Wednesday, February 04, 2009

Give 'em an inch...

The Englishman has brought to my attention a fellow by the name of Dr. Alan Maryon-Davis. Alan is one of the many unelected quacks who want to run your life. In a more enlightened age men like him would be shot like dogs, instead they are writing articles for the BBC:

'Why we need more nannying'

A worrying start.

It seems that not a day goes past without the government launching yet another health campaign, issuing another lifestyle guideline or passing some new law banning this or that threat to our safety or well-being.

Yes, we've noticed that, Alan, and quite frankly it's starting to get on our tit-end.
Is the government 'nannying' us too much? Is it trying too hard to micro-manage our health?

Surely the only sane answer to that question is a firm 'yes'?
I say firmly - no. 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.

And that, Alan, is what sets authoritarian fuck-nuts like you apart from decent society. You believe a perfect society can be created if only we make enough things illegal. You are a dangerous idiot.
We accept the laws on seat-belts, crash helmets and drink-driving because we know they reduce road injuries and deaths.

Speak for yourself, sunshine. I "accept" the law on seat-belts insofar as I obey it. What I find morally "unacceptable" is that a person can be stopped, ticketed, fined and ultimately incarcerated for doing something that does not harm another living being. In fact, there is a damn good case for pin-pointing the passing of the crash-helmet law as being the first step down the slippery slope, something that MPs pointed out when it was debated in 1979:
"Why should anyone be forced by criminal sanction not to hurt himself? That was never, at least until the crash helmet legislation, a principle of our criminal law. Where will it end? Why make driving without a seat belt a crime because it could save a thousand lives, when we could stop cigarette smoking by the criminal law and save 20,000 lives a year? Why not stop by making it criminal the drinking of alcohol, which would save hundreds of thousands of lives?

In the end we shall find that our liberties have all but disappeared. It might be possible to save more lives in Britain by this measure—and by countless other measures. But I do not see the virtue in saving more lives by legislation which will produce in the end a Britain where nobody wants to live."

You see Alan, those who opposed the seat-belt legilsation said it would set a dangerous precedent because cranks, fanatics and totalitarians would use it to say "we forced to people to wear seat-belts, therefore we can force people to [fill in the blank]". Most people thought that no reasonable person would ever do such a thing, but of course they did, and you're doing it right now.

And, by the way, drink-driving laws do not even belong in the same sentence as seat-belt and crash helmet laws. Drink driving laws exist not to protect the driver but to protect other people - the only legitimate reason for any law to ever be made.
We are happy to see bans on tobacco advertising and the selling of alcohol and tobacco to minors because we understand the dangers for young people.


Fallacious reasoning again. Laws against underage consumption have fuck all to do with banning tobacco advertising.

And to my mind the really shining example of how far the public have come in accepting laws to help protect us from self-harm is the huge support for smoke-free public spaces and workplaces throughout the UK.


Huge support when employees of ASH conduct phone surveys, maybe. Not such huge support when it comes to people voting with their feet and wallet.

Weekly pub closures before the ban: 4. Weekly pub closures after the ban: 39.

This has already saved many lives...

Got any evidence for that, you lying quack bastard? Perhaps you were thinking of the rise in heart attacks in Scotland? Or maybe the fact that there are now more smokers in England than there were before the ban? And in Scotland. And in Ireland.

...and will, I believe, prove to be the greatest step forward in public health since the birth of the NHS.


A greater step forward than the eradication of polio? A greater step forward than water flouridation, the prevention of spina bifida, open-heart surgery, wiping out small-pox or developing vaccines for rubella and cervical cancer? 

This is what years of fanaticism does to the fragile mind of the true believer: a total loss of perspective.

But it was ordinary people who really tipped the balance to change the law. It was the steady shift in public opinion that gave legislators the courage.


Bullshit. It was an assortment of fake charities and bigoted politicians.

It proved that we, the people, can have a powerful influence on the way laws can be made on our behalf.


No. It proved that you, the doctors - when you're not murdering Mancunians and driving cars into airports - can pressurise a corrupt and spineless government into overturning a manifesto commitment.

