Britain Should Copy China, Say Indian Morons

What a shocker, eh?

Indian anti-smoking lobby hits out at London Olympic organizers

NEW DELHI: London has failed to do what Beijing carried out so successfully four years ago - make it smoke free.

Despite having the largest prevalence of tobacco use in the world, China had set an unprecedented standard by declaring the Beijing Olympics (2008) completely smoke free, including all outdoor venues.

How awful! Country which claims to value freedom and rights of the individual doesn't follow the lead of communist dictatorship which has a track record of human rights abuses and treats its citizens with suspicion, contempt and unconditional state control.

The tobacco control industry isn't picky about which regimes to claim as bedfellows, is it? Already swooning over racist and disgustingly brutal Bhutan's, err, compassionate smoking cessation efforts, China is now held up as an example of purity by the Indian chapter of hateful anti-tobacco freaks. They'd probably overlook the prison camps and summary executions too if North Korea were ever to bring in a smoking ban.

"It is shocking to know that despite England being declared smoke free in 2007 the LOCOG has allowed DSAs within the perimeter of ticketed competition venues and are also present in specified areas of the athletes village, exhibiting specific signage denoted as 'smoking areas'."

The more cynical amongst us would say that it's one of the few things that LOCOG have got right! It's certainly to their credit that they considered the comfort and convenience of law-abiding citizens and put plans in place well in advance, you sub-continental clowns.

Besides, what the fuck has it got to do with you anyway? If you're still smarting about that bird at the opening ceremony, this is not the way to express your frustration, you know.

Ganesha on a bike! If you're an example of Indian civility, the girl deserves a medal herself for pissing your country off.

Scared? They Should Be

As always, it begins in California.

(Reuters) - Beverage industry groups are planning ways to oppose a proposed soda tax in the California city of El Monte because of fears other U.S. cities across America might adopt similar taxes on sugary drinks.

The El Monte city council on Tuesday approved a measure that would add a 1 cent tax for every ounce of "sugar sweetened" drinks. The proposal is scheduled to be voted on by city residents in November's election.

In case you're baffled by the US system of measuring liquids, a 16 ounce drink is the equivalent of around 475ml. So, this would mean adding 16 cents to the selling price of a bottle smaller than the standard 500ml version sold in Tesco Express over here (a portion, incidentally, which is deemed as too much by New York's Mayor Bloomberg).

This, according to Cali-based jewel robber David G who pointed out the article, on top of the existing 9.5% state sales tax and 5% recycling tax. Too right the soda industry is trying to fight the idea.

Because, despite their protestations, those who dedicate their lives to pissing all over yours very much love a precedent. Just ask arch-bansturbator Simon Chapman, the geriatric control freak who conned Australia into banning colours because of his personal prejudice.

"The dominos are lining up," Chapman says, referring to the countries that are seriously considering enforcing plain packs inside their own borders. Seventeen states, including Britain, attended a recent World Health Organisation meeting in Brunei on plain packs. New Zealand will be next, then Thailand and Panama, and possibly Canada, Chapman reckons.

Sure as California is home to the most sinister nest of deluded, financially-illiterate hippies in the world, once a soda tax is implemented in El Monte, it will spread like a plague.

In the digital age, some mentally-challenged MP will see the daft proposal via the medium of global kneejerk idiocy and advocate it here. Nothing will be gained for the health of the nation once a soda tax is brought in, but government will have more of your cash and further rights as to what you do with your own body.

With the Mail publishing panic-mongering rot like this, I give it five years.

'Nanny' Has Never Been A More Accurate Description

Truth is, indeed, stranger than fiction.

At the start of June, the Center for Consumer Freedom took out a full page advert in the New York Times accusing Mayor Bloomberg of being the archetypal hectoring nanny (click for the full enlarged horror).


Being a driven and determined kind of health nutjob, he naturally shrugged it off.

Less than two months later, though, we find out that the picture must have turned him on somewhat. It never pays to give these people ideas, you know.

Mayor Bloomberg has demanded that hospitals stop handing out baby formula to persuade more new mothers to breastfeed their babies.

The New York City health department will monitor the number of formula bottles being given out and demand a medical reason for each one.

From September 3, 27 out of 40 hospitals in the city have agreed to the terms of the Latch On initiative - which will also see them stop handing out free bags of formula and bottles.

Considering some within his administration also consider milk to be something which needs to be portion controlled, it'll be interesting to see how he tackles the problem of large-breasted mums dispensing 'Big Gulp' measures without a nudge to stop them. Perhaps Nanny Mike will pass a law insisting babies change tit mid-suck.

