Sunday - November 21, 2010

do gooders in a nanny state. it’s for the kiddies

As an ex smoker (Luckies unfiltered, 2pks a day min.) I’m all for trying to educate young ppl about the dangers before they get hooked.  But I remember my young days and when I began at age 13.  The packaging had less to do with my starting then the fact that I grew up in an environment where everyone smoked and my mother did also.  Packing and advertising got me to try or to change brands after I was a confirmed addict. Not before.  And I’ve lost ppl close to me, due to smoking.  But if you’re gonna hide and or ban things that are fatal to people, then where will the line be drawn?  I believe the tobacco industry and smokers in general are just easy targets for health Nazis.  How about the labels on alcohol? How about some serious restrictions on booze? Why not?  Drink drivers kill more innocent people then drivers smoking. I don’t know the figures but surely alcohol has ruined as many lives as tobacco.  But that industry is not so easy a target.
And the idea that raising prices on either product will cure the problem is utter nonsense. 

We unhappily live in a nanny state world where strangers with the loudest voices hold sway and can alter personal behavior.  Now that might not be a bad thing if it had any effect whatever on things like crime, child abuse, drunks at the wheel, drugs and drug pushers.  btw, How long has the “War on Drugs” been going on?
Is MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) any closer to a solution of that damnable problem? 

The idea (USA) of graphic photos on a cigarette pack is loathsome and stupid as well. It’s a legal product and if the state feels that strongly about it, then ban the product. See how far ya get.  No less stupid is this latest from the mommy country.

Cigarette packs wrapped in brown paper so as to make them less attractive to the young.
So tell me please.  Just how is crack and horse and mary jane wrapped?  And how come so many young become attracted to junk and decide to, “give it a try.”
Certainly can’t be the wrapper.

Not long ago in a conversation with an ivory tower prof and writer of white papers for govts., the subject of evil tobacco came up. I have no idea why or how. But he came up with the same old line I’ve read or heard a hundred times.  Smiling as though he’d just scored an original point, he informed us that he’d interviewed drug addicts and they told him that quitting heroin was easier then quitting cigarettes. Which shows he said, just how much more dangerous cigs are then heroin.
Of course, he’d never been a smoker himself.  But he bought the danger mantra like a fool.  I couldn’t believe this was a guy with an IQ off the scale, a person paid large sums for research and writing speeches for major politicians and white papers. 

OK so cigarettes are more dangerous. Right.
How many addicted smokers do you know off hand that rob , lie cheat and steal and even at times, kill for that smoke behind the barn?
How many burglaries or muggings are made to support a cigarette habit?
Jerk.

Cigarettes ‘may be sold in plain brown packs so they are less attractive to children’

Tobacco companies could be forced to sell cigarettes in plain packaging in an attempt to deter youngsters from taking up smoking.

By Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor

Ministers are considering switching all brand packs to a standard colour so brightly coloured packages will not lure prospective smokers from a young age.

Retailers will be initially be asked to cover up their displays of cigarettes so that children are not attracted by the packaging, but ministers want to examine the use of plain packets as well.

Ministers want to see if changing cigarette packet appearance could deter children from taking up smoking and support people who are trying to quit.

Plain packs would just show only basic information and health and picture warnings in order to break the ‘brand recognition’ and use of distinctive colours.

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said: “We have to try new approaches and take decisions to benefit the population.

“That’s why I want to look at the idea of plain packaging. The evidence is clear that packaging helps to recruit smokers, so it makes sense to consider having less attractive packaging.

“It’s wrong that children are being attracted to smoke by glitzy designs on packets.

“We would prefer it if people did not smoke and adults will still be able to buy cigarettes, but children should be protected from the start.

“The levels of poor health and deaths from smoking are still far too high, and the cost to the NHS and the economy is vast. That money could be used to educate our children and treat cancer.

“We will shortly set out a radical new approach to public health in a White Paper. We want to go further and faster in improving the health of the nation based firmly on doing what the evidence tells us works.”

FOR THE REST

The levels of poor health and death from beatings and stabbings on the streets and in the home is also far too high.  But the papers report, unless they’re all telling lies, that violent criminals are out there having been freed early because the prisons are crowded.  The papers also report that a recent study claims that fully 51% of teen offenders re-offend and that prisons seem to have failed with them.  Indeed, many say jail is where they first experience three meals and a warm bed every day.  I wonder if they’re all smokers too.

