And the trouble with blogging taking a back seat is that I end up with about 83,000,000,000 pages of stuff that I want to write about in my Dock and the idea of trying to pick up the threads and remember what it is that I wanted to say becomes increasingly unattractive.
This, coupled with the frustration of feeling that I have said it all before, has led to a quiet few days at The Kitchen. Because, despite the fact that new readers may not know it, I have, in the main, said it all before.
Let's take this all-new, all-out assault on our right to drink booze whenever, wherever and in whatever fucking quantities we like; I could scream at the fucking medical profession who...
Actually, let's start there—doctors: shut the fuck up. Especially Professor Ian Gilmore of the Royal College of Physicians and all of his hangers-on: why don't you shut your fucking faces, you cunts. Increasingly, you medico chimps are becoming massively discredited in your fucking advice on how we should live our lives.
It was only a couple of weeks ago, after all, that it was revealed that you had pulled the "safe" alcohol limits out of your collective arse, and then there was the crap talked about red meat and cancer and now, as The Englishman points out, the salt intake advice was utter crap too.
In a paper published in the October issue of the European Journal of Epidemiology [PDF], prominent Dutch scientist D.E. Grobbee and colleagues in the Rotterdam Study concluded that urinary sodium is not significantly associated with myocardial infarction, stroke, or overall mortality...
For fuck's sake, even your own are starting to get embarrassed by the stream of utter bollocks which is being peddled by some medicos in the name of all of them.
Delving deeper, [Dr Peverly] states: "However, my remit is a wider one. This is further evidence that it is us, the medical profession, who don’t know what we are talking about. I never fell for the bollocks about salt, but I have been as guilty as the rest of spreading disinformation and inaccurate advice about a whole manner of other medical subjects. It is becoming embarrassing."
You're not fucking kidding, sunshine.
After this catalogue of errors and... well, let's face it... the discovery that you bastards have been peddling lies, there are still some fucks who just don't get it. So I'll spell it out for you.
WE DO NOT BELIEVE A WORD THAT YOU SAY ANYMORE.
But even so, where does this desire to regulate our lives come from? Well, John Trenchard makes the connections.
What the BBC does NOT mention is that the get-tough-on-alcohol policy originates from the World Health Organisation and the European Comission.
Don't believe me? Have a read of this.
The policy project is called Bridging the Gap—alcohol policy network in the context of a larger Europe
Note how the BBC report focuses on young people drinking, and yet in that EU link we find:"to improve young people’s participation and information as priority themes of the Commission’s 2001 White Paper on youth policy (as suggested by the Commission’s proposed set of objectives to Member States on 14 April 2003)"
This leads on to another EU document entitled Combating alcohol-related harm in Europe—evidence of effective and cost-effective measures.
It has a series of recommendations and I quote verbatim:The World Health Organisation European Region Framework on Alcohol policy
The WHO framework is to succeed to the WHO regional action plan, with more concrete strategic guidelines for policy options.
The framework aims to encourage and facilitate the development and implementation of global, regional, national and local policies to prevent and reduce the harm caused by alcohol.
After having reviewed the most recent data about alcohol in European and the existing initiatives—among them, the Bridging the Gap project is listed—, the report identifies 10 areas for action:
- Information and education,
- Public, private and working environments,
- Availability of alcohol products,
- Promotion of alcohol products,
- Responsibilities of the alcoholic beverage industry and hospitality sector,
- Society’s capacity to respond to alcohol-related harm,
- Formulation, implementation and monitoring of policy.
According to the framework, a strong case can be made to restrict the availability of alcohol products through an effective taxation policy and limiting the hours of sales.
The frameworks also emphasizes the participation of civil society as essential in prevention, treatment, and reduction of alcohol related problems in society, as well as in advocating to ensure that Member States develop and implement effective alcohol policies.
Non governmental organisations are also recognised as "vital checks and balances by highlighting practices or policies of vested interests."
It foresees that a progress report on the framework should be produced every third year, together with the organisation of a high-level forum on alcohol to discuss the outcomes and recommendations of the progress report. The progress report shall highlight levels of implementation and emerging challenges and threats to public health.
My emphasis in bold—ah yes. Those NGOs crop up.
"Well, so what?" I hear you cry.
