UK Report claims obesity is society’s fault

It seems what is billed as the ‘largest ever UK study into obesity’, drawn up by the Government’s ‘Foresight Program’ contributed to by 250 ‘experts’ and predictably backed by the Nu-Lab government is claiming that being overweight (by their definition) is now normal.

They say we now live in an "obesogenic" society. Then getting their crystal balls out they predict that dramatic, comprehensive action is needed to stop most of us becoming ‘obese’ by 2050.

And where is all this heading? Well they argue the individual can’t be held responsible for being ‘overweight’ so - and here is the bit you should be scared about - government must act for the individual. And so the UK takes another lurch towards the fascist state.

So that’s nice we ale all now apparently pathetically unable to save ourselves and too daft to see we need to. Still it’s reassuring to know there are strong people willing to inflict some tough love on the rest of us, able to save us from this insidious plague?

If you have a ‘fat’ voting block it might not be so easy to deny the overweight treatment under the NHS and there are dire predictions it could cost the economy and the NHS.

Sir David King the government’s chief scientific glove puppet advisor is worried that: "There is a danger that the moment to act radically and dramatically will be missed," - let’s hope so for all our sakes.

Dawn Primarolo Nu-Lab’s Public Health Minister stated the government would be holding further consultations on how to proceed. She felt was premature to say if the same ‘shock’ approach used in anti smoking propaganda would be used, or whether a tax on fatty foods might be considered.

Now let’s look at those stats, because behind every government imitative to restrict our individual liberty and take ever more money from us there are dubious government stats.

What they do not mention when they say how the percentage of the adult population that is obese has risen over the last 12 or so years, is how the ‘baby boomers’ by their very existence are distorting the figures. Maybe they haven’t worked it out themselves.

The post WWII ‘baby boomers’ are getting older. They are well into the middle aged spread years. The age where they cut back a bit on Sunday football and squash. They may not be putting on much more weight than anyone their age did 30 years ago.

But they make a significant lump of the population, a lump depending on how you measure it of around a 125,00 more people around the 30/35 to 55/60 age range. As they age and put on weight it will increase the percentage of the population that is over weight and the percentage of the population that is over a certain age.

Another Government funded health body pushing for tax hikes on alcohol

The health fascists are at it again.

In a story, largely picked up and uncritically reported by the media, the North West Public Health Observatory NWPHO are pushing the idea that middle class drinkers regularly indulge in drinking ’hazardous’ levels of alcohol.

'Hazardous' drinking is defined as regularly consuming between 22 and 50 units a week for men. Guys - That would make you a hazardous drinker if you often have a pint and a half a day.

For women, hazardous drinking is defined as regularly consuming 15 to 35 units a week. Ladies – If my sums are correct that means you are a hazardous drinker if you often have a glass of wine a day.

So then. More of the current practice of picking a range of figures that is slanted to take in normal behaviour and allowing that to ‘inflate’ the results. Results that are then given an alarming semantically loaded label. A label that conceals the actual range and can be used to beat up on anyone who queries the figures.

Exactly why are they pushing this agenda? Someone has to pay for all that lost cigarette tax if the Government are to be kept in the style they are accustomed to.

Tellingly, having effectively invented, or at least massively inflated, a so-called ‘problem‘ the Director of the (you guessed it) NWPHO, Professor Mark Bellis, is pushing for ‘substantial’ increases in the price of alcohol to help to tackle it.

Now who funds the NWPHO? Why the people who tax us of course, the Government, through the Department of Health.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The average French person drinks 60.13 Ltrs of wine per annum. That is over 80 bottles or around 321 glasses. Around the bottom end of the ‘Hazardous’ range.

So that would make the entire French nation (who are reputed to know a thing or two about wine and be reasonably healthy with it) hazardous drinkers according to the NWPHO…

Lots more 20 mph limits, many to have ‘safety’ camera revenue raisers

The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (Pacts) want to institute many more 20 mph zones and are arguing for average speed cameras to be installed in them.

