Collective Punishment for Fatties

I must say that I’m not surprised by this latest proposal for collective punishment.

Overweight or unhealthy people who refuse to attend exercise sessions could have their benefits slashed, in a move proposed by Westminster Council.

GPs would also be allowed to prescribe leisure activities such as swimming and fitness classes under the idea…

Under the proposals, overweight benefit claimants could have their money docked if they refuse exercise regimes prescribed by doctors.

Smart cards would be brought in to monitor the use of leisure centres, meaning local authorities could reduce welfare payments for those who fail to follow their GP’s advice.

So now they’re going to punish fat people for being fat. That’s what it boils down to. The exercise will do them no good, of course, and will most likely injure them, and may even kill them. But that’s the intention. The aim is to make the fatties sweat. It’s pure spite and hatred that drives this. Just like it was pure hatred that drove smokers outdoors, to shiver and freeze.

It doesn’t surprise me that they want to punish the fatties. After all, they want to punish smokers and drinkers. They want to punish everybody.

British Medical Association GP committee chairman Dr Buckman, a GP in north London, called the proposals “some of the silliest things I’ve heard in a long time”.

“When I was first told about this I thought it was a joke,” he said.

I didn’t think it was a joke. After a while, you get to realise that these sorts of public announcements are just a way of softening people up for what’s coming next. First Westminster city council, and then others. There’ll be the usual public consultations in which the public isn’t consulted, and then GPs will start handing out exercise prescriptions. Like 50 press-ups a day. Or a 5 mile cross country run.

But if this Dr Buckman sounds like he’s got his head screwed on the right way round, he immediately corrects that misapprehension:

He added: “The best way [councils] can intervene is to stop restaurants and fast-food chains providing the kind of food that make people put on weight, and interfere with the way foods are sold in shops.”

Well, that clears that up! It’s not that the little shit doesn’t want to intervene and interfere. He just doesn’t want to intervene in that way. No, he wants to walk into restaurants and make them take ice cream sundaes off the menu. And sausages, and pancakes, and wine, and beer. He’s just as tyrannical as the people he’s criticising.

Obesity support organisation Big Matters spokeswoman Susannah Gilbert said: “It would be fairer to use the money to support people rather than to penalise people.

Penalising people is what it’s all about, Suzie. People must be punished, and must keep on being punished, until they finally shape up, and comply with government requirements.

But Jonathan Carr-West, acting chief executive of the LGiU, said the proposals offered “a win-win” solution.

He said the proposals were about “finding innovative ways to both improve people’s lives so they don’t suffer from these conditions, while also saving money for the public purse”.

“We have to look at ways of managing demand, of helping people not to need such expensive health interventions,” he said.

He said the proposals would “help people lead healthier, happier lives”.

Yes, once all the fatties are being made to run marathons, they’re going to be so happy. And a lot of them are going to be dead. But that’s how demand management works. Death is  much cheaper. It saves a lot of money to just put people in coffins than treat their illnesses.

Westminster council leader Philippa Roe said: “This report contains exactly the sort of bright, forward-thinking and radical ideas that need to be looked at.

“The potential improvements to the nation’s health and to the public purse could be significant.”

Well, I guess it’s what passes for “bright”, “forward-thinking”, and “radical” these days in a Conservative-controlled council that’s just a stone’s throw from the Houses of Parliament. But I think they’re sick and twisted ideas, from sick and twisted people.

I worked in Westminster Council for a year, some 40 years ago. I wonder if the lifts work any better than they did back then. Probably not. But what’s wrong with walking up the stairs to the 20th floor? It’s good exercise. Keeps people fit.

See also: The View from Cullingworth. And Leg-iron.


About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Collective Punishment for Fatties

  1. Phil Button says:

    This is an epic comment on the current situation and well referenced. Choice is definately not an option anymore. Compliance is approved at all levels apart from the personal perspective. We HAVE to wake up NOW and kick arse.