We need to press for more legislation to improve and protect health and well-being. We need a big stick to curb the worst excesses of the various commercial interests who shape our lifestyle.


A big stick? Good God man, at least try not to sound like a fascist bully. And you can fuck off with your "commercial interests shaping our lifestyles" as well. Why do you medicos always assume that "industry" is to blame for people choosing not to subsist on broccoli and tap water? Has it never occurred to you that people buy things because they want to? Businesses respond to demand. Unlike you and your Parliamentarian pig-fucking mates, they can't force anyone to do anything.

So if you want me to choose between big government and big business, give me big business every time. A quick, back-of-an-envelope list of crimes committed by big government would include genocide, torture, oppression, war, extortion, murder, surveillance, censorship and theft. The crimes of big business are pretty much limited to (1) making things and (2) advertising them.

We've been largely successful with the tobacco industry, and now it's time to shift the focus onto alcohol and junk-food.


And then the meat industry, then the dairy industry, then the motor industry... etc. But that would never happen now, would it? Because we all know that the slippery slope is a fallacy.

What next? I would like to see a ban on smoking in cars with a child on board and a ban on displays of cigarettes in shops.


Try and keep up, Alan. You cunts have already succeeded in convincing the government to do the latter, and in the most corrupt way imaginable.

I would like to see a real hike in tax on alcohol and a ban on deep price-cuts for booze.

Why not, eh? It's your fucking world. Don't mind us.

I would like to see a wider ban on junk-food adverts around TV programmes watched largely by children.


There is already a ban on 'junk-food' advertising before the watershed. Tell me, which programmes on after 9pm are "largely watched by children"?

I would like to see a whole raft of other legislation for health.


I can't even imagine what the fucker has in mind here. Rationing? Fat camps? The ducking stool?
We need more laws to ensure that the world in which we live, work and play will help promote and protect our health.


Listen dipshit, if you're so desperate to make more laws, why don't you put yourself up as a political candidate? After you've won your landslide victory with a manifesto of jacking up taxes and hassling everyone except vegans, we'll talk about this "whole raft" of legislation. Until then, shut the fuck up and mind your own business.

This is not 'nannying'.

You say that, Alan, but, your article is titled 'Why we need more nannying'.

This is responsible government acting on behalf of a consenting public.


Really? Because judging by the comments left on the Beeb's website, the public - though they have no choice but to "consent" - think you're an evil little cunt. Like this gentleman, for instance:
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'.


I can only concur.

25 comments:

max the impaler said...

Can you imagine what a night out with this pretentious boring bastard would be like ? Live for ever...in his fuckwit world...no thanks..Give me someone who enjoys life, a good laugh...piss on his over regulated puritan bollox.Up the rebels....righteous tosspots!

The Filthy Engineer said...

I am reserving a lamp post in my road for this Totalitarian fuckwit.

Message to self:

More piano wire is needed

Sargon the Demented said...

Damn straight on all counts FS. I even went so far as to set my own blog up, to respond to that piece. But you beat me to it... and far more eloquently than I would have managed, I am sure.

In fact, I congratulate you on getting to the end of the piece in the first place: I think I got to the 3rd paragraph before my blood pressure hit the jackpot.

Fuck, they are such bastards. Hanging's too good for them ( <- that's what I called my blog)

Dick Puddlecote said...

Great article TFS. Did you listen to the audio clip though? I did, and spluttered soup (toothache) all over my new monitor.

The guy says that he is a Libertarian!

A more pize cunt it is hard to imagine.

The hansard snippet from 1979 surely puts to bed the silly idea that a slippery slope doesn't exist. These cunts barely get one measure through before they are rubbing their hands and asking what's next.

Guthrum said...

I actually heard him on R4 this morning, he started with the immortal phrase ' I am a Libertarian ' WTF

Pavlov's Cat said...

Thanks to the Devil openig my eyes , I now check out all these so called societies, trusts , funds etc. to see what level of govt. 30 pieces they are taking to improve thier pensions.

