The tedious wanker Gilmore states that there is a connection between smoking and drinking, so over to DK:
"We need an international framework convention for alcohol control, similar to that on tobacco, as soon as possible, to put into practice the evidence-based measures needed to reduce alcohol-related harm.
"These include increasing the price of alcohol, reducing its availability and banning advertising, and the action needs to start now."
Translation:
"We've been fucking smokers up the arse for a number of years now and, frankly, we're in the mood for some fresh meat. Obviously we'll be using the same bullshit statistics to soften the British pleblic up for a good roasting.
"But before we begin, I'd just like to thank all the docile pricks who pathed the way by supporting the smoking ban just because it meant they wouldn't have to wash their clothes or hair anymore.
"Believe me, you dirty, smelly, gullible set of twats, a trip to the washing machine is going to seem like a fucking birthday party by the time we've finished with you."
Passive drinking' needs to become as big an issue as passive smoking to stop alcohol abuse, health campaigners demanded yesterday.
The harm caused to the innocent by those who drink needs to be brought into sharp relief, says the World Health Organisation. And it is best tackled by penalising all drinkers through higher prices or tougher restrictions on when and where alcohol is available.
'It's the first attempt to limit harm from alcohol globally, from proposals formulated in a single document,' said Vladimir Poznyak, head of substance abuse at the WHO. 'The strongest evidence is for taxation and pricing.'
The report, published in New Scientist magazine, has won backing from the wider medical community.
“I am calling for health to become top of the agenda and this should be a factor in granting licences.”
Yet these guidelines have no basis in science. Rather, in the words of a member of the committee that drew them up, they were simply “plucked out of the air”.
Richard Smith, the former editor of the British Medical Journal and a member of the college’s working party on alcohol, told The Times yesterday that the figures were not based on any clear evidence. He remembers “rather vividly” what happened when the discussion came round to whether the group should recommend safe limits for men and women.
The new closure rate of above 50 is well above the previous reported number of 39, which the BBPA and CGA announced January. The figure covered the second half of 2008.
The House of Commons Refreshment Department operated on a subsidy of £5.5 million of taxpayers’ money in the 2007/08 financial year, equivalent to total annual tax receipts from 35 pubs. The subsidy, not published in the House of Commons’ Annual Accounts, was £693,000 higher than in 2006/07, a 15% increase.Anyway back to DK who fisks this evil puritanical little cock waving fucker Gilmore in classic style and saves me having to do so again:
Professor Ian Gilmore is, of course, not just president of the Royal College of Physicians", oh no. He is also the Chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance which is, of course, a fake charity of some magnitude.
Now, a quick search of fakecharities.org for "Alcohol Health Alliance" throws up such definitely fake charities as Sustain, the Institute for Alcohol Studies and the Alliance House Foundation (formerly the UK Alliance for the Suppression of the Traffic in All Intoxicating Liquors); all of these organisations are heavily funded by the state which means, of course, that the Alcohol Health Alliance is also heavily funded by the state.
As such, Professor Ian Gilmore is a mouthpiece for the government and should probably have his tongue ripped from his lying head before being hanged by his testicles in a tank full of ravenous piranas. The cunt.
It is worth pointing out that nowhere in the Telegraph article is this information pointed out.
Now me—I'd say that taking the word of a man who is the Chair of an organisation, the members of which include the formerly-named "UK Alliance for the Suppression of the Traffic in All Intoxicating Liquors", without mentioning this little nugget of information—or massive fucking conflict of interest—is the act of a deeply stupid, tit-head, biased cub reporter.
I would view said nugget as something that a professional journalist might like to mention to his readers. You know—for balance, and that kind of thing. Not, apparently, in the increasingly bizarre and amateurish world of the fucking Daily fucking Telegraph.
0 people have spoken:
Post a Comment