Posted by peiper     on 11/21/2010 at 01:41 PM   
Filed Under: • Nanny State •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - October 02, 2010

The Never Ending Post

Science Kit Makers Battle Feds Over Safety Tests on Paper Clips

Federal regulators are hard at work making the world a safer place for kids—starting with the threat posed by toxic paper clips.

Never heard of a toxic paper clip? Neither have the manufacturers of science kits for classrooms across the country.

But they’re now locked in a debate with federal officials, who just moved a step closer to requiring costly new safety tests on the components of those kits.

The dispute emerged in the middle of the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s work implementing a 2008 law that requires lead and other chemical tests on children’s products. As part of that process, the commission Wednesday issued guidelines over what qualifies as a children’s product—at the same time, the panel rejected a request from science kit makers to exempt the above components.

Toxic paper clip testing could be next.

Not every bell and whistle in the kits will have to undergo testing. But some of them could, depending on how the kit is marketed and other factors. The companies argue that the regulation subjects their products to a double standard—paper clips bought at the local convenience store would not be subject to any testing, but once they find their way into a child’s lab kit they might have to be certified.

“They miraculously become a children’s product when our clients pick those products up and put them in a science kit,” said Ed Krenik, a lobbyist for HandsOn Science, a network of manufacturers.

Posted by Drew458     on 10/02/2010 at 07:41 AM   
Filed Under: • Nanny State •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - August 19, 2010

It’s funny. Trust me. It’s stupid, but it’s funny …

I’m not sure if it can get any dumber but if there’s a way, these nanny staters will surely find it.  Outside of that, I really can’t think of anything to add to this. Not that it needs it.  It speaks for itself.

‘Nanny’ bosses issue guidelines on officers’ underwear

By Daily Mail Reporter

Police chiefs came under fire today, after they issued a dictat advising officers what kind of underwear they should wear beneath their uniforms.

West Midlands Police has issued a warning that requires underwear to be ‘an appropriate colour’ and ‘inconspicous’ beneath their uniform.

The strict guidance was issued as part of a revised uniform policy to present a ‘professional and corporate appearance’ to the public.

But officers in the force have accused their superiors of ‘nannying’ and slammed the warning as ‘outrageous’.

One experienced police constable, who did not want to be named, told Police Review magazine: ‘It is ridiculous. They are basically telling us what underwear to wear to work.

‘A couple of sergeants have jokingly been saying there would be spot checks. It is outrageous.’

Another police constable said: ‘Any chance they could run a piece on tying shoelaces or how to use toilet paper?’

The uniform guidelines also warn officers to wear their protective stab vests at all times when patrolling the beat which includes Birmingham, Coventry, Solihull and Wolverhampton.

One sergeant from the force told Police Review: ‘We are not a scouting organisation made up of young children who need nannying.

‘As we are all adults, personal pride should drive folks to maintain that professional appearance by shaving before going on duty, having clean boots and tidy uniform.’

Another police constable said: ‘Rather than spending time on sending pointless messages out concerning the way we look when doing the job, the force should concentrate more on letting us do the job of a police officer and trying catch criminals.’

The warning appeared on the police ‘message of the day’ section on the force intranet last week.

The message was: ‘Underwear should be of an appropriate colour to be inconspicuous underneath uniform.’

Other dictats include warnings that baseball caps should only be worn by officers working in certain units such as dogs and firearms.

All officers on operational patrol duties must also wear their stab vests at all times.

The force has warned officers and staff who are working together should be similarly dressed.

A spokesman for West Midlands Police said: ‘There is no new force policy on underwear, but all officers and staff who come into contact with the public are asked to adopt a common sense approach when choosing what underwear is worn when on duty, so they remain smart.’

Assistant chief constable Sharon Rowe said: ‘All supervisors, at whatever level they are in the organisation, have a clear mandate to challenge inappropriate dress.

‘The adoption of standard, corporate, professional uniform and equipment is crucial to how we are viewed by members of the public.’

