Sarah Vine din witted Times scribber: One the evils of chocolate.

A fine hattip to Dickpuddlecote for this dozy bint. Step forward Sarah Vine, fluff article scribber for The Times.

Dr David Walker, a GP in Lanarkshire, is a brave man indeed. Risking the wrath of most of the female population of Britain, he has dared to suggest that chocolate may not be very good for us. Worse still, he proposes that it be taxed in the same way as such dangerous, highly addictive substances, such as alcohol and cigarettes. It is, the good doctor assures us, the only way we can stop the nation's inevitable descent into obesity.

A brave man? No he is not, an authoritarian fuckwad who believes badly thought out taxes will help resolve a problem when no evidence exists to show that is the case. Where he brave he would be howling about the real problems in the NHS.

As for the only way to stop the " inevitable descent", well that is pure fucking horse cock. Paying lardy folk sick pay only encourages them to be lardy. I could be argued that the benefits system is as much to blame as anything else. 

You see dear what shifts fat is that horrid thing called exercise.

Until a few weeks ago, I would have disagreed furiously with the man. How dare he (chomp, chomp) suggest (chomp) in any way (chomp, chomp) that I'm addicted to chocolate. I mean, what harm can a few chocolate raisins and a couple of squares of Green & Black's Almond Milk do? OK, so maybe sometimes I lose track of exactly how much (can that empty wrapper on the desk truly be mine?), but surely it's better than cigarettes and strong drink. Isn't it?

Well fuck me if you lack the willpower to give up, then don't suggest its in the same league as fags an booze. Oh boo fucking cunting hoo, I am an adict, woe is me and all that. Fuckin hell someone slap this bint, no best not Jacqui Smith might stick me on a register.

Then, in an uncharacteristic fit of piety, I decided to give up chocolate for Lent. And it's only now that I have been clean for almost three weeks that I understand what Walker is getting at. He is right. If the cravings and blinding headaches I've been suffering are anything to go by, chocolate is a highly addictive, quite possibly toxic, substance. And it probably ought to be taxed accordingly.

Hmmmmmmm, blinding headaches. A brain tumour we can but hope. Although I fear it may well starve to death. Although Dick in his post suggests:

it's probably because your brain is suffering from a famine of intelligent thought. It has the capacity for much more than your stifled imagination can offer and is dying of boredom. How else can anyone explain this cockwaffle?

Anyway on with her shyte.

When I suggested this to a girlfriend, her immediate reaction was this: “How can you say that, you traitor?” But the problem is that she, in the throes of her addiction to a daily dose of a brown substance wrapped in tinfoil, cannot see what I now see - and what Walker (presumably holed up in a safe house while MI6 attempts to give him a new identity) has tried to explain. Chocolate, as consumed in the West, is very easy to get hold of, packed with empty calories - and extremely hard to resist. He has pointed out that a 225g packet of chocolate sweets can contain up to 1,200 calories, which can slip down in minutes.

Addiction, oh for fucks sake. Chocolate easy to get hold of she blathers. Plus the shocker to the over obcessed calorie counters, that well fuck me chocolate may have upto 1,200 of them. Oh the horror. 

The main problem with this theory is that chocolate has the highest approval rating of any known substance, apart from, maybe, labrador puppies and Barack Obama. Suggesting that it be taxed is like suggesting a ban on football. Nice as that would be (for me, at any rate), a lot of people have a passionate and sometimes irrational love of it. No one likes a drunk; smokers smell; but chocolate-lovers are seen as harmlessly indulgent creatures.

See I have worked where her brain is headed here. She is trying to equate all the sins as equally bad, booze, fags and chocolate. 

As for no one likes a drunk, I do they are funny. Hell they make up filler TV on channels like Bravo.

From the sensuality of the Flake girl, to the cheekiness of the Creme Egg, the prevailing culture is this: chocolate is a harmless treat. Add that to more recent marketing, about antioxidants and seratonin levels, and the message becomes even more positive - chocolate is also good for you. Besides, we live in troubled times, must we really be denied the few pleasures that remain?

Well that does seem to be the main thrust of your poorly constructed argument.

