web analytics


By David Vance On May 20th, 2013 at 12:49 pm

Should schools provide young children with lessons about pornography?

“Young children should hear about the dangers of pornography as soon as they have access to the internet, leading head teachers say. The ready availability of explicit material online has prompted serious concerns from the National Association of Head Teachers. General secretary Russell Hobby said “the conversation should start” when children started going online. But he stressed this was not about showing pornography in class.”

I think that this idea is wrong. Schools should not be having “a conversation” about porn with pupils. It isn’t the business of teachers to discuss porn. Responsibility lies with the PARENTS. It’s time the State stopped trying to act as the parent.


By David Vance On April 6th, 2013 at 11:00 am


The sheep like mindset of people here is beyond parody. At a time of severe economic recession, the Stormont diktat is to raise taxes on people…and hit the poorest hardest.  But hey, they are saving the environment that makes it ok – on and mimicking the Republic, equally important for the Nationalists encamped at Stormont.

THE 5p bag tax comes into force in Northern Ireland stores on Monday, and while some shoppers see it as an inconvenience – and others as “another stealth tax” – most agree that something must be done to clear the Province of the scourge of the unsightly litter caused by 160 million bags every year. In a survey of shops in Portadown, the attitude was: “It’s a bit of a nuisance, but we can live with it, and it has to be said that plastic bags cause untold damage to the environment and are a terrible eyesore everywhere.The levy is 5p per bag, rising to 10p after the first year..”

Let’s leave aside unscientific asinine surveys and just admit that this leftwing social engineering will hit everybody, cost us all extra £££, and at a time when people have less cash than ever before.

The puerile comparisons with what happened in the Irish Republic conveniently ignore the pesky detail that a similar tax was introduced FIVE YEARS before the recession, in boomtime days. Is anyone seriously suggesting that such a consumer tax would be introduced NOW by an Irish Government? The clowns at Stormont are using their powers to punish, it is all they can do. To introduce such a punitive tax in good times when people can perhaps at least afford it is one thing, but here in Northern Ireland we have a VERY stretched economy with record levels of unemployment. Who in their RIGHT mind would decide this is the moment to take cash from consumers?

As for the issue of rubbish, I also find plastic bags lying around abhorrent. I live in the countryside and each morning, on the strip of grass outside my house and parallel to the main road, I have to remove plastic bottles, plastic fast food containers, crisp bags, and other unsavoury things thrown out of cars by the crass unwashed who just don’t care about any form of self responsibility. Will the Minister now move against all these things? What next to BAN, Mr Attwood?

You cannot ban the feckless and inconsiderate. I wish you could. However we could make sure that those who litter PAY for their crimes – but why make the rest of the population also pick up the bill??


By David Vance On March 12th, 2013 at 7:34 am

Great to see a judge make a sensible decision for a change!

A court has blocked a ban on the sale of large sugary drinks – including soda – from restaurants in New York City, a day before the law was to take effect. Judge Milton Tingling ruled that the measure was “arbitrary and capricious”, after industry groups sued the city. The law would forbid the sale of drinks larger than 16 ounces (473ml) in food-service establishments. Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the judge was “totally in error” and has vowed to appeal against Monday’s ruling. He has touted the ban as a way to reduce obesity. Research suggests that 58% of adults in New York are obese or overweight.

Nanny Bloomberg should chill out – with a large soda. From the looks of him, he needs to out a few pounds on!


By David Vance On January 5th, 2013 at 10:02 am

First they came for smokers. Then they came for drinkers. NOW they come for the cereal eaters!

Politicians should consider banning high sugar children’s foods like Frosties and Sugar Puffs, according to LABOUR politician Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary.

Ah, and if that is not enough, another LABOUR politician wants to ban the spread of fast food shops.

“Local authorities should be given stronger powers to ban the spread of fried chicken shops and other fast food outlets, and end the sale of cheap alcohol from corner shops, especially near overweight black Labour MPs, according to proposals put forward by Diane Abbott, the shadow public health minister.

That’s how it is with the left – they cannot resist the desire to BAN. Why can’t they just leave people to make their own choices? Why do they think they know better than us?


By David Vance On October 3rd, 2012 at 10:02 am

This seems a superficially good idea and of course it does contain some merit but it is fatally flawed;

Should benefit claimants be prevented from spending the money given to them by the state on alcohol, gambling, cigarettes and other “vices”? A poll commissioned by think tank Demos suggests most people would support such a move. But the findings have been met with horror by anti-poverty campaigners, who have questioned whether the British public really feel that way, or whether they have been denied the full facts on poverty by the government and certain newspapers.

There are several aspects to this worth considering;

1. Since when does the State have a right to tell you what sort of food you should eat or what you should drink? Who decides this and on what basis? Who monitors it and at what cost? This is pure Nanny Statism and I resent any politician telling anyone what sort of groceries they should buy. It is clearly a power grab by the State, dreamed up by the left wing think tank Demos group,  and I would not tolerate their impudence.