  2. legiron says:

    They won’t be wooden coffins for the dead fat people. Theeenk of the treeees! When they kill these people by making them do exercises their bodies can’t cope with, they’ll have figures to show that obesity causes heart attacks. Not that forcing overweight people to do strenuous exercise causes heart attacks.

    It’s the Liverpool Don’t-Care Pathway for those who aren’t old enough for the official death machine.

    Looking back, that might be the reason for those smoking ‘shelters’ that would have you prosecuted if you kept pigs in them. It wasn’t just spite. They were trying to kill us with cold.

    • Frank Davis says:

      It wasn’t just spite. They were trying to kill us with cold.

      Yes. That’s right. They pretend to be ‘helping’ smokers, but everything they do actually serves to punish them and hurt them and even kill them.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        A robber can say Im keeping you from wasting your money……..
        A Murderer can say Ive saved the Government 10s of thousands in future medical care costs for the murder.
        The fatties may die from the excersion of the excercise ,then the govenment can claim behind closed doors see weve saved billions by enforcing this program.
        You get the drift……..

      • nisakiman says:

        And this is why they are banning the use of e-cigs. Because people using them are escaping the punishment. One quote supporting draconian regulation from TCI went along the lines of “people are getting around the bans by using e-cigs in no-smoking areas”. That is to say, they are avoiding the punishment and humiliation TCI designed for them, and that must be stopped. Smokers must be seen to be punished.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Its also protecting the tobacco companies market share which is a real part of the American MSA deal. When sales drop big tobacco can pay less to the states that have lowered sales volume. This in turn means TC loses dollars and also dollars from tobacco taxes in general when they get a cut. Then we have the states that sold their MSA portfolio years back and would then have to payback any lost revenue to those who bought the MSA bonds 10-14 years ago,meaning the states would go bankrupt from it.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Tobacco Companies have em by the balls and TC knows it!

  3. I think I mentioned my battle with the NHS last time. I had to threaten my GP again this week with legal action to get a repeat prescription. He said he wouldn’t be threatened, to which I replied, “Then you’ll be answering to a judge, pal”. He started typing out the prescription. I’m not suggesting that this will work for everyone and may be counterproductive, so use your discretion.

    It’s maybe not the best way to talk to your GP, but they are becoming insufferable and I, for one, refuse to be treated like scum by them again and I also resent paying vast amounts of tax to pay them probably four times the average salary.

    Medical people used to be revered in society – possibly with good reason. I don’t see those reasons still being valid in today’s NHS.

    I wrote elsewhere the other day about effective pain relief being denied to NHS patients now (a separate issue to mine).

    With abortion practically on demand and the Liverpool Care Pathway bumping people off, babies getting dozens of vaccinations, kids handed out rubber johnnies a couple of years later behind their parents’ backs to promote dysfunction, it is well past the time to either take back the NHS or destroy it gleefully and replace it with a HEALTH service and not another political, social engineering and eugenicists’ fake charity, which is what it has become.

    The nurses at the local hospital are brilliant. They deserve much better too.

    • Frank Davis says:

      it is well past the time to either take back the NHS or destroy it gleefully and replace it with a HEALTH service and not another political, social engineering and eugenicists’ fake charity, which is what it has become.

      Well, I’ve said several times now that we’re going to have to go into the medical profession and simply kick all these mad doctors out of it. I’m sure that 95% or more of doctors simply want to help sick people, but there’s a minority who have other ambitions, and it’s this minority who are in charge, it seems.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        The government can give you everything you have and take everything you have. Governments arent for the people even though many think thay are,they are there under the guise of for the people and instead become the 800 pound Gorilla,Kicking your ass and telling you how good it is for you!

  4. magnetic01 says:

    Lifestyle engineering (from federal funding) coming to a council near you…. no….. coming to your council.

    Indeed, Frank, we’re getting the agenda now pushed at the local level. It’s how the Nazis did “government”. There are agenda “operatives” from federal to local levels. There is no rest; the agenda is constantly in people’s faces.