According to the Faculty for Health website they are funded by subscriptions, yet when you check the latest set of accounts from 2006-2007 they recieved grants of £1.5 mio from various bodies including a straight £1.0 mio from the Teaching Public Health Network ( entirely funded by the Dept of Health)
I'm sorry but this makes you a Righteous Shill and not someone to be listened to.

full account at http://www.fphm.org.uk/about_faculty/annual_reports.asp

SteveShark said...

Excellent article!
Yes, such people are dangerous - and dangerous because they are taken at face value.
Get beneath the surface and you have yet another smarmy lying fucktard with a repressive agenda.

marksany said...

Thanks for the tip-off. My comment posted atthe BBC:

"Let's ban everythinjg that could be harmful: Smoking, alcohol, fat, meat, crossing the road, cars, worrying, coffee, pubs, knives, metal, electricity, voting, gas, learning, carpet, shoe polish, petrol, catheters, oil, solvents, kettles, breathing, war, cleaning products, needles, pressurised gases, boilers, paint, any source of combustion, fun, ladders, trees, stairs, donkeys, dogs, food processors, cats, hats, bicycles, sex, anything that could fit in a child's mouth, lightbulbs, chocolate, not feeling my balls every 10 minutes, running, paracetamol, writing, asprin, computers, glass, ceramics, roads, shops, factories, the sea, sleeping, envelopes, lifts, biscuits, cookers, phones, radios, tvs, books, coal, trains, clocks, cows, socks, hats, insects, any plant with thorns, irons, guitars, trousers, tools, anti-depressants, defibrillators, paper, scissors, elbows, swiming pools, tea, talking, houses, libraries, fingers, coffins, stinging nettles, music, airplanes, plastic, arguing, rust, kerbs, bells, buckets, boxes, handles, pumps, sweets, apple seeds, rabbits, treadmills..."

Paul Lockett said...

I listened to the audio, waiting for him to trot out the tedious old "we have to force you to be healthy because it costs the NHS money if you aren't" line and he didn't disappoint

I posted on this earlier to make the point that, not only is he an obnoxious authoritarian, but the seat-belt laws he uses as part of his justification can increase the danger to the public.

Shaun said...

I don't know how we poor proles could possibly get by without the dictats of our betters, keeping us safe from the marginal risks we choose to subject ourselves to while we try to live what passes for a free life...

FurFoxAche said...

I'm sure we need fine chaps such as this. I find such advice invaluable when I go about my daily life. Sure, I don't leave the house much and survive on a diet of bottled water and Ryvita, but it's doing me good, right?

Man with Many Chins said...

The only thing that can be said is What a cunt.

Pass me the piano wire!

Anonymous said...

nice list Marksany, but with the Filthy Engineer and the Man with Many Chins indicating the possibility for mischief with piano wire, I think it will very high on any list of banned substances.

The Bear At The Table said...

This wretched sack of dried mole rat excrement displays the highest signs of megalomania seen most prominantly in Central Asian dictators.

A total disgrace to matter itself.

Falco said...

Intresting to note that the only supportive comment for the dear Dr. was from a chap in Oman.

The Great Simpleton said...

No sacrifice is worth an extra 3 years in a geriatric hospital suffering from advanced Alzheimer's disease.

Katabasis said...

FFS if he really was worried about my health, perhaps he could encourage me not to feel guilty for even visiting my doctor, never mind taking up more than three minutes of his time.

Anonymous said...

Well hold onto yer hats if you're a smoker.

This from Lord Nazi introducing the Health Bill in the upper house yesterday:
"We have had a passionate and informed debate on the important tobacco proposals in the Bill. They will form one part of a new comprehensive national tobacco strategy, which will be published later this year."

What fucking tobacco strategy?!?!

Home bans next betcha

Chalcedon said...