DAILY MAIL

Posted by peiper     on 08/19/2010 at 11:23 AM   
Filed Under: • Nanny State • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - August 14, 2010

Move along. No bias here. Nothing to see.

From the Washington Post:

This is the how Steven Pearlstein starts off his ‘Business News’ article:

As a general rule, whenever you hear special-interest groups using near-hysterical language to warn that some proposal will destroy jobs, snuff out innovation and end free-market capitalism as we know it, you can generally assume that progress is being made.

Huh? This is ‘news’? This is nothing but hyperbole and Pearlstein’s opinion masquerading as a news article.

However, he is correct. We can indeed assume that ‘progress’ is being made: destroying jobs, snuffing out innovation, ending free-market capitalism (as an aside, I’ve never lived under ‘free-market’ capitalism. I’m 50+ yrs old. I’d like to try such capitalism before I die.) is indeed ‘progress’ according to the Social Leftist-Statist neo-journalists like Pearlstein.

You can go read the rest of the article which is basically about ‘net neutrality’. I’ve never had a problem with the net being neutral. It isn’t broke. Leave it alone. It doesn’t need an ‘ObaMessiah’ fix.

“Progress just means bad things happen faster.”
–Granny Weatherwax, Witches Abroad

Posted by Christopher     on 08/14/2010 at 08:54 PM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Nanny State •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - March 21, 2010

Revolt in 2010

Sounds like a Heinlein novel. He actually wrote one titled ‘Revolt in 2100’. Guess we’re 90 years early.

Let the bloodbath begin!

Update!!

Courtesy of Old Catman in the comments.

Yes! We have guillotine!

Democrat heads will roll! Public executions! I’ll be running the hot dog/popcorn stand.

Posted by Christopher     on 03/21/2010 at 07:55 PM   
Filed Under: • Big Brother • Commies • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • FREEDOM • Government • Nanny State • Obama, The One • Patriotism • Self-Defense • Tyrants and Dictators •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - March 14, 2010

Insinuating that a woman is not as strong as a man will be “unlawful sex discrimination”

Why heck, we’re runnin’ out of bats for this one. Mz Harperson really demands and intends to leave no feelings or even the possibility that there lurks the intent, or the the possibility that by pure accident, a lady may be offended and thereby have her “rights” impinged.  Hey .. read this and tell us if she isn’t off the edge of the flat planet she is living on.  In fact ... NOBODY, men or women will have hurt feelings or more specifically, their ‘umin rights’ abused or brought into question, as Harperson see those rights.

I will not take the time to go through this and post comments line by line. It’s too exhaustive and time consuming. This legislation is full of so much crap I don’t see how it can pass.  But there isn’t any mistake that Happy Deluded Harriet thinks it a neat idea and worthy of becoming the law of the land.
She is for now, the BMEWS Queen of Moonbats.

Note to Drew.  We need to get her face on a bat to use for that purpose. With a little moombat crown maybe.


What, like this??

Thanks to Doc DETH!

Gym staff could be prosecuted for warning a woman not to lift heavy weights under equality legislation being championed by Harriet Harman.

By Melissa Kite, Deputy political editor

Insinuating that a woman is not as strong as a man will be “unlawful sex discrimination”, under the terms of the forthcoming Equality Bill.
A code of practice explaining the legal implications of the Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, states that being a woman is “a protected characteristic”.

The code, drawn up by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, explains ways in which women might be unfairly stereotyped and defines behaviours that will in future be seen as discrimination.
It includes a long list of examples of “unintentional less favourable treatment” including what might happen to a woman when she joins a gym and begins lifting weights.

It states: “A general stereotype about men and women is that in terms of physique, most men are stronger than most women. Nevertheless it is likely to be unlawful sex discrimination for a gym to test every woman’s strength but not every man’s before allowing them access to weightlifting facilities.”

The code makes clear that it will not be seen as an excuse if the motive of the gym staff is to help a woman or save her from injury.
“It does not matter what the service provider’s intentions are or whether the service provider’s less favourable treatment of the person is conscious or unconscious.

“The service provider may even think that they are doing the person a favour, or simply be unaware that they are treating the person differently because of a protected characteristic.”

The Bill, championed by Ms Harman, the Equalities Minister, has already courted much controversy and attracted the criticism of the Pope when it proposed that churches would be prosecuted for refusing to employ gay people.