    Whereas, not too long ago, councils were responsible for the maintenance of infrastructure and garbage collection, they now harbour a lifestyle “monitoring” group. Have any encounter with the council and you might be involuntarily “appraised” for “treatment”. Snitching neighbors could tell the local “health” Gestapo that you’re a smoker or overweight that could do with some “help”. And, yes, there are punitive measures; fail to follow the agenda and financial support, amongst other things, could be cut.

    This is a sickly authoritarianism that, when occurring in one-time relatively free societies, is extraordinarily…. incredibly… perverse.

    And, I won’t apologize for the repetition, the personnel involved need to be highlighted. It is the medically trained and the medically aligned. When this group ventures into social engineering, it introduces the spectre of eugenics, in this case along the behavioral dimension – anti-tobacco, anti-alcohol, dietary prescriptions/proscriptions, physical exercise. The masses around the world still haven’t figured out this basic point; it is this level of ignorance that has allowed their societies to be steam-rolled by a self-installed elite representing a combination of deranged, cultic ideology and vested financial interests. Worse still, it’s been seen before…. only recently.

    I’ve seen some bloggers, which are the only resistance to the official closed propaganda loop, refer to antismoking as antismoking and anti-alcohol as “temperance” and dietary prescriptions/proscriptions as something else again – as if they’re all pushed by different frameworks. They’re NOT. It’s the same framework – physicalism/materialism. In some cases it’s the very same people within the framework (e.g., Australia) that push all of these issues. We need to get straight that it is not a variety of frameworks: It is only ONE, and it’s dominated by the medical establishment. The medically-aligned doing social engineering will be eugenics along one or more dimensions of the framework at any particular time.

    I saw a foreign movie recently. A young adult presents at a hospital emergency ward in a somewhat “compromised” position. The head doctor rightly proclaims, “we’re not here to judge, we’re here to heal”. This was a critical standard of medical practice that has been pounded, brutalized, along with many other critical concepts. Medical administrators were very vigilant that medical practice did not venture from this standard. It’s long gone: They have failed….. again.

    At the root of the deterioration is physicalism and the perverse and dangerous reducing of health to only a biological phenomenon. So doing regresses us a century – we’re going backwards – to the eugenics mentality of America and Germany. It involves the same personnel – physicians, biologists, chemists, statisticians. It involves the same degenerate belief that this personnel has a monopoly on health – physicalism. It involves the same perverse belief that this personnel should be “engineering” the human “herd”. There is a reliance on flimsy population-level statistics to make all manner of baseless, social-engineering claims. It involves the same use of questionable, destructive methods, e.g., denormalization, propaganda, for coercion to conformity.

    It started with antismoking. That unquestioned, unchecked venture allowed a global “Public Health” infrastructure to be built. It’s now extending it’s ill-gotten influence to other aspects of the behavioral dimension.

    “help people lead healthier, happier lives”

    According to whom? The speaker of that statement wouldn’t even understand the question. In their superficiality, arrogance and haughtiness, they are utterly convinced that they have a “definitive” view of “health” and “happiness” and that it is their entitlement to rule. This mentality pervades contemporary, medically-dominated, physicalist Public Health. To these physicalists, humans are not too unlike rats in a lab. Feed them a particular diet plus a few daily sessions on the tread-wheel and, presto, “health and happiness”. There are no other dimensions to the framework. Manipulating people into irrational belief, fear, and hatred, and encouraging divisive “surveillance” do not register as health issues in physicalism; that’s why it’s dangerous.

