Sucking At The Teat

I heard a dog whistle on the radio today, it sounded a bit like this.

Janet Fyle, professional policy adviser at the Royal College of Midwives, said: "I really must challenge the suggestion that the UK should reconsider its current advice on exclusive breastfeeding for six months.

"I believe that this is a retrograde step and plays into the hands of the baby-food industry which has failed to support the six-month exclusive breastfeeding policy in the UK.

And reading up on the story, I heard it again.

Patti Rundall, of the campaigning group Baby Milk Action, said moving to weaning at four months would be "a regrettable and backward step that is out of step with current scientific thinking".

"She accused the paper's authors of taking funds from the babyfood industry."

We've seen this approach before, haven't we? An opposing view is presented to the health lobby 'consensus' and the ball is ignored in favour of a grievous assault on the man instead. Meanwhile, the people who really matter - mums of young babies - are forgotten in a blaze of self-protective wrangling.

The idea that babies are not universally homogenous must be resisted at all cost for fear of grants and ideology being compromised. It should be obvious to just about any parent that babies develop at different paces, it's a clearly observable human experience which carries on into puberty and adulthood. We are not all the same, for crying out loud.

So one must begin to be suspicious as to the motives of those who are so vitriolic in their dismissal of new voices to the debate about what is safe for babies, and what is not.

Linked to the Beeb article is another where additional familiar derogatory vocabulary, aimed at those who choose not to toe the 'approved' line, can be recognised.

These people seem to be everywhere in health circles. Comfortable in taking the public shilling but hostile to anything which might inform the public if that information challenges their state-funded opinions.

You may have noticed from today's report yet another similarity between this debate and the ones we discuss here.

The WHO recommendation "rested largely" on a review of 16 studies, including seven from developing countries.

It concluded that babies just given breast milk for six months had fewer infections and experienced no growth problems.

But another review of 33 studies found "no compelling evidence" not to introduce solids at four to six months, the experts said.

Now, I'm not an expert in the subject, but seeing as this reflects exactly the approach of the WHO in areas in which I am, cherry-picking can't be ruled out, can it? Elsewhere, for example, 60+ studies have been ignored in favour of just one or two which fit the agenda.

It has been decided, see? Professional public-funded health advisers must be believed implicitly; their right-on take on motherhood should be respected and adhered to; anyone who questions their wisdom, or the fallacy that babies are identical in every respect, are evil, profit-greedy, potential kid-killers who should be ignored and never - but never - allowed to enter into debate.

What's that? Mums should be given all possible views and then be free to make their own decisions in relation to their own offspring?

Don't be so silly.

UK vs Australia: The International 'Keeping Up With The Joneses' Trophy

Our esteemed blog mascot, Philip Davies, yesterday asked a very pertinent question of Health Minister Anne Milton.

Philip Davies (Shipley, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has received on the effects of plain packaging of cigarettes on levels of smoking.

Because, obviously, one would expect nothing less of a government official than to be absolutely certain of success for her policy before committing to draconian regulation which would cost British businesses millions of pounds to implement and, in doing so, take away their trademark and branding goodwill at a stroke.

I mean, if it was just airy-fairy evidence, she would be quite mad to wipe such balance sheet assets from large companies overnight, especially since it would adversely affect pension funds up and down the country. Right?

So her answer is worth scrutinising.

Anne Milton (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Public Health), Health; Guildford, Conservative)

A large number of documents, reports and studies are relevant to the role and effect of packaging in the marketing and promotion of tobacco products.

Relevant, eh? Great start. But what have they concluded?

For example, the RAND Europe study "Assessing the Impacts of Revising the Tobacco Products Directive" commissioned by the European Commission Health and Consumer Directorate-General to support their assessment of the impacts of revising the Tobacco Products Directive 2001/37/EC and published in September 2010, includes a section examining the evidence on the plain or generic packaging of tobacco products.

Indeed it does ... somewhere in its 345 pages, as I've talked about before.

Here is the 'relevant' bit (page 165).

Given that no country has implemented plain packaging to date, no observed data currently exist on the impact of plain packaging on consumer behaviour (European Network for Smoking Prevention, 2009). However, a number of studies have been conducted in this area by means of focus groups, interviews and surveys, with most of these presenting evidence of a reduction in attractiveness of cigarette packs to consumers (See for example: Germain et al., 2009, Grant et al., 2008, Hammond and Parkinson, 2009). A number of these studies (See for example: European Network for Smoking Prevention, 2009, Sambrook Research International, 2009) have been able to provide some evidence, albeit based on perception data, of the potential impacts of plain packaging, suggesting that it may (Sambrook Research International, 2009):

• reduce the attractiveness and identification of the link between tobacco packaging, brands and consumer attractiveness, especially among young people;
• increase in the effect, message recall and credibility of health warnings;
• reduce the false beliefs relating to health risks.

