eh? Who do you blame, Tommy?

Tommy blames politicians for failing to protect the pub trade.

By jove, I think he's got it!

He said: "We employ tens of thousands of people in this country but we're not being given a level playing field.

"I'm not holding out too much hope in the SNP forcing through its minimum pricing on supermarket booze."

Err, no actually. He hasn't.

Listen Tommy. This is how it works, OK? The SNP are advocating a 40p minimum price per unit selling price. This would make a 24 pack of 440ml (Mmmmm) Carlsberg cans cost about £16. Even if the saggy-arsed one's recommendation of 50p per unit was implemented, it would still only result in the same pack being sold for £20.

The equivalent price in your pub (at a notional average of £2.50 per pint) would be over £45.

A considerable saving then, even with minimum pricing. Enough, in fact, for a slap up takeaway into the bargain.

And for the meal accompaniment, a glass of Jockland bottom drawer pub wine is probably over £3 while, even with a 50p minimum unit price, you can still get a whole bottle for £4.50 in Morrisons; and you can choose your favourite bottle; and you can finish off with a nice cigar should you so choose. Inside.

So how is this perceived panacea of the minimum unit price going to help you ... exactly?

Actually, perhaps I'm being a bit harsh on the publicans. For it would seem that some kind of myopic mass hysteria is at play here.

Scottish Licensed Trade Association chief Paul Waterson said: "The Government is allowing supermarkets to give alcohol away and ignoring the fact it's killing pubs."

Nothing else to blame, Paul? Nothing at all? Really?

Colin Borland, of the Federation of Small Businesses, said: "This is a very difficult period for the small independent pub as they are up against supermarkets' very aggressive and predatory prices."

Aggressive and predatory? Give me strength guys. There is a huge fucking elephant running amok and you're talking about applying a pretty kids' plaster to a deep, gaping gash which is spurting gallons of publican blood all over the industry.

There is, thankfully, one who is thinking on the right lines ... though still, like his customers who are in mid-conversation when their gaze, and attention, is drawn to the silent scrolling Sky Sports News ticker, he also loses his train of thought and partially falls for the big-bad-wolf-supermarket red herring.

Landlord Sean Kennedy has owned the National Hotel, in Dingwall, Easter Ross, for 10 years and is facing the same problems.

"A lot of people have decided 'Why should I go to the pub when I can drink cheap supermarket booze and smoke at home?'"

BINGO!

Listen guys. The minimum alcohol pricing is, firstly, illegal under EU law. Secondly, it's not going to exert any influence on the prosperity of your business unless implemented in tandem with a relaxing of the far more damaging problem of the smoking ban.

It really is that simple.

Funnily enough, that's exactly the approach suggested by trade newspaper, The Publican - it may even be sold north of the border - in its pre-election 'manifesto' for 'saving' the pub trade.

Until they start making as much noise about the real source of their woes, instead of a quite inconsequential sideshow, these scottish publicans really don't deserve saving.