    Individual autonomy, a hallmark of relatively free societies, pertains to seeking happiness in a manner that makes sense to them at any time along multi-dimensions. Some may trade-off aspects of long-term physical health for constant psychological health. Some may trade-off spiritual health for constant physical engagement. Some seek happiness in the arts, some philosophy, some entertainment, some religion, etc. The physicalist is a superficial, immature thinker. They view life as an “odds” game for statistical risk of disease; they view others purely in physical terms – are they “toned”, do they smoke/drink, are they overweight, do they “work out”, do they have regular medical check-ups; ultimately, they judge people by their death – did they live long enough, did they die of an “approved” disease. To some, this level of superficiality would be the waste of a life. But, in a relatively free society, if that’s where some people believe they will find happiness, so be it. The problem comes when this group convinces itself – and which is very easy to do, given its superficiality – that they have a “definitive” world view and that all must be made to conform. Individual autonomy is alien to physicalists/eugenicists; there is only “the herd” and only they are entitled to “engineer” it. Being terribly shallow, it will set into motion many of the more nasty propensities of human nature. If left unchecked, allowed to proliferate, it will bring out the worst in people on a mass scale….. and all in the name of a “healthier” society.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I think you know that I am fully in agreement with you about the eugenic underpinnings of our current deformed ‘public health’ medical model. And I also agree that antismoking, anti-alcohol, anti-obesity, exercise, etc are all different faces of the same beast. I also agree that they regard themselves as engineering the ‘human herd’.

      But I’m not quite with you when it comes to ‘physicalism’. I’m not entirely sure what you mean by this, but for the most part I take it that you mean an absence of empathy, and an absence of consideration of friendship, community, conviviality, trust, and other such subjective intangibles.

      I don’t think, for example, that they give one damn about ‘happiness’, because that’s something subjective, and so it doesn’t count. They see themselves as being objective (not ‘physicalist’) rather than subjective. So they completely disregard happiness, conviviality, community, friendship, trust, faith, hope.

      In fact, I don’t think they are being objective or physical at all. Increasingly my view is that theirs is a primitive, mediaeval mindset. They are concerned primarily with appearances and ideals and morality. They want people to look healthy. And smoking and drinking doesn’t look healthy. Nor does sitting in front of a TV with a pizza. In their view, healthy people are muscular people who run around a lot.

      That’s one thing. The other thing is that they think that “prevention is better than cure”. They think that if they can stop people getting sick in the first place, they won’t need to treat so many of them when they get sick. But this involves intervening in what people do, and stopping them doing things that make them sick – social engineering, witch hunts, denormalisation -. Yet this presupposes that they actually know what makes people sick in the first place. And in fact they don’t know. They just pretend to know. The idea that most disease is caused by ‘lifestyle’ – smoking, drinking, eating – is based on nothing but prejudice. It’s a moral prejudice. It’s the supposition that if you behave ‘immorally’ (smoke, drink, eat too much), you will get sick. If people get ill, it’s their own fault. But there’s not a shred of evidence for this. And it runs entirely counter to the older (and much more genuinely scientific and physical) idea that many diseases were caused by bacteria and viruses, and not by lifestyle factors.

      I don’t see these people as ‘physicalists’. I think they’re moralists. I think that they think that people who smoke and drink and eat and screw bring disease upon themselves, and this is their just punishment. And if they aren’t being justly punished, they will supply the punishment thesmselves.

      • “It’s the supposition that if you behave ‘immorally’ (smoke, drink, eat too much), you will get sick.” – Yep, in Japan and East Asia until very recently (1980s or so in Japan), it was believed that if people got sick they’d brought it on themselves by being “bad people” – a sort of karma. “Public Health” people would scoff at that yet they do it themselves all the time, except that rather than having a “bad spirit” or whatever, they believe us to have bad “moral character”

        • margo says:

          I’ve come across some evangelical Christians who truly believe that all illness is God’s punishment for immoral behaviour. Same idea.

      • John Gray says:

        Philosophically speaking, a “physicalist” is the opposite of a dualist. In other words, a dualist believes that the soul provides certain aspects of human functioning, whereas the physicalist attributes ALL human functioning, including mental and emotional activities, to being operations of the body. Atheists, for example, are physicalists. However, this does not mean that a physicalist HAS to be someone who denies the importance of the psychological, NOR does a physicalist have to be someone as above described by magnetico1. Moreover, I have friends and acquaintances who are definitely not believers in the soul but who, like magnetico1, also oppose today’s values including the superficial bums-on-seats approach of the medical profession – the approach which says: certainly we’re doing a good job, look how many people are living longer!