For New Yorkers used to his hypocritically installing himself as mother and father over their food choices, they now have the prospect of he being wet nurse in chief too.

Rumours that he first flew into New York under an umbrella singing "a spoonful of sugar makes the medic kick your ass" are yet to be confirmed.

Meat-Only Monday

If you think scare tactics using 'the chiiildren' and health junk science are bad enough, pity the agricultural industry who are being accused of destroying the world, no less.

Much like alcohol, tobacco and fast food controllers just happen to share the same wish for destruction of big business as the traditional left, a similar stunning coincidence is occurring with climate change dovetailing in nicely with the fantasies of vegetarian evangelists.

In ageing hippie-infested California, Meatless Monday is a movement which has aggressively promoted vegetarianism for all on one day of the week. Nothing to worry about, is it? After all, the tobacco control industry only ever wanted non-smoking areas in restaurants and they have been scrupulously true to their word.

However, the US Department of Agriculture have been caught up in this ideological nonsense, after briefly advocating its employees follow this advice last week. For some reason, they forgot that meat producers are part of the agriculture they are supposed to be promoting and protecting!

The anti 'Big Agriculture' lobby were, naturally, enraged that the USDA drew back from such a stupid position, and the language used might seem rather familiar to readers here.

It's quite telling that the Ag industry is so worried about Meatless Mondays. In all actuality, vegetarians and vegans, while growing, still make up such a small segment of our society. These organizations obviously know the harm they are causing to our planet and to the health of consumers... and they must realize that one day, the atrocities that take place on farms around the country will no longer be tolerated.

Perhaps meat-eating will one day, I dunno, be 'denormalised' perhaps?

The people behind Meatless Monday are a who's who of interlocking highly-funded righteous vested interests, amongst which you won't be surprised to find a certain Mayor Bloomberg. Just another strand of the wider religion-like effort to control and restrict the things that you enjoy.

And we have our own version over here too, complete with Sir Paul McCartney welcoming visitors to the website by describing how they are going into schools and getting in the heads of children ...

"One of the teachers was having a bacon butty and the kid said "err, excuse me Sir", he said "yeah, why, what's wrong?", and he said "you're eating bacon!". And he said "oh yeah" (looking guilty)."

... before weighing in with the emotional blackmail that it's not actually your choice to eat meat because - denormalisation always needs a threat - the planet will die if you do. Ta-dah!

Now, call me cynical, but I reckon they're being a bit melodramatic, as well as hanging their personal crusade on whatever they think they can get away with in order to make others live how they dictate.

So, in the same gentle vein (initially), how about you consider eating only meat on Mondays?

Sauces optional

Why? Well, err, you'll be much happier not having to be led through a supermarket by some spotty kid to find mung beans and pine nuts, and you'll have enough energy not to look emaciated and spaced like McCartney in the aforementioned video.

Of course, it's only voluntary but, if you don't participate, children of livestock farmers all over the world will most likely die of starvation (see what I did there?).

The meat only cookbook (and donation begging website) will be available very soon but, until then, how about some diet suggestions? Cold processed meats for breakfast if you're feeling continental, a bowl of Colman's meatballs for lunch as they are easily microwaved in the office, and a rare sirloin steak for evening meal.

I realise it will be difficult to go straight for the full meat only diet, so you might want to incorporate bread or chips etc as you get into it. However, you will one day notice that you really enjoy testing your molars on some of the finest animal flesh our brave agricultural industry strive to produce for you, and will soon learn to love the lifestyle.

Your breakfast bacon sarnie doesn't need the bread, just make more bacon to make up for it. Pre-cooked chicken is only a couple minutes warm in a 750w for lunch, as is a big bowl of chilli (leave out the kidney beans). And, for dinner, well, it's only traditional as a Brit to support your local kebab shop, tell them to hold the salad, and toss the pitta and chips in the bin on the way home.

It's only a grassroots initiative at the moment, so your own suggestions are welcome, but this is a campaign whose time has come. I don't want to scare you or anything, but there are poor starvation-threatened kids in Dorset who are relying on YOU to protect them.

Eat a cow today! You know it makes sense.

Dick Out And About: On The Olympics In The Kitchen

One problem behind empty seats at the Olympics is still being wilfully ignored, but I've written about it here before.

So I've guested at the Devil's place with something further. Please do go have a read.

Previous DP exports can be viewed here and here.

More Fun With Debs

I know it's a bit too easy to shoot down - yet again - Deborah Arnott's laughable claims in defence of plain packaging, but Sunday is known as a day for not working hard. So let's have even more fun with her piss poor attempt at advocacy from February.