The legislation also provides protection under the law from discrimination for “any religious belief or philosophical belief” and even “a lack of belief”.
Last week it emerged that vegans would be protected, along with members of cults and “new religions” such as Scientology.

Advertisements giving preferential treatment to men or women could also be illegal, meaning the end of “ladies’ nights” at clubs, when women receive cut-price drinks or free entrance but men pay full price.
People for whom abstention from alcohol was a way of life would be given new rights to protect them from discrimination.

The Bill will give more scope too for the prosecution of shopkeepers and club owners who refuse to allow entry to certain types of people.
It says that shopkeepers who refuse entry to black teenagers, for example, after stories in the local press about thefts in the area by black teenagers will be prosecuted for race discrimination.

The Bill also creates a new offence of discrimination by association. The code states that if a nightclub refused entry to three Polish people and an English man, the English man could claim he has suffered racial discrimination by association.

If a boy is refused membership of his local football club and his parents are two lesbian women, he could claim “unlawful direct discrimination by association because of sexual orientation”.

For the source and article in the Telegraph, click on the pix below of the wicked witch of the west. Queen of Moonbats. Happy Harriet Harperson.

Posted by peiper     on 03/14/2010 at 10:57 AM   
Filed Under: • DIVERSITY BS • Nanny State • News-Briefs • Outrageous • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (10) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - March 04, 2010

Head teachers will be forced to list children as young as five on school ‘hate registers.

Nobody likes a school bully and certainly they should be put in their place. Like on the ground with someone’s foot on their throat.
But this isn’t that.  There isn’t any bully involved here unless it’s the bullying nanny state.  Nanny is going to extremes now with what is and isn’t proper for school kids to say or call one another at play or in argument.  Small kids.
Here, take a peek.

Pupils aged five on hate register: Teachers must log playground taunts for Government database

By Ryan Kisiel and Steve Doughty
Daily Mail

Head teachers will be forced to list children as young as five on school ‘hate registers’ over everyday playground insults.

Even minor incidents must be recorded as examples of serious bullying and details kept on a database until the pupil leaves secondary school.

Teachers are to be told that even if a primary school child uses homophobic or racist words without knowing their meaning, simply teaching them such words are hurtful and inappropriate is not enough.

Instead the incident has to be recorded and his or her behaviour monitored for future signs of ‘hate’ bullying.

The accusations will also be recorded in databases held by councils and made available to Whitehall and ministers to help them devise future anti-bullying campaigns.

The scale of the effort to stop children using homophobic or racist language was revealed after the parents of a ten-year-old primary school pupil in Somerset, Peter Drury, were told that his name would be put on a register and his behaviour monitored while he remained at school.

The boy was reported after he called a friend ‘gay boy’. His parents fear the record of homophobic bullying will count against him throughout his school career and even into adulthood.

In another incident last year a six-year-old girl, Sharona Gower, was reported for ‘racist bullying’ at her school near Tunbridge Wells in Kent.

Sharona was chased by two 11-year-old girls, one of whom taunted her that she had chocolate on her face.

The six-year-old responded to one of the girls, who was black: ‘Well, you’ve got chocolate on yours.’

Many schools nationwide have already followed advice that they should record incidents of alleged racist, homophobic or anti-disability bullying.

SOURCE FOR MORE

We had a kid in our class once called ‘Stinky’ coz generally he did.  It was stuff he put in his hair.  It had an odor till the teach told him in front of the class that he couldn’t come to school like that.  End of funny smell but we continued to call him stinky. Nowadays no teacher would say that out loud and I guess our whole class, or those who called him stinky anyway, I guess we’d end up on this hate register. With this govt., everything can be taken to be a hate crime.

Posted by peiper     on 03/04/2010 at 12:09 PM   
Filed Under: • Big Brother • Nanny State • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - March 03, 2010

govt. agency finds a brand new place and way to spend money they don’t work for.

BATS awarded to The Health and Safety Executive for make work projects spending other people’s money and being just plain schtupid if they believe farmers are dumb enough to buy this.  Jeesh.  I hope we haven’t sunk to this lunacy back home yet.  Notice. I said “yet” coz ya never do know.