        Both physicalism and dualism have their problems, in that, the dualist has to explain how, if there is a soul, it can interact with the physical world and there are basically two kinds of dualist: 1) radical dualists such as Descartes – where there is a very clear divide
        between body and soul, and 2) the more integrationist ones such as Aristotle.

        For the physicalist, there are also major problems in explaining some mental operations in terms of the physical. Consciousness is one such phenomenon, for despite so many theories and constructions to explain it, they have all, to date, been unsuccessful. In fact, on that matter, we are no further forward than Aristotle was.

    • magnetic01 says:

      (Reuters) – The World Health Organisation (WHO) published a report on Wednesday on chronic, or non-communicable diseases — which include diabetes, cancer and respiratory and heart diseases.
      A large percentage of NCDs could be prevented by reductions in their four main behavioral risk factors — tobacco use, physical inactivity, alcohol and unhealthy diets, the WHO said.

  5. magnetic01 says:

    The root of the problem

    The problem lies in what is understood by “health”.

    Consider the World Health Organization’s definition of health instituted in 1948:
    The World Health Organization (WHO) defines health in its preamble as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being.”

    Notwithstanding a few questionable concepts such as “complete”, we can be sure that this definition was a direct result of the Nuremberg trials addressing the horrors of Nazi eugenics. Whatever was directed at Nazi eugenics was also directed at American eugenics. Eugenics is biologically reductionist (materialist/physicalist) or, as noted by the Nazis, “applied biology”. The WHO definition attempts to account for the fact that health is more that just absence of disease, more than just a biological phenomenon. It involves other dimensions such as psychological and social.

    Given that this WHO definition was put into circulation by Brock Chisholm, the first director of the WHO and a eugenicist, there is always a suspicion as to how the WHO, a medical organization, could potentially warp this definition in the long-term. It could have been an “appeasing” definition, given the anti-eugenics sentiment of the time. (From my understanding, the “mental” and “social” well-being aspects were a last-minute inclusion).

    However, what should be noted is the limited scope of the WHO. It does not have a monopoly on health. Being a medical organization, it is intimately bound to the biological level. It is not really a world health organization but a world medical organization – a global medical headquarters. It would have to accept that there are aspects of health that are not its domain or jurisdiction. Just this idea, properly applied, should discourage potentially destructive ventures into social engineering as was seen in eugenics early last century.

    Yet with all this history, as we have seen over the last half century, particularly pertaining to antismoking, the WHO and the medical establishment generally, and contrary to the WHO’s very own definition of health, have deteriorated back into a biological reductionist view of health and ventures into social engineering.

    Over the last half century, health has been reduced to the behavioral dimension of eugenics – anti-tobacco, anti-alcohol, prescribed diet, and physical exercise. The WHO adopted antismoking as a societal ideal many decades ago (Godber Blueprint) and now most nations are signed-up to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. With this ideological stance comes social engineering, i.e., coercion to conformity.

    We have seen smoking bans on hospital grounds where patients have to venture considerable distances in night-attire and in all manner of weather to have a cigarette. This becomes a psychological and social health issue, in addition to the physical health issue. Indoor smoking bans with no prospect of accommodation have alienated particularly the elderly. This is a psychological and social health issue. Denormalization, a repugnant, vulgar concept very much identified with eugenics, has again come to the fore. Smokers have been incessantly slandered, ridiculed, and terrorized by official, government programs of denormalization. This is a psychological and social health issue. Many nonsmokers have been manipulated into irrational fear and bigotry to advance the ideological cause. This is an issue of psychological and social health. Smokers are being bullied out of normal social life on a purely ideological basis. This is an issue of psychological and social health. With this propaganda barrage, medical care professionals are demonstrating a cruel, bigoted streak – again – that can compromise the medical treatment of those who smoke. This is an issue of psychological, social, and physical health. Not only are psychological and social health issues important in their own right, but these can also have detrimental ramifications for physical health. Health has again been reduced to quantification, dollar cost-benefit analyses, another eugenics trait. All of these detrimental consequences inflicted by ideology under medical authority is iatrogenic.