There are times that I miss not smoking my fave cigars. I really enjoyed them, even if they we cheap and 'nasty'. I used to like cherots and stuff but then I was a student in a city and we had a class tobacconist ony a half mile walk away. You would think a medical student would know better. LOL. I used to drink like a fish them too. Great days. I was immortal of course as we all were in our late teens through to mid twenties. My daughters moaned at me for years to give up smoking, having been indoctrinated at school that it was horrible and would kill me. Eventually I folded and gave up. It was surprisingly easy having two cold back to back.

HOWEVER......one day I think I might start again just to spite the fucking nazi health fantatics almost forcing people not to be able to exercise choise. It was my choice to pollute my lungs. It was my choice to give up. It was my duty not to smoke in the house as I didn't want to have my children experience a smokey environment. It was my choice to give up. It will be my choice if I start to smoke again and the srate, Stasi and apparachiks, commisars etc can fuck themselves.

Chalcedon said...

OK, my typing sucks re spelling, but I'm sure you get my drift!

Lysdexia lures KO!

Ian said...

One of my personal favourite justifications in the never-ending march to ban things is the "burden it puts on the NHS" - the logic being that because the state has to fund our healthcare it is entitled to tell us to lead healthy lives. I wonder how popular the idea of the NHS would have been at the time if people had been told that it would become a means of making us live according to doctor's orders... I have difficulty articulating how much I loathe these people.

The Filthy Smoker said...

Quite so, Ian. Every argument for making people "pay their way" through sin taxes is an argument for scrapping the NHS and making people pay per illness. After all, since these jokers believe that most diseases are caused by lifestyle (or 'sin'), that would be the fairest model.

Chris F J Cyrnik said...

I tried to post this on the BBC website, but failed.

Dr Alan Maryon-Davis and his ilk have spread like an insidious virus throughout this once green and pleasant land over the last three decades or so. It is their sole intention along with politicians to control every aspect of our lives…whether we wish for it or not. They believe that they, and they alone, have the right to tell us what is good for us.

Take the smoking ban for example. No genuine public consultation ever occurred, only a public sector consultation took place…in other words the government-funded agencies that were consulted, only gave answers in support of government policies on smoking.

The smoking ban was supposedly to protect us from SHS (second hand smoke). Well, why don’t we examine that?

Patricia Hewitt MP said this:
"This legislation will help to prevent the unnecessary deaths caused every year from second-hand smoke, and recognises that there is absolutely no safe level of exposure."
I have asked these questions many times of ASH, The British Heart Foundation, UK Cancer Research, Freedom Of Information, and the DOH (Department Of Health).

Not one of them supplied answers.

1. How many people died last year of so called SHS, how are these figures recorded, and how can they be verified?
2. Can you supply autopsy evidence of anyone ever dying of SHS?
3. How does SHS manifest itself in the human body, whereby it’s readily identifiable as an irrefutable cause of death?
4. Can you name a pathologist, who at anytime, anywhere in the world, has carried out an autopsy, and declared this person has died of SHS?
5. If smoking causes cancer, then why do many long-term smokers live into very old age?
6. What is meant by ‘no safe level of exposure’, since we take in higher levels of these same chemicals from other sources?

Now then Doc, you health guru you! I’m happy for you to ‘nanny’ me out of existence providing you take up my offer.

Would you, and a team of experts of your own choosing be prepared to take part in a programme on the BBC, which would be based on a courtroom style format, where witnesses would be cross-examined, including yourself of course, and then allow the jury & judge decide where the truth lies about SHS (second hand smoke)…after all – what have you got to lose?

I will be only too happy to supply my contact details through the BBC website, when you’re ready.

I don’t think I need to hold my breath…what do you think Doc…are you prepared to back your words?

David Gillies said...

I have a powerful urge to hit this cunt in the larynx with a length of scaffolding pipe.

I can only watch aghast from 8,000km away at what the evil authoritarian New Labour scum have done and continue to do on a daily basis to the country of my birth.

John's New Blog said...

The day they passed the seat-belt law I bought a 1960 morris with no requirement to wear seat-belts. When they brought in no-smoking pubs, I stuck a pool-table, darts-board and bar in my garage. Any more of this shit and I'll have to buy my own fuckin' Island