Forget my knot

SIR – Yesterday, I received a letter from the Health and Safety Executive entreating me to tie a small piece of green rope (provided) prominently in my yard, as a reminder to “Come home safe” from the potential dangers on the farm. I can apply for up to five more (free) green knots.
I cannot imagine any farmer in the land applying for little green knots to tie on the farm gate. This appears to be just a small example of Government waste.
Caroline Appelbe
Malmesbury, Wiltshire

THE LETTERS PAGE

Posted by peiper     on 03/03/2010 at 12:10 PM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Daily Life • Government • Health and Safety • Nanny State • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - February 02, 2010

Taxi drivers accused of racism over St George stickers. Can’t do anything without offending some.

It isn’t a long article but it naturally caught my eye.  So now under some circumstances, the English flag can be seen as offensive and oh my. Even, dare I say it here?  racist.  (whispered) Jerks.

Taxi drivers who put up St George stickers in their cabs saying they speak English have been accused of racism and warned they face suspension.

A group of drivers of licensed cabs in Southampton put up the signs because they claimed passengers complained to them that some drivers cannot speak English.

The matter came to a head in a meeting with drivers and the city council last week when some drivers told the council of the alleged problem.

Now the city council has said any cab that has the sign or a St George flag put up will have their licence suspended if they do not take them down within seven days.

read the rest HERE

Posted by peiper     on 02/02/2010 at 01:06 PM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Daily Life • Government • Nanny State • Racism and race relations • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

The Pope has made an unprecedented attack on the Government … pay attention to this.

Not fit for much in the way of posting today. Must be the weather.
Then I read this.  POPE & POLITICS. At first I didn’t pay it much attention.  But after awhile, seeing the comments ppl were making and hearing the issue debated on radio, I got to thinking this was more important then I first thought.

There are some folks who claim the pope has no business making any comments re. govts. anywhere. I’m not Catholic and I’m not religious either but, I’m not too sure about that last opinion.  Why shouldn’t the pope make his feelings known?  It isn’t as though it’s the old days when he could galvanize an entire country to do Rome’s bidding.  And I am not so sure he doesn’t have some valid points to make.  You don’t like what he has to say fine.  Then debate the issue without getting nasty.

The homosexual community have spoken out and many have even suggested that his planned visit here should be banned.  And these are the folks always banging on about rights and freedom of speech.  Oh right.  Freedom to express their views but damned if they want others to have the same privilege.

Lets be very clear on something.  The pope’s comments are NOT directed at that community solely.  He has spoken on a number of issues. 
Can anyone tell me why a Catholic school or a Baptist or Jewish school, should be bound by law to admit those who do not in any way share the faith or religion of a school?  And btw, many a non Catholic has received a pretty good education at Catholic schools. 

What most of this has to do with is that nut case Harriet Harperson (Harman) and her “everyone MUST be equal” crap.  It is she and her agency and the govt. that seem intent on interfering in religious schools and dictating to them.  And one really oddball thing about a lot of this is, many of them are not even religious themselves.  But they’re quite willing to tell the religious how their schools should be run, all in the name of ‘equality.’

Pope’s intervention sparks equality bill row

That’s the headline at the link above.  But what “intervention?” Is having an opinion and speaking out as head of a church, intervention?
Maybe it is.  It appears to be open to debate among quite a few people.

This is just one of the issues.

By politics.co.uk staff

Catholic pastors are preparing for their biggest confrontation with the government in years after the Pope encouraged them to take on Harriet Harman’s equality bill.

Benedict XVI has warned the legislation, currently working its way through parliament, imposes “unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities”.

It could strip the Catholic Church in Britain of its ability to discriminate against homosexuals in employment matters and even force them to allow women into the priesthood.

Here are a couple of reader comments on this I found at the Telegraph.

Of course the Pope should comment. I am not a Roman Catholic but this government law is just one more assault on our freedoms. How ridiculous that anyone could consider it reasonable that someone who rejects and even opposes Christian values should be able to insist on working for a Christian organisation. This is a direct attack on the freedom to believe and associate with others who believe the same. I would not find it at all objectionable for a Muslim organisation to insist that its employees should all be Muslim.