    Everywhere we turn health has again been reduced to only a biological phenomenon (e.g., behavioral) and with the [eugenics] intent of social engineering. “Get healthy”, “he’s looking after himself”, “I work out” all pertain to physicalism. In the obsession with physicalism, psychological, social, moral, and ideo-political aspects of health have been brutalized and discarded – again. And it is the WHO (and America) that leads this assault.

    • margo says:

      WHO is in league with nuclear energy.

    • John Gray says:

      magnetico1 – ““Get healthy”, “he’s looking after himself”, “I work out” all pertain to physicalism. In the obsession with PHYSICALISM, psychological, social, moral, and ideo-political aspects of health have been brutalized and discarded – again. And it is the WHO (and America) that leads this assault.”

      What you are describing is NOT physicalism magnetico1 but “mechanism” – see for example, Ernst Brucke (1819-92) who was one of Freud’s early teachers. What you are describing is a relapse to the past. I agree with you about behaviourism though, but a particular form of behaviourism known as “radical behaviourism.”

  6. junican says:

    At last, a newspaper seems to have broken ranks. The old ‘Thunderer’, the Times, seems to have started to ask questions about ASH’s involvement in quasi-government committees. See Simon Clark, ‘Taking Liberties’.

  7. jaxthefirst says:

    Of course, they could always just recommend that ex-smokers take up smoking again and watch the pounds fall away like magic – much more effective and much more enjoyable! It’s no coincidence that the increase in obesity has almost exactly correllated to the drop in the number of people smoking. But, like the number of pubs closing exactly correllating with the implementation of the smoking ban it’ll be yet another elephant in the room.

  8. jaxthefirst says:

    Whoops – I meant “elephant.” What’s an “elephane??”

  9. Edgar says:

    Elephane is a type of transparent plastic used by pachyderms. They hide behind it when poachers come for their eggs.

  10. smokervoter says:

    Where is the outrage anymore? Where is the shame? There was a time when no elected official would ever dare to broach such an idea for fear of being called a commie pinko Nazi. Not only are they unbridled but they are shameless. They obviously don’t fear any real backlash or they wouldn’t float notions like this. And maybe they’re right. The general public seems to lack the outrage emotion. Maybe it’s the rat race or the stupefying effect of the internet, I don’t know, but it ain’t there anymore.

    I’m no medical expert but isn’t the nature vs nurture breakdown of health problems somewhere around half and half? They’re going after the nurture side here, but what about the nature side? Hell, the same technology that allows them to track your exercise regimen could be used to track your genetic makeup. Shall we wield the carrot and stick by having the council play healthy couple matchmaker? Special needs kids must cost the health treasury a fortune.

    I’ve just read a health economist’s proposal for a no-fault, VAT tax supported healthcare system. We’ve got no-fault auto insurance and no-fault divorces, so why not no-fault medical insurance? The collective insurance pool scheme is inherently flawed as it always leads to the divisive, draconian lifestyle solutions we’re toying around with at present.

  11. smokervoter says:

    If I ruled the world (and Everybody Wants To – still a great song even after all these years) anyone convicted of using the phrase “to help people lead healthier, happier lives” would have the choice of death by hanging or permanent banishment to Australia.

  12. C777 says:

    That little Thunderbird puppett, at it again, Burnham trying to ban certain breakfast cereals.
    You know the little pratt who tried to get a blanket outdoor ban on smoking.
    What is it with these people, Labours rotten boroughs have a lot to answer for,otherwise these muppets wouldn’t get anywhere near parliament.