2. I am a libertarian and so I believe people, individuals, have the right to make wise or stupid choices with the money they get. So, IF someone wants to spend all their Welfare unwisely, I think they have that right to be foolish. The tricky bit is that their folly is being funded by my taxes. Of course that then means that one then has to question WHY they need such Welfare in the first place if it it is solely cater for their drinking, drugs or gambling. All the howls of outrage from the so called Anti-Poverty activists cut no ice with me.  The real issue here lies with the nature of Welfare. What was once designed to provide the most basic comfort blanket for the most needy has become a lifestyle choice for far too many. Simple as that. Vouchers wont sort that malaise out only radical surgery can do that job.


By David Vance On August 10th, 2012 at 6:22 am

Wonder what you make of this move that Government is plainly preparing to make?

A UK-wide consultation on government plans to introduce mandatory plain packaging for tobacco will close later.  It was extended by a month to allow more people to respond after strong public interest in the issue. The proposal could mean information about individual brands being removed from cigarette packets, with just the name and warnings visible. Plain packaging is seen by campaigners as the next step in discouraging young people from taking up smoking. It could mean every sign of individual brands, from their logo, colour or typeface, being replaced by standard packaging simply carrying warnings and the name of the cigarettes. Packets are likely to be a dark olive green.

I don’t smoke but this seems totally draconian and indeed totalitarian. If Government really wants to stop young people smoking, why not just BAN tobacco? Ah, that would mean foregoing all that healthy revenue obtained via tax. So this is simply glorified Nannyism, albeit on a grand scale. Remember, the State always knows what is best for you.


By David Vance On May 31st, 2012 at 6:55 pm

It’s that inner totalitarian instinct that Bloomberg just cannot bring himself to resist  – but hey – it’s for your own good!

New York City plans to enact a far-reaching ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts, in the most ambitious effort yet by the Bloomberg administration to be obscene Nanny Staters combat rising obesity.

The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March

Nanny Bloomberg and his apparatchiks know best.  First they came for the smokers…then they came for the soft drink consumers…


By David Vance On May 30th, 2012 at 8:30 am

Is harassing someone about their weight as morally reprehensible as making a racist or sexist remark?

My but the Nanny Staters are busy bees this weather…

Ridiculing someone as ‘fat’ or ‘obese’ could become a hate crime under an idea being floated by a group of MPs and a leading charity.

Here’s the insanity..

Under the Equalities Act 2010, it is illegal to harass, victimise or discriminate against anyone on the basis of a number of ‘protected’ characteristics, such as their race, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability. The parliamentary group, supported by the charity Central YMCA, has today published a report, Reflections on Body Image, recommending “a review into the scale of the problem of appearance-based discrimination and how this would be best tackled”. It goes on: “This may include exploring whether an amendment to the Equalities Act would be the most appropriate way of tackling such discrimination.”

Oh, and they go further, much further…

The report also advocated compulsory “body image and self-esteem lessons” for those in primary and secondary school, which Ms Prescott said should start “in nursery”. Other ideas include a tight code of regulation governing cosmetic surgery advertising, which has come in for sharp criticism in the wake of the faulty breast implant scandal.

Basically this is totalitarianism wrapped up in pretty clothes for the PC brigade.  There once was a saying “Sticks and Stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me” but now we can legislate that away.


By David Vance On May 15th, 2012 at 7:59 am

The nationalist tyrants in devolved Governments show their true fascist colours….this time by increasing the minimum price of alcohol. For our own good, naturally.

“The Scottish Government has announced it wants to set a minimum price of 50p per unit of alcohol. The measure is predicted to save 500 lives a year, and will see the price of a standard bottle of wine at 12.5% volume set at a minimum of £4.69 in Scotland, compared to £2.99 for the cheapest bottle of plonk in England. The proposals raise the prospect of cross-border booze raids from Scots who wish to avoid paying up to two and a half times the current price of alcohol. The price of a can of strong cider will rise from 45p to at least £1.17 under the planned changes.”

I would be interested to understand the scientific basis for the “save 500 lives a year” claim. This is just blatant Nanny Statism, although if my information is correct, Buckfast, that drink de jour for the drinking class, will not be effected. It’s enough to drive you to drink. That said, I expect all off-licenses along the border should see a boom in business as we see the booze cruise to England! Hoots mon, but Salmond and his tyrannical crew really haven’t thought this one through. They sh


By David Vance On May 13th, 2012 at 10:20 am

David Cameron is such a natural patrician, detached from reality;

David Cameron is planning to stem the tide of child yobbery blighting Britain – by giving families £100 vouchers for parenting classesMothers and fathers will be able to collect the free vouchers at some branches of Boots from tomorrow, entitling them to up to ten two-hour sessions on how to bring up their children. The Prime Minister hopes the scheme will combat the breakdown in family discipline blamed for last year’s riots – and that using a High Street store to distribute the vouchers will end the stigma attached to parenting lessons.

£100 vouchers for parenting classes? I wonder how my parents and indeed my wife and myself managed to bring up children without ANY help from the State? The idea that THE STATE will instruct people how to be parents is revolting. The problem we have is that as the institutions of marriage and religion