I am Reformed and certainly do not agree with Roman Catholic Doctrines; nevertheless, one must ask, why is it that the Archbishop of Canterbury fails to speak out on moral issues with clarity? Is it because he is so liberal and is happy with the staus quo? He certainly gives the impression that he is “wishy-washy” in his theology, and fails to make an impact on society as a whole, far less politicians.

In any event, as I posted elsewhere today in the DT, the Equality Bill is not merely Harriet Harman’s desire; rather, it’s an EU diktat.

But not everyone agrees of course.

If the church cannot stop discriminating it is not serving its purpose, not following the inclusive teachings of the bible but off on its own sick perverted dogma. In our society we need to stop discrimination and the church should be leading that, not continuing to insist of legal permission to discriminate.

“to drive religious belief and practice into the sphere of the private only” Isn’t that where it belongs anyway? Worship whatever you want but don’t try to push it on me. Gay is not a choice. You are born that way or not. So to discriminate against it is the same as discriminating against someone for having a different skin color. It doesn’t make them worse or better just different.

Naturally enough my favorite is this one, no surprise.

I wish the press would stop the misuse of the word GAY. If they mean homosexual or lesbian then say so .

The comments are quite interesting and can be found HERE

Posted by peiper     on 02/02/2010 at 11:35 AM   
Filed Under: • Education • Nanny State • Religion • UK •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - January 31, 2010

Council snoopers question five-year-olds on home life.  Big brother is watching you.

I really can’t think of anything to say here. Looks scary.

Council snoopers question five-year-olds on home life

By Sophie Borland

Children as young as five are being told to fill in Big Brother-style forms which let councils snoop on intimate details about their home lives.

The questions - which have been attacked as exploitative - ask about junk food, television habits, family time and even whether the youngsters ‘like themselves’.

Results are stored on a database, allowing families deemed to be ‘at risk’ to be referred to social services or doctors.

Children are asked to colour in answers to questions such as how much fruit they eat each day compared to crisps and fizzy drinks.

Hundreds of the ‘lifestyle’ quizzes, which are backed by the Department of Health, have been handed out in an attempt to build a picture of the health and wellbeing of individual households.

But privacy campaigners last night condemned the forms. Alex Deane, of Big Brother Watch, described it as ‘an unbelievable intrusion into private life’.

He said: ‘The state doesn’t bring up children, parents do. There is an important distinction between teaching and nannying - or even bullying - and this steps way over the mark.’

The lifestyle quizzes were piloted in Erewash, Derbyshire, where children filled in the forms at ‘healthy living’ after-school clubs, to which parents are invited.

Although the survey was not compulsory, pupils were strongly encouraged to fill it in.

HERE FOR MORE

Posted by peiper     on 01/31/2010 at 03:47 PM   
Filed Under: • Big Brother • Nanny State • UK •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

another sign of big brother as big govt. goes after soft and easy target. cigarettes, again.

I quit long ago but really, this is just another example of nanny state thinking and by ppl I bet who might have never been smokers themselves.

The health Nazis of course would love to ban fags altogether.  But then what?  Where next will they steal money and on what product that they will overtax in the name of protecting ppl.

I have no doubt, even with no medical background whatever except as a patient, that smoking is bad for folks.  I’m all in favor of doing the best we can to try and reach kids young and educate them.  And it does work, I’ve seen it.  But taking the logos off fag packets isn’t going to discourage any kid from lighting up that first deadly bomb. You know how it works. Remember?  Some kid offers you a fag, you accept and get sick.  Now then, some kids will never try it again. But some will, and it starts there.  Or at least that is one place it starts.

Another place is in the home, right?  If one or more parents smoke then the act becomes something quite natural to the kid(s) and at some point he or she will swipe one of mom’s.  I think it’s near impossible for a smoking parent to tell Jr. not to start smoking coz they’re bad for him.
So I guess at some point if they can get away with it, even tho they say they will not go this far, will be a total ban on fags in homes where there are children. 

Cigarettes could be sold in plain unbranded packets in latest bid to sweep away smoking from Britain

By Daily Mail Reporter

Cigarettes are set to be sold in plain packaging without logos in a bid to further strip smoking of its ‘glamourous’ image.

