web analytics

FANATICS NEVER STOP

By Pete Moore On November 7th, 2018

What, you thought it was about tobacco and sugar?

A “meat tax” could prevent almost 6,000 deaths per year in the UK, according to researchers, but should politicians be telling people what they can and can’t eat?

Scientists at the University of Oxford say governments should consider imposing price hikes on red meat – such as beef, lamb and pork – to reduce consumption.

They say it would save lives and more than £700m in UK healthcare costs, according to new research.

“Researchers” say it would “save lives”. Therefore it must be done. That we have agency, free will and can make up our own minds is irrelevant to fanatics. They will never stop insisting that every tiny aspect of your life be ruled by them.

Agreeing that tobacco, sugar and – oh ok then then – red meat should be taxed, for our own good of course, just makes it worse because it emboldens them. Then one day you’ll regret the support you foolishly gave.

 

6 Responses to “FANATICS NEVER STOP”

  1. Researchers” say it would “save lives”. Therefore it must be done.

    I listened to Nick Ferrari this morning humiliate this “professor” to within an inch of his worthless career.

    I really felt for the lefty professor.

    It was excruciating to listen to him flounder about.

    Bless his little lefty cotton socks.

    Sack him, sorry, surplus to requirements.

    Not required.

  2. Nick Ferrari asked the dopey professor “what would you suggest replace a sausage”?

    “lentils” replied the professor!.

    Liberals have hit rock bottom.

    😁

  3. “Researchers” say it would “save lives”. Therefore it must be done. That we have agency, free will and can make up our own minds is irrelevant to fanatics. They will never stop insisting that every tiny aspect of your life be ruled by them.

    I’m confused Pete. You support nanny-state drugs prohibition on the basis that it “saves lives”.

    So it’s only some stuff that should be banned / discouraged on health grounds?

    If so, who should decide what you may and may not consume? The government?

  4. Looking at the long term situation, if all these 6000 lives each year which are saved then live for, say, another ten years, what will this cost the state? Especially if they are pensioners with a state pension and increasing need for the NHS. Even someone like myself, who is reasonably healthy, has pills for high blood pressure and statins because they are ‘saving lives’. Plus the flu jab, regular blood tests and an annual “MoT”. So 6000 extra each year will be needing this, and more, at what cost to the NHS? The 700 million won’t go far to cover these extra costs.

  5. How can you save 6000 people who are going to die anyway ? And anyway, why 6000 and not 6001 or 5999 ?

    These ‘experts’ are funded by government to give a thin gloss of respectability,so that government can justify taxing people for something else.

  6. I oppose Bloomberg taxes on healthy foods.

    Nothing wrong with meat in moderation.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.