  13. George Speller says:

    Naked fascism.

  14. Messalina says:

    I’ve seen all those dreadful articles too. They’ve been at it non stop, ad nauseum! The comments are quite interesting too: surprising, well I suppose not really, the number of ‘drones’ (to quote LI’s favourite word, which is a perfect description) who keep coming out with “well I don’t want my taxes paying for their booze, fags, junk food, etc, etc.” Do they really think that if there weren’t so many people on benefits, and that everybody lived a ‘healthy lifestyle’ that they would pay less tax? – somehow, I think not! So I wonder how they feel about their ‘taxes’ being spent on useless anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-obesity campaigns, plain packaging, and fake charities?

    • smokervoter says:

      The dull hum of misinformation broadcast by genteel beekeepers (like the California Dept. of Health Services*) for mass consumption by the drones is quite properly labeled ‘buzz’.

      And yes indeed-y, Leg Iron has put more than his fair share of literary gems into circulation.

      *I’d like to see that ‘buzz’ they put out, wherein each California drone allegedly contributes $400/year to the hive to treat sickly smokers, run through the buzz-killing FactChecker website.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Seeing as how there Lifestyle studies of costs inccurred are total shit lies……its easy to rattle their cages back about taxpayer savings! Thats just a simple argument to justify their desire to continue controlling us all. Then theres the other one about you have to its the law,or smoking bans are the same as outlawing rape,murder,pissing in public etc etc…….The big diference here is we have bathrooms for pissing,we have laws against murder but in order to justify a smoking ban they had to create a justification in second hand smoke junk science. The sames going on with obesity studies that are more created hypee and junk science. The anti-alcohol studies are yet to be truly implemented but Im sure they already have the blueprint the same as the anti-smoking blueprint.

  15. beobrigitte says:

    I must admit, I was only to 1/36th “educated” when coming across the BBC News headlines this morning. I only heard the ugly blond woman proudly announcing that “Labour is demanding a law……..” and I immediately switched the telly off. My blood was boiling. Labour has happily kicked out the smokers and now they kick out the “fatties”. Who is next?

    Quite frankly, Labour can get STUFFED. Here we have proof that Labour is incapable of LEARNING. They must believe that the demand for laws makes them popular.
    What did Labour give us? A smoking ban and debts as well as the death of the traditional working class pubs.
    They could not even keep their promise to review the smoking ban – it is now 3 years overdue! (Which does not say much for this coalition, either).

    WHO in their right minds would want them in power again?

  16. Redz says:

    The original report by the LGiU is about more than obesity: alcohol and smoking are also to be tackled, and I would confidently expect similar measures against them too. The author, Laurie Thraves of Oxford University and SOAS, seems to have no medical qualifications and has spent his career entirely in think tanks. Read the thing and note well how the stick is disguised as the carrot. Lower expenditure is to be disguised as sustainability, an unfunded transfer of responsibilities from central to local government is presented as empowering local communities and cheap preventative medicine is to be called lifestyle changes. The poor will also be given ‘access’ to fresh fruit and vegetables. Welcome to Letchworth – only the virtues of fresh air are missing, but with rising fuel costs a matter of policy under the Greenest Government Ever, no doubt that will come.

    • nisakiman says:

      My youngest daughter recently did her degree at SOAS. It’s a real hotbed of leftyism. Fortunately she was brought up with a fairly firm grip on reality, so she’s not been completely brainwashed. I still have to do a bit of de-propagandising when she comes to visit, though. It’s inevitable I suppose.

      As for “sustainability”, that is a dangerously weasel word, and usually means that the user would like to see us all back in the stone age, rubbing sticks together for fire and reveling in the simple life of the hunter – gatherer.

  17. smokingscot says:

    One reason why they need to watch costs is their pension scheme. By private sector standards it’s quite splendid with a handsome golden handshake to go with it.

    The link is to their calculator, however I did a couple to give you an idea of what they can expect.