One of them is "Alcohol Concern". You can download their accounts over here at the Charity Commission.
It's supposed to be a "charity", yet it's funding is:
- 38% Department of Health
- 31% "Project Grants"
It had funding of over £1 million in 2006, some of which breaks down, in part, to the following:
- Department of Health: £440,000
- Comic Relief: £50,000
- Parenting Fund: £170,736*
- National Treatment Agency: £34,900
- AERC: £6,050
£440,000 of taxpayers money to a lobbying charity is a sizeable wad of cash in comparision to their total of £1 millon. So, you can see what is going on here - it's a merry-go-round designed to fool the electorate into believing that independent lobbying on alcohol policy is going on , when it's actually the government funding the lobbying to lobby themselves.
It is rather similar to what Friends of the Earth do with the EU: the EU pays FotE funds so that FotE can lobby the EU. In fact, it's exactly the same.
In brief , the merry-go-round can be summarised as such:
- EU Commission issues a "policy".
- Lobby "charity" issues a report in response.
- Media , particularly the BBC, laps it up, not telling you about point 1.
- Government responds and "does something".
- Government funds lobby charity.
- Go back to step 1.
It's a self-serving endless loop in which the ordinary electorate are not involved, are not fully informed, and it also serves to hide EU policy as UK government policy.
That is why the electorate feel apathetic—because they aren't fucking involved in these policy decisions in the first place and are being lied to by the MSM at the same time.
We need to take a very close look at all of these government-funded, pork-barrel NGOs and really look at what they do, where their funds come from and what their relationship to government is. And we most certainly cannot rely of the BBC to do it because the BBC is one of them.
* John Trenchard looks at The Parenting Fund accounts and, sure enough, they are almost entirely state-funded.
The vast bulk of it's income in 2006 was the £9,806,916 granted from the Department of Education & Skills—i.e. the taxpayer, out of a total income of £11,613,991.
Voluntary donations to this "charity" in 2006 totalled a mere £2,500.
Not so much a charity—more of a government department.
So, do you want to know who is in charge of this lovely, taxpayer-funded "charity"? Yes, you do...
And who is in charge of this organisation?
Over here we find out :"Fiona Millar is a journalist specialising in education and parenting issues. She started her career on the Mirror Group's graduate training scheme then worked on the Daily Mirror and the Daily Express, as a news reporter, lobby correspondent and freelance feature writer. She co-authored a book of interviews with prominent women' By Faith and Daring' with Glenys Kinnock in 1993.
Between 1997 and 2003 she worked at Downing Street as a special adviser to the Prime Minister. She now writes a column in Education Guardian, is a contributor to the Guardian comment pages, LBC radio, the New Statesman and regularly takes part in television and radio debates about education.."
No chance of her being a radical far-right libertarian.
None at all, and there's another reason why that should be so: as I pointed out in the comments, Fiona Millar is also the partner of Alastair Campbell (who is the father of her children, as Wikipedia so coyly puts it).
Well, who'da thunk it? Who would have thought that the person running a charity which receives huge chunks of taxpayers' money generously doled out by the NuLabour government would have a husband who was, at one point, very high up in the NuLabour government?
They also have a very extensive press release archive—you can see what is going on here. It's the usual ruse:
- "Charity" releases report or press release.
- Media laps it up.
- Government "does something" in response.
- Government funds "charity" , on the quiet.
- Go back to step 1.
Next time you see the "Parenting Fund" being mentioned in the media, note how it's never stated that well over 90% of the funding of this "charity" is from the taxpayer.
Charities like the Parenting Fund are paid for, in the main, by the taxpayer and yet the voters have no means of redress, no democratic control over these deeply corrupt organisations. All of this is very important; after all, these charities comprise a huge part of the "Third Sector" that David Cameron is so very keen on using, effectively, to replace government departments.
Given Cameron's plans, this problem really isn't going to go away. And I can only see one proper solution to all of this mendacity: make it illegal for the government to fund charities at all.
Either that, or any charity which obtains, say, more than 10% of its funds from the government must be prefixed with a code—GC (Government Charity), for instance. So, it would be GC The Parenting Fund—in any public mention of the charity in the media, so that we know that they effectively work for the state...