"[...] The “domino theory” i.e. that once a measure has been applied to tobacco it will be applied to other products is patently false. The same argument was used against the ban on tobacco advertising, but 9 years after the tobacco ban in the UK, alcohol advertising is still permitted with no sign of it being prohibited."

It's not been difficult, since then, to find a glut of examples proving her to be disastrously deluded with regard to alcohol.

She's also hilariously wrong when it comes to food, fizzy drinks and chocolate though.

Coca-Cola, McDonald’s and Cadbury’s are being given an “unrivalled platform” to promote unhealthy brands and products at the Olympics, says a new study.

According to its authors the Children’s Food Campaign, the junk food companies have been given a global platform by London 2012 despite contributing only around 2 per cent of the International Olympic Association’s income.

The campaigners called for a ban on junk food brands from sponsoring future sporting events.

After all, it's all written in the public health holy scriptures tobacco control template. How can one of the sect's High Priestesses forget that, eh?

Well, If You Insist On Stifling The Free Market ...

Questions are being asked about this, but I'm pretty sure they won't come up with the correct answers.

An investigation has been launched by the London 2012 organisers Locog after large numbers of empty seats were evident in multiple sporting venues on the opening day of the Games.

Despite tickets for the events being sold out, television images revealed scores of empty seats at the swimming, dressage, volleyball and tennis.

Commentators noted the unfilled seats and members of the public who were unable to purchase tickets took to social media websites like Twitter to express their anger.

Predictably, LOCOG fall in neatly with the authoritarian theme of these games with their response.

"[...] we are in the process of finding out who should have been in the seats and why they weren’t there.”

Quite an ugly undertone there, I thought. What are they going to do? Start issuing fines? Punish those who are not overwhelmingly positive with a blacklisting for future sporting events? Send someone round to put the frighteners on?

They've obviously never heard of the proverb "no crying over spilt milk", as investigating who should have been there and why they didn't attend is hardly going to fill seats for an event that has already taken place, is it?

Yes, I'm aware it's merely a kneejerk public relations exercise prompted by the screams of outrage from disgruntled fans who were not able to procure tickets, but they perhaps shouldn't have been in that position in the first place.

For example, search eBay for Olympics 2012 tickets - and I mean ones which have yet to be used - and you won't find any as they've been deemed a banned item. I'm sure eBay would have been happy for users to list them so must assume that re-selling has been frowned on by LOCOG and pressure put on sites which could re-allocate tickets to those who really want them.

I know this because, unbeknownst to me, the boy little P put himself into a school ballot for tickets and managed to get two for the basketball. I had no inclination to arrive - according to the accompanying literature - two hours prior to the event to ensure I passed security, as well as not relishing spending seven hours being ripped off for refreshments in a non-smoking venue where there is no re-entry (you leave, you stay outside) to watch one of the few sports I don't understand and couldn't give a chuff about. So he is going with a couple of friends and their parents, leaving my ticket unused.

Someone, somewhere might really like to use that ticket, but I'm not allowed to know who they are as I can't sell it by the usual method of finding a happy recipient of junk I don't need.

What is valuable to me is not the same as what is valuable to someone else. That's how the free market works.

There is much angst that the tickets being unused could be corporate freebies, but they're not free. They've cost the corporations much more than most people would be prepared to pay for them, and if they result in empty seats, so what? If LOCOG demand that they should be returned, are they going to refund the sponsorship they received for the privilege? I'll let you make your own conclusions on that.

So what's the reason that tickets aren't allowable on eBay? Almost definitely because they don't want them going to those hideous people who can afford to pay a lot of money for them. The inevitable result of such ideology is the empty seats that social media users are getting right upset about. But what's the difference? If they were corporate tickets, they were unavailable anyway - the fact they weren't used is irrelevant.

What did they expect? Businesses to pay top dollar for them only to give them away gratis? And, even so, how are the companies expected to know if those they have given tickets to are going to attend or not? Are they to be as dictatorial with their terms as LOCOG?

Excluding the free market from ticketing arrangements is quite obviously going to result in empty seats. If you receive tickets for an event you don't fancy, you'd try to shift them to someone who does. If that fails, and you're not allowed to sell them, the bums don't reach the seats.

If LOCOG wanted packed stadiums for every event, and if Olympics fans wanted a better chance of being able to secure tickets for the spectacle, perhaps those who were organising London 2012 should have been less righteous and at least given the free market a chance.

Not doing so seems to have left just about everyone unhappy.