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.