They say Local Authorities are keen to introduce them.

Not half (as they say), set to a hair trigger they could be a highly lucrative new source of stealth taxation on the motorist.

Apart from the desire to take your money, what is one of the main ‘drivers’ for this further state persecution of motorists?

What else but NU-Lab Government targets. It this case of reducing deaths and serious injuries on the roads. Sounds laudable enough, but don’t they all. I guess they don’t believe their own “If you hit me at 30 mph…” propaganda any more…

More to the point - exactly what proportion of those killed, or seriously injured, on the roads are actually in a 20 or 30 mph zone when it happens?

Also how exactly do the define ‘serious’? Is it the same sort of trick they use reckoning ‘problem’, or ‘binge’ drinker figures?

Lies, damned lies and politician’s statistics.

It would probably be even more effective if they made it law that any cars in the zone required a person walking in front of them with a red flag. They could make it compulsory to hire a, council provided and licensed, trained flag bearer. They could then hire out the unemployed as flag bearers a condition of collecting their benefits.

Several birds with one stone including a massive reduction in unemployment figures and the ability to tax all motorists using the area if they exceed the speed limit by one and a half miles an hour or not.

Let’s hope they don’t think of that…

Sir Menzies Campbell - Resignation

Poor old Ming.

Beware the ides of October - Lying there, in a figurative pool of blood, whilst his good friends Simon and Vince announce his resignation for him. It’s not so much Ming that was merciless - more the Fib Dems.

If Ming hasn’t said it, someone ought to tell the ones with the knives: "You too my son, will have a taste of power"

New stealth tax on Pub quizzes & soccer teams

Gordon Broom Breeks appears particularly have it in for pub goers and has unleashed his stealthiest stealth tax yet. A tax so stealthy it makes a mouse tiptoeing in rubber soled shoes sound like a cart horse tap-dancing on a wooden floor.

Before he left the treasury old Broon Breeks put together new tax guidelines for a review of business premises. He carefully avoided the normal practice of putting it on line so people could see what he was up to. It only found it’s way into the House of Commons library after questions from MPs.

What were these secret changes? He has ordered inspectors to watch out for things like TVs, quiz nights and quiz, pool, darts, or football teams. They are to use them to hike the rateable value of the premises, drive up the rates for such pubs by hundreds of pounds.

That is likely to have one of two possible effects. Either the cost will be passed on to the customers, or the facility may be withdrawn.

Yet again Broon’s hand in your pocket.

Domestic council tax bills have already risen at double the rate of inflation since Nu-Lab came to power.

There have been concerns that an equivalent review of people's homes the Government have planned is very likely see council tax bills rocket.

Based on this example of sly practice on non domestic local taxation it is a virtual racing certainty that they will…

Noted public figure notices that the UK Government does not deliver on it’s promises.

You would think that a seasoned pressure group campaigner would be a little less naive.

Sir Jonathon Porritt, a leading environmentalist, is complaining that ‘soaring’ speeches made by Gordon Broon Breeks, at the Nu-Lab party conference, about making the UK a global leader in fighting alleged anthropocentric Global Warming; "make Britain a world leader in tackling climate change", were not backed up by action.

Hello! Exactly what else was he expecting? This is a man who will not even honour his party’s manifesto pledges. This is a party that was promising to ‘save’ the NHS over a decade ago. That spoke of instant fines for antisocial behaviour where the police were going to march offenders to the nearest cash point – Yeah right.

That is exactly what this party does – make ‘soaring’ speeches and memorable sound bites.

Sir Jonathon should do the decent thing , not call them on it and let it get forgotten and buried, like previous ‘soaring’ speeches, under other, newer, ‘soaring’ speeches promising the earth. Just like the electorate is expected to do…

The UK asylum system unable to cope.

The Government’s obsession with it’s ill judged and useless targets chalks up another resounding success – not!

Despite the fact that, according to the figures (yes I know you can’t trust them – but for the sake of argument) so-called ’refugees’ are at a 14 year low, never-the-less our wonderful Government and it’s highly effective and ever expanding army of client employees have somehow contrived to foul up the asylum system so badly it is in turmoil.

