Scintillating BBC grovelling to govt

[sunnysan]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7866833.stm

This "expert" reckons we welcome government intervention. He fails to even acknowledge that their should be at least some sense of parental or individual responsiblity.

The best bit:


"I would like to see a whole raft of other legislation for health.
This is not 'nannying'. This is responsible government acting on behalf of a consenting public. "

Excellent stuff. Do you think they are joking? Its not april fools yet surely

[Mich the Tester]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7866833.stm

This "expert" reckons we welcome government intervention. He fails to even acknowledge that their should be at least some sense of parental or individual responsiblity.

The best bit:


"I would like to see a whole raft of other legislation for health.
This is not 'nannying'. This is responsible government acting on behalf of a consenting public. "

Excellent stuff. Do you think they are joking? Its not april fools yet surely

I would like to see a ban on banning things.

[bogeyman]

"I would like to see a whole raft of other legislation for health.
This is not 'nannying'. This is responsible government acting on behalf of a consenting public. "

apathetic, compliant and utterly stupid

[Mich the Tester]

‘’…huge support for smoke-free public spaces and workplaces throughout the UK.
This has already saved many lives…’

Evidence?

‘Voluntary codes of practice - in effect self-policing by the food and drink industry - simply haven't worked.’

Evidence? How can you know if things would have been better or worse than without the voluntary codes?

‘…the health lobby has been trying to get a simple standardised 'traffic-light' scheme on the front of packaged foods so that shoppers can instantly tell if an item is high, medium or low in fat, sugar and salt…’

Evidence that this will help? What’s wrong with a high calorie diet for those who exercise a lot or do heavy work outside in the cold? How do the Japanese manage to live so long while eating a lot of salt? (and smoking like chimneys, but I wouldn't suggest that's good for you)


Personally I think if there is something people need to be protected against, it’s irresponsible doctors forgetting their scientific training and wildly speculating about what government policies might aid our health. Anyway, if someone prefers to live a shorter life but enjoy their chips, beer and deep-fried mars bars, who has any right to stop them?

[expat]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7866833.stm

This "expert" reckons we welcome government intervention. He fails to even acknowledge that their should be at least some sense of parental or individual responsiblity.

The best bit:


"I would like to see a whole raft of other legislation for health.
This is not 'nannying'. This is responsible government acting on behalf of a consenting public. "

Excellent stuff. Do you think they are joking? Its not april fools yet surely

Grrr

PS thank you Mich for a more articulate reply.

Edit: my best bit:

I see an increasing acceptance that we, all of us, need not only more information and guidance from government, but also more legislation to save us from ourselves.

Information, OK. Legislation to save us from ourselves? "All of us" need that? Not me, mister.

The tumbrils were made for people like him.

[ratewhore]

Anyway, if someone prefers to live a shorter life but enjoy their chips, beer and deep-fried mars bars, who has any right to stop them?

That's the choice we face isn't it? As a nation, we either accept that we are (mainly) mature adults who are happy to take responsibility and acknowledge our choices may be bad for us, or, we defer to the government to ban the bad stuff for us.

People need to be careful of hypocrisy. If I think back to the smoking ban, I was mainly supportive of it. There was a lot of heated debate at the time and I'm sure there will be a lot of people who were all for the smoking ban who will disagree with the view being put forward by this Doctor.

That, to me, is hypocritical...

[bogeyman]

That's the choice we face isn't it? As a nation, we either accept that we are (mainly) mature adults who are happy to take responsibility and acknowledge our choices may be bad for us, or, we defer to the government to ban the bad stuff for us.

People need to be careful of hypocrisy. If I think back to the smoking ban, I was mainly supportive of it. There was a lot of heated debate at the time and I'm sure there will be a lot of people who were all for the smoking ban who will disagree with the view being put forward by this Doctor.

That, to me, is hypocritical...

Good point. I was never supportive of the smoking ban however - even though I haven't smoked for many years.

I can only assume that the Labour party has no financial contributions from the tobacco lobby.

It does seem to suck up the the alcohol lobby quite a bit tho. You can drink yourself insensible for twopence, 24 hours a day - but don't light up whatever you do.

[expat]

‘’…huge support for smoke-free public spaces and workplaces throughout the UK.
This has already saved many lives…’

Evidence?

Huge support for smoke-free public spaces and workplaces?

Support for there being some available, yes. Huge support for there being nothing else, i.e. you just cannot smoke anywhere, whether e.g. the landlord wants to allow it or not: I don't think so.

But even if there is huge support, that doesn't make it OK. There is something here that bossy types like this will never understand: Even if the overwhelming majority of people in the country think that you should not be allowed to smoke anywhere at all, that does not justify the government's making it so; because the government can only legitimately exercise powers delegated from the people, and the people can only legitimately delegate powers that they themselves legitimately possess; and the power to regulate all aspects of other people's lives is not a power that anybody legitimately possesses; therefore the government can not have obtained this power, for there is nowhere to obtain it from.

[expat]

I commend a more direct analysis from one of the BBC's public contributors:

Only an 'expert' who's got rich off the taxpayer's teat could write such a self-congratulatory, self-aggrandizing puff for himself and his fellow bureacrats. Only the BBC, a self-appointed quango paid for by a compulsory tax would print it as 'serious news'.
Alex Clarke, Brora, Highlands

[Mich the Tester]

Huge support for smoke-free public spaces and workplaces?

Support for there being some available, yes. Huge support for there being nothing else, i.e. you just cannot smoke anywhere, whether e.g. the landlord wants to allow it or not: I don't think so.

But even if there is huge support, that doesn't make it OK. There is something here that bossy types like this will never understand: Even if the overwhelming majority of people in the country think that you should not be allowed to smoke anywhere at all, that does not justify the government's making it so; because the government can only legitimately exercise powers delegated from the people, and the people can only legitimately delegate powers that they themselves legitimately possess; and the power to regulate all aspects of other people's lives is not a power that anybody legitimately possesses; therefore the government can not have obtained this power, for there is nowhere to obtain it from.

Actually I want evidence for the bit that says 'saved many lives'. How many?