Hmm, interesting 'documents, reports and studies' there.

In order:

- Germain et al - A focus group asking kids questions about what they thought of packaging, and so game-changing that you have to pay to see it.
- Grant et al - Another explosive focus group (or 'conceptual model') ... that we're not allowed to see. Well, it is possible, but "you can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study". Not shouting it from the rooftops, no? Must be totally beyond critique then, eh?
- Hammond and Parkinson - A study on differing pack colours with a bit of unsubstantiated publisher opinion on plain packaging appended.
- European Network for Smoking Prevention - Bwahahahahahahaha ... Co-authored by Martin Dockrell and Deborah Arnott of ASH? Per-lease.
- Sambrook Research International - Interesting one, this, all 157 pages of it. It's an EU report, referenced by an EU report, and is concerned with health warnings and how to make them effective seeing as they have been a total failure. They come to the conclusion that smokers may notice them more if there was nothing else in the way.

Research repeatedly found that adding extra messages does not usually increase packaging viewing time, but instead results in more elements fighting for attention in a ‘zero-sum’ game. Package viewing patterns suggest that the “less is more” axiom is nearly always true.

Well, obviously, and you can get the same great result for 'drink aware' messages if you obliterate wine and beer labels too. But, of course, if the purchaser has no interest whatsoever in your message, it doesn't matter what you do to make it more prominent, does it? That had occurred to you, right? No need to answer that, we can guess.

Nothing there which mandates you to soviet-ise tobacco packaging yet, I'm afraid, Anne. In fact, the EU document appears to blast a great big hole in the very concept.

A critical review of the evidence for the effectiveness of plain packaging was carried out by LEGG on behalf of PMI and published in 2010 (Padilla and Watson, 2010). It reviewed 13 empirical papers and concluded that none of these papers provides evidence that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of generic packaging on reducing the take-up of smoking by young people (Padilla and Watson, 2010p.4). This conclusion is based on the fact that the methodologies of the research papers reviewed by the authors were judged to be flawed due to the general overreliance on focus groups and surveys.

Oh dear.

Anything else up your sleeve, Anne?

Also, the Australian Government have announced their intention to introduce a legislative requirement for the plain packaging of tobacco to commence on 1 January 2012. The evidence supporting their action is summarised in the technical report "Australia: the healthiest country by 2020-Technical report 2 Tobacco Control in Australia".

She's not wrong, you know. The Aussies have most definitely done that. And their reason for doing so (page 2)?

If we act quickly, Australia can overtake the British Government and become the first country in the world to mandate that cigarettes be sold in plain packaging.

That's right. It's a global game of 'keeping up with the Joneses'.

Who cares if there isn't any evidence? It's all about bragging rights and dick-waggling, isn't it. Oh yes it is.

They do reference one highly important work, though. That being ... wait for it ... the UK Department of Health's consultation document. Because, you see, in drafting that consultation, Labour pointed out the research to end all research on the matter. A Canadian study from 1995. No, seriously, it's even type-written and scanned, go look.

After asking kids in Canadian shopping malls if they thought generic packaging would stop them smoking. They were adamant that it would. Well, 5.6% of them, anyway.

Apart from that, they thought it was a crock of shite.

3. They see the uptake process as being unaffected by promotion or packaging, as primarily a matter of being seen as a smoker or not . Peer situations, and parental acceptance or rejection, appear more important in the uptake situation

4. The uptake process has several factors associated with it : peer pressure, expressing individualism, making statements about the self in relation to parents or authority (see McCracken). It is clear that in most first trials there are little package, brand or brand promotion elements . Most kids receive their first cigarette from friends . There is no brand choice - the choice is simply to smoke or not to smoke. Therefore, in the uptake process brand and package are very minor components. This means that changing the package will not have any major effect on the decision(s) to smoke or not to smoke

5. They say plain packaging would not stop kids from starting or stopping - yet there is a universal negative reaction to the plain and ugly packages.

Which agrees conclusively with all the more recent studies. Yes, kids think the packets are ugly. But, tellingly, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this will deter them from taking up smoking.

None.

Which is quite important considering that deterring kids from starting smoking is the sole aim of the exercise.

So, Anne, you may as well just let the Aussies win the race to shaft their people, businesses, and pensioners I'd say. Lord knows they could do with any victory right now, even if it damages their country and further detracts from the freedom of their citizens.

We can rely on your integrity for that, yes?

The alternative, I suppose, would be to ignore all the above and just pander to the wishes of your bezzie mate Deborah Arnott, who just happens to be one of the authors - highly paid for it too - of the flawed junk science you are referencing in reply to Philip Davies.

Don't the current political class sometimes make you despair?