    25 years service, retire at 60, final salary £35,000. = Pension £10,900. Lump sum £32,800.

    35 years service, retire at 60, final salary £80,000. = Pension £37,200. Lump sum £111,562.

    A point to bear in mind is the NHS employs 1,400,000 people! Another factor is the greatest increase came about shortly after Brown started to pour money into it (shortly after his firstborn died).

    The age profile within the NHS therefore has a distinct blip from roughly 18 years ago and they have a policy that tends to favour people with experience so, about age 30 to 35. That’s now coming up to bite them in the backside.

    • Phil Button says:

      I am a recipient of an NHS pension soon. I am a good doctor in many ways. I have payed through the nose for it and worked my butt off. I accept that it is a good scheme but I deserve it unlike some of my shitty colleagues.

  18. smokingscot says:


    Enjoy your pension Sir.

    Most people in the NHS deserve it as well as the perks that they enjoy whilst employed, including the status cars that come with some jobs and the rather questionable Grey Leasing arrangement (whereby they can buy an old banger and get paid for using it).

    From a Human Resource Management standpoint, 1,400,000 employees is simply not manageable in any consistent way and that’s why we see so much seepage from front line service into petty little empires that spring up as halo projects. Smoke Free South West being one of many examples.

    In relation to what private sector employees can expect, it is remarkably generous with retirement from age 55 at a slightly reduced rate and almost all expected to go at age 60. This in relation to the majority in the private sector who are expected to work until 65 to pick up far less.

    The reason I brought this up is in relation to the NHS is their need to severely cut costs. It seems they are, by reducing or denying public access to treatments. Smokers, fat, alcohol and such are headline stuff, but (as Legs commented previously) they’re fast tracking the aged and infirm.

    This is typical of a huge organisation where internal politics matter more than core issues. It reflects on the management that they cannot stop this misappropriation of funding – and every employee engaged in these “prevention programmes” is extremely expensive.

    In part the management of trusts etc need to fire back to government that many of the bad things that people do are a reflection of the failure of central government. The NHS is being used to treat symptoms of poor housing, education and lack of jobs. If you’ve worked in the front line NHS then you’ll be only too aware of that fact.

    The NHS cannot fix society and its wrong of the government to force them to try.

    One of the issues Frank, myself and others have raised is the disconnect. It’s a huge subject in it’s own right, however I’ll shoot for a couple. The means, the method and validation. With smoking, we question all three aspects and I personally have a fixation on their method of validating the results. I do not believe for one second that 250,000 people quit for good because of their stoptober thing. I do believe they sent out 250,000 packs and they spent a fortune on the adverts, same as they’re doing with the tumorous cigarette. Yet, at the other end of the chain, we have 25% youth unemployment and cheap bulk tobacco, so every quit they get costs society close to £1,500 and every new
    smoker costs peanuts, with the added advantage that they don’t appear to be smoking because they don’t buy through retail outlets!

    It’s beyond logical argument, it’s beyond ridicule, it’s evolved into a very sick farce. But it’s still a very lucrative one for those acting out their parts; most financed one way or another by the Department of Health.

    Were it a private sector organisation, heads would have rolled a long time ago – and it’s partly the frustration of seeing money pouring into a black hole and watching people get rich on the back of ineptitude and incompetence that irritates the hell out of so many people.

  19. jaxthefirst says:

    ” … the frustration of seeing money pouring into a black hole and watching people get rich on the back of ineptitude and incompetence that irritates the hell out of so many people.”

    Beautiful summing up, SS. I hope you posted it (while comments were still running) under that dozy MP’s “why does everyone hate me?” column in the Graun, because it says so much more than all the (accurate) insults could possibly say. It applies to virtually all areas of public expenditure (although I quite accept that the DoH is the worst culprit), so I intend to steal it shamelessly and use it in any suitably-politically-based comments sections in the future, if I may?

  20. Pingback: Naughty | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s