The almost universally negative response to Walker's idea is perfectly understandable. People dislike the thought of a nanny state and a tax on chocolate seems like the worst kind of attack on personal choice. What about self-restraint, what about will-power, what about personal responsibility, the libertarians will wail. And they're right. People should be free to make up their own minds. Democracy is all about informed choices. And that, I'm afraid, is where the problem lies. Because the people most likely to suffer from an exaggerated consumption of chocolate are not well-informed adults such as you and I. They are our children.

Bugger she started off good there, faltered in the middle and followed it up with a fuck up. She sank it with the old won't some one think of the children quote. Look, children are the responsibility of the parents, don't want them fat don't give them sweets. 

An how the fuck does that equate to an argument to tax the rest of us?

Children, on the whole, do not really understand the concept of self-regulation. Sure, they can, if strictly trained, be made to follow certain rules, but it is in their natures to be unrestrained. They have no experience to tell them otherwise. Put a five-year-old in front of the TV and he or she will watch it until you pull the plug. The same goes for computer games, possibly more so for sweets and chocolates. Give a child £1 to spend in the corner shop, and he or she is unlikely to come home with a banana and a pint of semi-skimmed milk. They will cram as much rubbish into their pockets as their budget permits. It's not just the clever marketing; it's that these sugary treats give their little metabolisms a hit that they - young, inexperienced, uncomprehending - are almost powerless to resist.

Blah blah blah, powerless to resist. That's why they have parents. Again no reason to tax. Don't want the little ones buying sweets give them less money or oversee their purchases.

The obesity-related problems that Walker is talking about, chiefly heart disease and diabetes, are even more pernicious if they begin in childhood. All the grim studies show that a fat child grows up to be a fat adult, with all the health problems that being obese entails. In America, diabetes is one of the most common diseases among schoolchildren. In Britain we now have around 1,400 juvenile cases of type 2 diabetes, the kind that is strongly associated with poor lifestyle, some in children as young as 7 or 8. A decade or so ago, the number was vanishingly small.

Look back when I was in school there were not that many fat kids, they had a miserable fucking time of it due to not being able to play the victim card. I am sure that mockery helped a load of them lose weight, that an exercise. See I keep mentioning shit like exercise, free will, willpower and exercise. 

It would be wrong, not to say reductive, to suggest that those statistics are solely the result of chocolate consumption. But diet is, undeniably, a factor. And the problem is that, as a parent, you can control only what a child eats within your own four walls. All that careful indoctrination about sweets rotting the teeth goes only so far. With hundreds of brands of cheap chocolate available, and more popping up every day, protecting our offspring from the risks of excessive calorific consumption is a losing battle.

Oh for fucks sake. Its down to fucking control again in the parenting. I bet she is the sort of woman with an out of control dog that fucking yaps 24/7, bites people an shits on her sofa each day. 

So I would go even farther than Walker. I would impose a tax on refined sugar. I'm not talking about prohibition, just enough to make people stop and think; just the difference between being able to afford one sweet treat, to be savoured and enjoyed, instead of three, stuffed down in quick succession.

WTF, you would impose a tax on refined sugar would you. Then talk about not being in favour of prohibition. Why should we pay for those who choose, despite all the state information/nannying out there to eat more than is healthy for them? How about you leave the tax system alone and go fuck yourself forthwith, just a suggestion. 

Sugar, really, is the great poison of our generation. It's in all the things that are bad for us: fizzy drinks, processed foods, nasty cheap snacks. Not only is refined sugar (as distinct from naturally occurring sugar) superfluous to our diets, it is also the one thing that if consumed in excess when young can lead to a short and unhealthy life. That such a damaging and irresistible substance should be widely available at such absurdly low prices is, if you think about it, terrifying.

Great poison my arse. As for the low price, well that dear is call "free market economics". The people want sugar, they want chocolate. Therefore companies grow cocoa and refine sugar, oh and it spreads wealth from here to Africa. 

Maybe she has not thought of the Africans put out of work should we consume less chocolate in Europe thanks to her taxes. 

Oh and I for one raise a glass to the child slaves working hard on cocoa plantations in places like Mali. Thank God for chocolate keeping them gainfully employed!

She finishes with this...

Budge up, Dr Walker: I may well be joining you in that bunker of yours.

Gas the pair of them like TB infected badgers.

.