The Health & Safety Danger To Trump All Others

Which do you reckon a risk-averse council would be most worried about?

- Hammering nails through your body
- Hanging from chains via piercings in your nipples
- Charging yourself with 300,000 volts and firing lightning from your fingertips
- Dragging a hoover around with your cock
- Swallowing a revolving electric drill
- Eating smashed lightbulbs
- Staple-gunning playing cards to your face
- Rectally inserting a fluorescent tube
- Smoking a cigarette

Aw shucks, you guessed it.

The Circus of Horrors, which began life at Glastonbury 15 years ago, said today it was locked in a battle with officials at the Corn Exhange, in King's Lynn, after being asked to provide a risk assessment for performers smoking on stage in order that an exemption could be sought from the council's health and safety and licensing departments.

[The show's ringmaster, John Haze said,] "To be honest, it seemed a bit stupid that we had to provide a risk assessment, given all the stuff we do. We had to do an assessment on how you light it and how you put it out. It just seems mad that they are going on about a tiny thing like smoking."

Good grief.

Keep cutting, Osborne and chums - as you can see, there's plenty of public sector flab still to be trimmed.

Geddit? Oh Never Mind

If there's one thing that unwieldy, politically-correct, committee-heavy institutions do better than wasting money, it's finding offence where only comedy was intended.

According to WTOP, the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles has taken away a Virginia man's "Kids First" vanity plates, which he personalized with the six-letter tag of "EATTHE." Yes, the plate read "EAT THE KIDS FIRST." The DMV apparently decided that the "plate advocated performing oral sex on children," rather than just, you know, being an homage to a not-trivial internet meme that's been around for years.

Behold the call for oral defiling of kids.


I can't decide whether it is very sinister, or even funnier than the original witty idea, that someone - or group of someones - possesses such a warped mind as to imagine something so perverse from an innocent joke.

But then, Bayern Munich fans suffered in much the same way recently.

European soccer's governing body barred Bayern Munich fans from displaying a Monty Python-inspired banner at Wednesday night's Champions League match, fearing the sign might offend visiting fans from the Italian club AS Roma.

The Union of European Football Associations said the banner reading "Romani ite domum" — Latin for "Romans Go Home" — was considered provocative.

In a statement, UEFA said: "Anything that may cause offense to a fan base or ethnic group, and therefore pose a security risk, including banners or symbols, is carefully vetted."

Err ...

After everyone with a brain and a basic knowledge of legendary comedy genius had stopped laughing at the humourless morons, UEFA apologised ... but it was a bit late for the joke to work by then.

I suppose i just goes to prove that if one is employed to search for offence in every possible situation, you are required to leave your sense of humour with security when passing through reception. What a great night out these committee types must be, eh? About as much fun as contracting genital warts, I reckon.

Which reminds me, did I ever tell you the one about the Englishman, the Irishman, and the miserable, overpaid, diversity compliance officer?

Lay The Blame Where It Belongs, BBC

A BBC spokesman said the investigation revealed that more than half of all hand-rolled tobacco in Scotland was either counterfeit or smuggled and one in five cigarettes smoked was fake.

He said: "Using secret filming, the investigation exposes the gangs which are costing British tax-payers £4bn in lost revenue a year."

Err, not really, no.

The gangs aren't costing the country anything at all. They are merely stepping in to fill a market exclusively created by the government's fantastically over-optimistic taxing of tobacco. Contraband rates of 50% and 20% don't come about by chance, you know.

The only people 'costing' the country money are politicians who seem happy to refuse maximum revenue by levying unrealistic duty rates well in excess of what the consumer is prepared, or able, to pay. Up to £4bn worth, apparently.

Enough to comfortably cover all of the cost of smoking to the NHS which the same financially careless politicians keep bleating about.

Still, when have the realities of life and economics ever entered the debate about tobacco, eh?

The Downward Spiral Of Childhood Self-Reliance

For someone who regards Lenore Skenazy as one of life's true idols, what I am about to recount is deeply depressing.

A colleague was explaining the hassle he is experiencing over the decision to allow his 11 year old daughter to travel to and from school on her own from the start of this term. The journey involves one bus trip which she boards on the main road, 100 yards from his house in a quiet suburban side street and terminates, 3 miles further on, about 50 yards from her school.

He and his wife are both agreed that she is more than mature and responsible enough to take on such a simple journey, but they have received nothing but irrational panic about the idea from his mother-in-law. At first, she was disturbed that this was going to be every day of the week (as if paedos and thieves only work part time or something), but after inspecting the route herself (yes, I laughed too), he said that she seemed satisfied.

It appears he was wrong as, a week after the term started, she is now insisting that the girl is picked up from two after-school club she attends, on the basis that it is starting to get dusky at around 4pm, and she read somewhere of a 15 year old boy being attacked by a group of kids on a road near his home. As such, his wife is now feeling pressured and wavering on her confidence in their decision.