The Government will unveil the latest stage of its effort to half the number of smokers in Britain by 2020, which could result in a ban on people smoking in private places where children are present.

Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, will signal his support for the moves as he launches the government’s ‘tobacco control strategy’ tomorrow.

Ministers are also considering a ban of the sale of smoking products in vending machines which can help children to bypass strict laws banning their sale to under 18s.

While no final decision on a plain packaging rule have been taken, Mr Burnham, speaking to the Sunday Telegraph, said: ‘It’s something I will be looking at closely.’

However, the Government is not expected to go as far banning all smoking in homes and cars WHERE CHILDREN ARE NOT PRESENT.

The move could deter youngsters from copying celebrity smokers such Amy Winehouse and James Morrision.

I haven’t a clue who that Morrison is, but I have seen that goofball Amy Winehouse. Now then if kids are fans of hers then the authorities have more to worry about then her being a copyable pop icon. That very last line alone shows how stupid the govt. is on the issue.
Read that last line again.  Spot the obvious dumb error? 
These ppl aren’t thinking straight.  But they have the power to make others follow their dictates.  Now that makes me see red.

The rest of the article is at the link.

LINK FOR MORE

Posted by peiper     on 01/31/2010 at 03:00 PM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Health and Safety • Medical • Nanny State • UK •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - January 29, 2010

I think I have invented a new position here at BMEWS.  An Anger Desk. Yeah. That’s me ok.

I may even enter a new category for it. 

I don’t know about you folks, but I just happen to like Kelloggs Corn Flakes.  I don’t give a tinkers damn how much salt or sugar they put in it.
I like it the way comes outta that box just fine.  Oh but no.  The freeken health nazis and other we’ll do your choosing for you health quangos have pressured Kelloggs to reduce the salt content by another 30 percent.  They also say some 14,000 ppl have died due to high blood pressure, strokes and heart attacks etc.  But they don’t say what else those folks had in their diets. Anyway, it’s 14,000 out of how many millions upon millions who have no trouble whatever. So I’m PO’d again coz I hate it when some unelected group of do-gooders insist I eat grass and bark instead of what I like.

Kelloggs says that over years it has already reduced sugar and salt by a lot but only gradually so ppl wouldn’t noticed a sudden change in taste. That way they say, ppl get used to the change without even knowing a change ha taken place and the product will still taste the same.  Pretty clever.

Recently, Nescafe altered a recipe for our own good. Right. All the things that gave it flavor were reduced.  The taste difference was immediate and very bland. So we stopped buying it. Even tho the label assured us that it was, “New and Improved.” Yeah. In a pigs ass it was.

I guess the thing that bothers me so darn much is that so many things these days seem to be decided for me. And nobody asked first.

Kellogg’s to cut the salt in its cereals by a third following pressure from health watchdogs

By Sean Poulter

Kellogg’s will cut the salt content of its Corn Flakes, Rice Krispies and other brands by up to a third following pressure from health watchdogs.

The company has previously delayed the reduction of salt levels, claiming customers enjoy the taste it offers.

However, it has now bowed to pressure from the Government’s Food Standards Agency and campaigning health groups to change its recipes.

The FSA says the nation is eating too much salt, which carries a serious health threat.

Average daily salt consumption is 8.6g, which is 43 per cent above the recommended limit of 6g.

The figure is linked to 14,200 premature deaths a year from conditions linked to high blood pressure, including strokes and heart attacks.

Kellogg’s said its decision will remove approximately 300 tons of salt a year from the nation’s diet.

The decision to cut the salt in Corn Flakes and Rice Krispies by 30 per cent will feed through to reductions in other big-selling brands such as Crunchy Nut, Frosties, Coco Pops and Rice Krispies Squares.

Here’s what two people commenting on the subject had to say.

I don’t recall ever voting for ‘Consensus Action on Salt and Health’. What consensus? I’m sure I’m far from alone in disagreeing with their ‘consensus’, which rather undermines the meaning of the word, doesn’t it? No doubt like the National Obesity Forum this lot will turn out to be 70% funded by Whitehall, making them essentially a Govt department in all but socially-responsibly Orwellian-sounding name.