According to a leaked memo the Telegraph got sight of the Home Office has been set a Government target of resolving 40% of all next year's asylum claims within 6 months.

This would in all likelihood result in all the older cases being put on the ‘back burner’. In recognition of this the home office are trawling staff for "quick win" ideas to tackle the problem. Amnesties anyone?

Already they are conducting an exercise to clear 450,000 ‘legacy’ cases by more-or-less just granting them amnesty.

It seems there is unrest in detention centres (Why? They are safe and being fed and clothed) and also claimants are just doing a runner before cases their cases are decided.

On top of that it seems fewer and fewer bogus/failed asylum seekers are actually being deported.

What is the actual point of an asylum ‘system’, if the Government grants amnesties at the drop of a hat when it becomes too much bother to process asylum seekers?

If the system functioned, no one should be allowed to stay once asylum was refused and all claims should be properly processed with no amnesties. Any offences committed in detention centres should have some influence on any asylum claim made by the perpetrator.

If the system, as it exists, is to be taken seriously then surely very few should be granted asylum in the UK if they have travelled through other countries that they could have claimed asylum in to get to the UK. The whole point of the idea is that they are supposed to be seeking safety not picking and choosing somewhere they particularly fancy living.

Why is this a problem with all this in the first place? The welfare State.

It makes the UK very attractive to asylum seekers/economic migrants. It also makes them a problem because too many of them could be a drain on the system.

What will this be used to help justify? ID cards that won’t actually be compulsory to start with for citizens - just impossible to do a lot of things without, and the ‘soft’ fascist state.

See where Government ‘incompetence’ leads to…

Barroso pro EU speech to Oxford students

The President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, who, like Gordon Broon Breeks, is so keen on avoiding any democratic input into the new Constitutional ‘Treaty’ was busy pushing his agenda to students in Oxford on Thursday.

He said: "I find it frankly strange that the debate on this side of the Channel so often seems to suggest that the UK is fundamentally at odds with the Continent. - I don't believe this reflects the reality here in the UK. With your long-held international outlook, I don't believe that your arms can be open to the world while your hearts and minds are closed to Europe."

What he carefully avoids mentioning is that our ‘international outlook’ was aimed at the world in general rather that Europe as a super state. It involved trading and worked perfectly well managed by individuals and companies without particular need for the ‘institutions’ he loves so much.

We, as a nation have a long history of perfectly warranted suspicion towards the idea of a European super state that was keen to have us incorporated in it - and those that promote the idea.

Napoleon was all for it. He liked to codify and organise everything. Granted he was more ‘direct’ about it than Barrosso. He wanted to do it by force, rather than softly softly.

Many Brits are often bright enough to work out that it might not be in their best interests when they are actually being physically attacked to promote it.

They can be inclined to resist and become difficult. When it’s just boring old politics the turkeys will vote for Christmas every time - or at least not pay enough attention and make enough fuss, to avoid getting stuffed in the end ;-)

Then there was that German chancellor, who was very keen on a European Super state. Not Merkel, sly author of the Constitutional ‘Treaty’. A chap called Hitler. He came pretty close, but at the time not all our politicians were as keen on the idea as Mosley. Now the political elite are much more signed up to the idea, a much more receptive lot. Poor old Adolph was obviously just a little ahead of his time, born half a century too early…

Al Gore nets Nobel Peace Prize.

OK I know this subject is going to get a hammering on the blogsphere so I’ll keep it brief…

But, Al Gore, Nobel Peace prize? Please…

This guy is a politician. He made a film promoting Anthropocentric Global Warming, spoiled by gilding the lily with OTT conclusions for the sake of drama. He has done some lectures.

Al Gore and Mother Theresa, not exactly a pair you would naturally put together in the same breath, like say, eggs and bacon, are they?

I guess the candidates must have been pretty thin on the ground. The committee might have demonstrated more integrity just to have given it a miss this year.