Now, I don't know the age of the grandparent, but one assumes that it is almost inconceivable that she wouldn't have travelled to school unaccompanied herself at that age, or even when a few years younger than that.

[...] in 1971 eight out of ten eight-year-olds were allowed to walk to school alone. Now it is fewer than one in ten.

What, then, has happened in the intervening decades which convinces her that 11 year old kids are no longer responsible enough to cope with a 10 minute walk and bus journey?

Is the bus's on-board CCTV not as good quality as 40 years ago? Perhaps there isn't the same level of surveillance now that they had in the 50s. Not enough street furniture or road signs/pelicans/zebras anymore? Or maybe people were far more meek and terrified of the state and it's laws back then.

No, of course not. We are living through some of the safest years this country has ever seen. Kids, especially, are treated as preciously as fine crystal; every odd behaviour is monitored to the point of paedohysteria; everyone and his wife is CRB checked; and should a kid be harassed in plain view, the torches and pitchforks would be out in seconds.

But while the above has made our reality safer, it has also rendered the perception of our safety totally unrealistic.

In pursuit of comprehensive safety, we are bombarded with life-strangling rules on how to stay risk-free; health & safety and litigation prohibits even mildly risky behaviour; 24 hour TV eagerly fills hours earnestly furrowing brows about the very few truly horrific incidents; scare stories make great copy for lurid press headline writers desperate for sales; rent-a-quote politicians convince us there are drunks/paedos/gangs lurking behind every lamp post and under manhole covers just waiting to attack us; something must be done, so over-reactive laws are passed because the public - who have swallowed all this nonsense whole - demand it ... for the chiiildren.

Result? A climate of fear which keeps an entire generation insulated from any form of self-reliance and personal responsibility until secondary school or beyond.

And so it spirals downward. For risk-terrified children grow up into risk-terrified adults, and where the aforementioned grandparent is worried about her grandchild travelling on her own three years later than she did herself, one wonders how old the kids of 25 years hence will be before being allowed out on their own. Anywhere.

What makes one weep, though, is that there doesn't seem to be any way - or will, even - of reversing the process. We are destined to be forever frightened of state and media-created bogeymen - which actively derogate our lives - for the foreseeable future.

Now that is really scary.

Jackboot Democracy

The Quiet Man has highlighted goings on in the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election hustings, and it's more of the 'no platform' nonsense.

Seems a disgruntled Labour councillor wasnt to happy that the council were giving the BNP and the English Democrats a platform. So he went to the event organisers to complain, he then returned to the event room and told the two candidates that they were no longer welcome. The BNP candidate refused to move explaining that it was his right to be there. So the police were called. The police consulted with the event organisers, they then escorted Derek Adams out like a criminal.

Now, I don't know a lot about the English Democrats except that I once heard one of their spokesman on the BBC one morning, and that they'd like to see an English parliament. I also know that Boaty & D have their reservations, but even they, I suspect, would agree with me that their being denied a voice during campaigns for a (cough) democratic election is quite wrong.

The English Democrats are registered with the Electoral Commission as a valid political party and fielded 107 candidates in the last election. That's more than the SNP and Plaid Cymru combined.

The BNP, of course, are more well-known, but they are also a registered party and put up 22 more candidates than the Greens. Some may find the BNP objectionable, I do myself. But, then again, the Greens turn my stomach too.

And that's the thing with 'democracy', it's a very subjective concept. Whilst I'd live life a lot happier without the likes of Caroline Lucas around, she and her collection of melon-headed loons should be allowed to have their say in a democratic system. They might be mad as a skipful of grapes, but while they are accepted for the ballot paper and there are people who wish to exercise their right to give them a vote, their only silencing should come via reasoned debate.

It's hardly surprising that it was a Labour politician who decided that these two parties are not to be heard, those with left leanings have always enjoyed a good ban/censor/massacre of those who don't share their views, after all. But the guy is hideously wrong, as are the council if they are behind the ejections as the quiet one believes.

Between them, the BNP and EDP polled just under 1.2 million votes in the 2009 Euro elections, and 629,157 in the 2010 General Election. That's a lot of democracy going on right there, whether one likes it or not.

So, where are we on this? Well, we have three parties who are all as piss poor as each other. If you want to start your own, they have already put up huge barriers to stop you doing so. If you get past those hurdles, they laugh at your support. If you endure that and gain support, they get tetchy and throw you out of political meetings in case you gain any more.

I don't recognise anything free or democratic about that, quite honestly.

We are now living in a state which pretends to be democratic, until some wish to disagree with ensconced parties who have decided there are things which are not open to disagreement ... like voting for anyone except them, for example.