Why not just provide an alternative version and leave the original alone? A sad day for democracy when I now don’t even have a choice over what I want to eat.
- Rich, Leeds, UK, 29/1/2010 12:48

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am fed up of being told what I can have and what not - I am an adult, I can read labels and I can make decision on my own!!

- Karolina, London, 29/1/2010 15:05

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 01/29/2010 at 11:58 AM   
Filed Under: • Big Brother • Health and Safety • Health-Medicine • Nanny State • UK •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - January 28, 2010

Mother ‘not clever enough to raise child’ has baby snatched. Nanny knows best always.

There are all sorts of things to be thankful for I know.  And I am. But I seem to find all sorts of things to be PO’d about. Some things might be minor to all but myself.

This thing below got to me to be honest. None of my business I know.  But how do social services know for certain this young lady isn’t up to the task of being a mom?  I think she’s too young it’s true.  But hey.  What’s done is done and she’s had a baby.  Kinda cruel to snatch it away from her.  Why couldn’t they keep an eye on her if they were concerned?  I guess SS is closer to the subject and sees and knows things the readers of this don’t. 

Then I’m angry (again) with FireFox.  I must be the only computer user in the entire world that thinks it often sucks.  Ok, IE may be worse but that isn’t saying much.  I like Chrome a lot but even this browser could be better.  Yeah, so could I.

The damn med is causing major headspliting ache.  So I tried to get in touch with the pharmacy to ask a question, couldn’t find the number but hey. I have a computer so I did a www thing and got their site BUT ... no numbers for what I needed and not even a store number.  So I called their (get this) CARELINE. Care. HaHaHa.  I got someone whose jingelritch was so bad it wasn’t even as clear as engrish. And they were NATIVE BORN I want ya to know.  She kept saying “et” “et” and I kept asking her to say again but slower so she did.
“et” pause “et” pause “et”
and it took my wife to figure out she was saying EIGHT. And I have no idea about the other numbers but wifey worked it out.  So I called the number she gave us AND ....  SORRY, WRONG NUMBER.  Hmmmm, sounds like an old radio mystery title.  But in the end I did get the right number, but never got to speak to anyone, even though my call was important to them.  Screw em.  I got a cup of very good Engrish Hot Chocolate, poured in some cream and Irish Whiskey and almost immediately felt better, except for the stomach pain caused by the booze. And most likely the pill taken at 10 this morning, more then six hours ago.

Ok so here we are, I read dumb stuff in the paper like, New Daddys to get 6 month maternity leave.  Six months?  How the hell did civilization make it all these years without that pc crap?

Who the hell are the dumb ass rocket scientists who design packaging?  Do any of them think? They really must get paid a lot to do the crappy job they have been doing for years now. Idiots! All of em.

Lawyers and MSM .... lying shits that think the public is so damn stupid they can’t see through them and their demands for more “freedom of the press.” I’ll get to that in my next post.
All sorts of things to be pissed off about.

Mother ‘not clever enough to raise child’ has baby snatched by social workers after running away to Ireland to give birth

By ALISON SMITH SQUIRE
Daily Mail

A couple who fled to Ireland after social workers threatened to remove their baby at birth have had the newborn snatched after all.

Kerry Robertson, 17, who has mild learning difficulties, and Mark McDougall, 25, went on the run after British social services said she was not clever enough to raise a child.

But just four days after Ben was born, Irish social workers marched into the maternity ward and forced them to hand him over.

They were told they were acting at the behest of their British counterparts.

The couple, from Fife, Scotland, have been on the run for three months.

In September, their wedding was halted just 48 hours before the service when social workers claimed Miss Robertson was not bright enough to understand the marriage declaration.

Then in November they were told that her ‘disability’ meant their baby would be taken away at birth.

With Miss Robertson 29 weeks pregnant, they fled their house in the middle of the night and travelled to Ireland.

Ben was born healthy and weighing 7lb 3oz last Friday.

Last night Miss Robertson said: ‘When the Irish social workers said I had to give the baby to them, I felt sick.

‘I didn’t want to hand him over and I started crying because I couldn’t believe what they were saying. I thought I had misunderstood.

MORE OF THIS STORY AND PHOTOS HERE

Posted by peiper     on 01/28/2010 at 01:05 PM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Nanny State • News-Briefs • Personal • UK •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner