Is Nothing Ever Solely Down To People’s Stupidity & Vanity Then?

The enormous popularity of beauty treatments, including dermatological fillers and Botox injections, is not solely an issue for health regulators.

Really? 

Wes Streeting’s announcement of new licence requirements for UK businesses, and tighter regulation of higher-risk treatments, is probably overdue. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute recently warned that untrained people have given cosmetic injections in public toilets and hotels.

Look, if you’re stupid enough to let people do this to you, and judging by the results (I saw a woman on the Tube last week with such a pronounced trout pout I was worried if the train braked sharply and she fell face first against the window, she’d have to be pried off by firemen), you are, then I’m not sure why we should be doing any more than regulating it. Apart from the drain on the NHS, of course…

Altering the law in order to exclude such “rogue operators” ought to make high streets and the internet – where many clinics advertise – safer. But councils will need resources if they are to be expected to enforce new rules by issuing licences, checking premises and so on. As in many other areas of economic activity, the law on its own is unlikely to be enough. Mechanisms are needed to ensure that businesses comply.

That’s the case for all legislation, of course, and usually why it fails. But why are people doing this in the first place?

Changing norms and aspirations about appearances, and the way that these are marketed mainly to women and girls, are a cultural and economic phenomenon that requires wider consideration.

Ah, of course, the internet and social media are making them do it. Strange how it’s always something the government and progressives are desperate to control, eh, Reader? 

It Truly Is The ‘Land Of The Free’

Luckily for us, in the land of Starmer:

The US director of national intelligence says the UK has withdrawn its controversial demand to access global Apple users' data if required. Tulsi Gabbard said in a post on X, external the UK had agreed to drop its instruction for the tech giant to provide a "back door" which would have "enabled access to the protected encrypted data of American citizens and encroached on our civil liberties". The BBC understands Apple has not yet received any formal communication from either the US or UK governments. "We do not comment on operational matters, including confirming or denying the existence of such notices," a UK government spokesperson said.

You don’t comment, because what could you say, other than ‘Oh shit, we tried it on with the Yanks and they told us to get fucked again’? 

In December, the UK issued Apple with a formal notice demanding the right to access encrypted data from its users worldwide. However Apple itself cannot view the data of customers who have activated its toughest security tool, Advanced Data Protection (ADP), which prevents anyone other than the user from reading their files.

It beggars belief that the morons in government ever thought they stood a chance at strong-arming Apple - until you look at the morons in government that is!

If You Build It, They Won’t Come

Parents do not use parental controls on Facebook and Instagram, according to Meta’s Nick Clegg, with adults failing to embrace the 50 child safety tools the company has introduced in recent years.

So what to do, what to do? Well, it's obvious, isn't it? Don't give them the choice, impose it.

Regulatory pressure is building on tech companies to protect children from harmful content, with the Australian government announcing plans this week to ban younger teenagers from accessing social media. Speaking at an event hosted by Chatham House in London, Clegg said parents were not using controls that allowed them to set time limits and schedule viewing breaks. “One of the things we do find … is that even when we build these controls, parents don’t use them,” he said. “So we have a bit of a behavioural issue, which is: we as an engineering company might build these things, and then we say at events like this: ‘Oh, we’ve given parents choices to restrict the amount of time kids are [online]’ – parents don’t use it.”

Perhaps they don't accept that it's the disaster they are being told that it is? Perhaps they are just lazy?  

Andy Burrows, the chief executive of the Molly Rose Foundation, a charity set up by Russell’s family, said: “Nick Clegg would do a service to children’s safety by stopping passing the buck and starting to take responsibility for the preventable harm caused by Meta’s choices.”

Why is it his responsibilty? They aren't his children. They aren't your children either..  

Another Lockdown Era Benefit Is Stripped Away...

It's not just working from home....

A Croydon school’s decision to reverse a policy allowing pupils to wear PE kit to school rather than getting changed before the lesson has drawn the anger of parents and students, who argue “mental health will suffer as a result”.

What?

Parents with children at Woodcote High School believe the school’s decision will disproportionately impact SEND children and those who don’t want to get changed in front of their peers.

One parent, Rebecca Guildford, told the local democracy reporting service (LDRS), the new policy will make students’ differences “blindly obvious,” and could negatively impact their mental health.

The former policy, which stipulated that students get dressed in their PE kits at home rather than in the school changing rooms, was launched during the pandemic due to concerns over social distancing.

And why, if it was popular, and it was, a referendum carried out was overwhelmingly in favour of continuing, is it being reversed now? 

The school’s reason for the update was reportedly due to a continuing trend of children coming in the wrong PE kit, which the school said it could not control under the current policy.

Ah. Lack of 'control'. Is it me, or do schools increasingly want to control the little things because they are totally unable to control the larger things, like school violence? 

'1984' Wasn't An Instruction Manual...

A deputy headteacher allegedly reported a foster mother to social services after she questioned the school's teaching of 'the genderbread person' as well as a video lecture of a non-binary 12-year-old saying gender is dynamic.

The teacher wrote in a letter seen by the Telegraph that while the children were 'looked after physically', there was a danger they could 'expound similar bigoted viewpoints' to their mother.

I would tag this 'beyond belief' but is it, really? 

According to reports, a meeting took place between social services and members of the school to discuss if the woman was suitable as a foster mother.

Showing a work ethic we haven't seen in recent cases.  

In a class action case that is being prepared against the Government, the foster mother is now one of the litigants who claim the ministers have been 'wilfully neglient' for allowing material from groups like Stonewall to become the norm in schools.

I wish them luck, but even if they win, what action will be taken to root out this dogma? 

"It Was Good Enough For Me..."

The British boss of Wall Street banking giant Citigroup yesterday warned that slackers working from home will be hauled back to the office for coaching.

Jane Fraser said that it was important for employees to collaborate together and learn from ‘eccentrics’ in the workplace as she did.

If you think 'one size fits all', then it's clear you learned nothing...

Larry Fink, chief executive of BlackRock, the world’s biggest asset manager, was more forthright when he spoke at the same event, hosted by Bloomberg.

He said: ‘Remote working has not worked.’

Who hasn't it worked for, Larry? If you're still head of the biggest asset management firm, and not the second or third largest? 

How Many People Have Rude Words Killed, Brendan?

Brendan Cox on the Sir David Amess murder:

...terrorists and hostile states aren’t the only threat to democracy. In fact, they probably aren’t even the most potent. Polarisation, the dehumanisation of our opponents and less social contact between people with different views and backgrounds undermine democracy even more.

He doesn't seem to be in agreement with the rest of the 'An Islamic terrorist killed an MP, so let's ban anonymity on the Internet' crowd. But he's got a hard row to hoe: 

We may not be able to stop extremists from committing horrific acts, but can we strengthen our democratic culture in other ways? I think the answer to this is yes. And not only that, I think those of us on the left have a particular responsibility.

The first thing we can do is to try to see our opponent’s arguments in their best light.

 Hmmm....

Second, we should stop dehumanising and assuming the worst of our opponents.

 Ooops!

None of this will stop attacks like the one on Friday. But they are things that we on the left can do to help build a stronger democratic culture.

Looking at the Left that you're demanding this from, all I can say is 'Good luck'!... 

Skewed Priorities...

'We need to find out who these people are and make examples of them. ... 'Perpetrators should be getting a knock on the door from the police and facing the full force of the law.'

Finally, a law and order Tory government demands tough action against...well, who?

Muggers? 

People who try to destroy others' lives? 

Those who see taxpayers as a never-ending well of cash to plunder for their identity politics agendas? 

Feral animals making our streets danger zones?

Well, no. It's people who tweet monkey pictures at grossly overpaid black football players. But isn't that a task for the social media companies? Are they doing nothing?

Twitter yesterday revealed how it has removed more than 1,000 racist posts targeting England football stars following the defeat.

So why is the government weighing in? 

Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden said yesterday that he shared the anger at the abuse, adding: 'Social media companies need to up their game in addressing it and, if they fail to, our new Online Safety Bill will hold them to account with fines of up to 10 per cent of global revenue.'

Ah. Of course. 

Which Shop Would Get Your Business..?

The Guardian spoke to shop owners about their thoughts on the announcement.

Oh, this'll be good. First up, sensible pension-age shopkeeper with useful store:

“The word ‘mandatory’ is meaningless,” says 70-year-old Redmond Hanlon, who has owned his village convenience store in Devon for 35 years. “I’m not going to refuse entry to mask-free customers. I’ve got 80-year-old guys coming in first thing in the morning for newspapers. I’m not going to say, no, you can’t have your paper. These are guys I’ve known for years.”

Hanlon says most customers do not wear face coverings, but he has been handing out free masks to customers who want them. Last week, he installed a pedal-controlled hand-sanitiser dispenser at the shop entrance and a screen over the counter.

“I think government instruction might make a difference [to how many people wear face coverings]. I’m going to put up a sign thanking customers for wearing masks tomorrow, but I won’t do more,” Hanlon says. “My view is that it’s up to people how they get on with each other. By and large I like to let people do their own thing.”

Next up, scatty little millennial snowflake running currently-trendy shop that no-one considers essential:

Rosie Fletcher is delighted face coverings will be mandatory from 24 July. She was already planning to ask customers to wear them in her north London shop, but the government’s announcement “means I have some more force behind it”, she says.

“It’s not just me being wacky. I can say: ‘A-ha! The government says so too!’”Making face coverings compulsory, she says, will make her feel more secure.

“Masks aren’t magic but when people wear them, it says to me that they’re taking the pandemic seriously.”

Gosh. It's a hard choice, eh?

Now Will You Believe It Isn't About Health...?

..or 'stopping a virus'? It's about control, pure and simple.

It's about seeing what you can get away with in terms of regulating behaviour, if you dress it up as 'pandemic suppression'.

Buggy Whip Manufacturers Hardest Hit...

The second that final spoonful goes in your mouth the waiter runs over, noisily clears the plates away and shoves a new menu under your nose, while insisting that you order the set menu immediately. That’s the experience we all have when watching films and TV on streaming platforms.

It might be yours, chum, but it's not mine! What, exactly, has your panties in a bunch?

The end credit sequence is an unsexy but still important part of the film-going experience. It can be a key moment of contemplation, to assess, absorb and reflect on everything you have just experienced. It can be a moment of musical resolve. It can be a place to see the countless hundreds of people who worked to create something from nothing (not just the famous ones). Or it can just be an excuse to look for crew members with funny names. But the current trend with virtually all the streaming services is to treat end credits as having the same artistic merit as a DFS Summer Sofa Sale ad.

They allow you to skip them. Or...not. They aren't chopping them off. You can watch them if you want.

I understand why the feature was introduced, especially in the age of the multi-episodic binge watch. And I have no problem with a lot of people wanting to skip credits...

But you clearly do, or you wouldn't be writing this, would you?

But I do have a problem with having to “opt-in” to watch something that is often an integral piece of a complete artistic vision.

You think people should be forced to opt out, then?

Some services have added options to turn these features off but they are usually hidden away and rarely fully implemented.

Oh, boo hoo! It might take a couple of clicks! Surely this can't be the most important reason?

But that isn’t my only reason for despising this trend.

Aha!

I write music for movies and TV, and I know, that from a compositional point of view, the soundtrack for the end credits can be an incredibly important part of the musical arc you and the director may have tried to create over a whole film.

Figured as much...

"...a disproportionate interference with the claimant's right to freedom of expression because of their potential chilling effect."

Harry did indeed speak. And the judge listened:

Speaking after the ruling, Mr Miller, from Lincolnshire, said: "This is a watershed moment for liberty - the police were wrong to visit my workplace, wrong to 'check my thinking'."

His solicitor Paul Conrathe added: "It is a strong warning to local police forces not to interfere with people's free speech rights on matters of significant controversy."

However, there's no sign whatsoever that this will deter them one iota...

Humberside Police said it accepted the court's decision, adding: "The mere recording of the incident by Humberside Police as a hate incident has been ruled as not unlawful and in accordance with the College of Policing (CoP) guidance.

"Our actions in handling the incident were carried out in good faith but we note the comments of the judge and we will take learning from this incident moving forward."

Meaning they'll still record it, but won't tell you about it, perhaps?

Responding to the ruling, Helen Belcher, who co-founded Trans Media Watch, said: "I think trans people will be worried it could become open season on us because the court didn't really define what the threshold for acceptable speech was.

"I think it will reinforce an opinion that courts don't understand trans lives and aren't there to protect trans people."

It's not the purpose of the courts to 'protect' one group above another.

And from what? Other people's opinions of you?

Who The Hell Elected You For This?

York could become the first city in Britain to ban private cars from driving in the centre.

Council chiefs have backed plans to end all ‘non-essential’ vehicle journeys into the city centre by 2023.

So, how can we remove you from power? Because no-one expects the council to have a say in deciding what's 'essential for the taxpayer'...

Oh, and before all you Green fruitcakes start laughing smugly, they mean you, too:

The ban will apply to both diesel and petrol cars. It is likely to apply to electric and hybrid vehicles too.

Heh! That wiped the smile off your face, eh?

Deputy council leader Andy D’Agorne said: 'A car-free and thriving city centre, which is accessible to those with limited mobility like blue badge holders, is achievable but only through detailed planning and engagement with those most affected by the proposals.’

And if your 'engagement' proves it's not what people want at all, and they'd rather you got on with the job of keeping the streets clean and emptying the bins? What then?

We can trust our newly elected Tory party folk to fight back, though. Can't we?

Critics said the move would make it harder for people to get to hospitals.

Conservative councillor Claire Hiscott said those on low incomes could be affected as ‘if you need to get to the hospital and you have a diesel vehicle you will face a hefty fine if you cross that zone in an emergency’.

*sighs* Modern Tories - keen, it seems, only to out-progressive the progressives...

I'll Answer That For You...

...it's not:

'Quite a lot of parents expressed dismay at the lack of consultation,' she said.

'Everyone was surprised. There was a lot of concern about whether deciding on a child's diet was the domain of a childcare provider.'

Why are you surprised? Don't you read the news? Aren't you aware that the streak of control freakery runs deep through the educational system these days?

It's hardly surprising it's now extending to nurseries.

The nursery, which caters for children aged two to five years, has since apologised to parents and has decided to compromise with vegetarian dishes.

Some 'compromise'. But unless parents vote with their feet, these little Hitlers (literally!) will continue with their arrogance:

It comes after a nursery in Cheshire slammed by angry parents after becoming one of the first in Britain to introduce a totally vegan menu.

Jigsaw Day Nurseries in Chester is set to introduce the new menu from January, removing meat, fish, eggs and dairy products and adopting an entirely plant-based diet for its 260 children, aged 0-4.

 It's no good just complaining - remove your child, and they'll soon have to stop.

Claire Taylor, founder of the nurseries, which is Chester's largest private childcare provider, defended the decision which she says was 'made with the children and the planet's future in mind.'

What was it C S Lewis said again? How right he was....

Give Some People Power....

...and they behave like this:

'At parents' evening I went to the toilet and there was a single tissue dispenser and my daughter counted out five sheets and went to the toilet. There are no tissue dispensers in the cubicles.

'I spoke to the head teacher and she told me it was so that children don't block the toilets using too much toilet paper.'

Oh? Not because she's a cold-blooded control freak or Green fruitcake who has listened to too much Sheryl Crow then?

Fahmim who is an adviser at Cartrefi Cymru Co-operative, and her husband Afjul Ali, have written a formal letter of complaint to the school's head teacher Ruth Jackson.

Following her complaint the school has now said it has reviewed its policy.

A spokeswoman from the school said: 'We have reviewed our policy and will soon be installing dispensers in all our cubicles. We will be contacting parents shortly to let them know of the change.'

Translation: "Ooops! Busted!"

They Lie. It's Just What They Do.

Priory School in Lewes forced all pupils to wear trousers in 2017 after “concerns” were raised over the length of skirts and to cater to their transgender pupils.

The decision bans all female pupils from wearing skirts. At the time, the school said that only new students would be required to wear the new uniform.

And you believed them?

But it has now announced that all students, not just newcomers, will be required to wear the “gender neutral” uniform.

And parents aren't happy. This is extra expense they haven't budgeted for.

Parents of year 11 pupils are frustrated that they will have to pay out for the new uniform. It is expected to cost about £90 and pupils will wear it for 150 school days.

So there's a bit of a revolt happening. Maybe too little, too late, now, however.

An online petition to “stop Priory school from forcing everyone to wear trousers” has been signed by 132 people.

A legal letter, which has been sent to the school, is threatening to take the decision to Judicial Review.

Shouldn't you have done that from the start?

The Argus contacted the school for comment on the last day of term but the school did not reply.

Heh. All too demob happy, I suspect.

Just Let The Farmers Shoot Them!

Police say they would been (sic) keen to develop a DNA dog database to tackle the growing problem of "sheep worrying" which is leaving thousands of farm animals in the UK dead or injured every year.

Sounds familiar!

NFU Mutual says sheep and other farm animals worth an estimated £1.2m were attacked by dogs last year.

But it's feared that number may be much larger, with a recent survey finding only 39% of farmers reported all attack incidents to police.

Because they have finally discovered what small shopkeepers and burglary victims have already sussed - they don't do anything.

Unless they can build a hugely expensive and utterly pointless database, of course.

...the NPCC says budget constraints mean it is not currently possible to build such a database.

Note the 'currently' in there.

Never Missing An Opportunity...

...to strip citizens of their legally-held possessions:

Ms Ardern said she would like to see semi-automatic weapons banned and was one of the issues she was looking 'at with immediate effect.'

...to clamp down on free speech:

...to ban the things they personally dislike by claiming a spurious connection:

Never ever forget, these people see a horrific crime as a golden opportunity. 

And perhaps, just perhaps, we should regard them as worse than the criminal who kicked all this off..?

Is 'Placards In The Street' The 'Guardian's' Yardstick For Everything?

Sonia Sodha (Ed: yes, her again) in the 'Guardian':

“What about our free will?” the anti-nanny-staters will cry at the idea of forcing manufacturers to act. But we don’t see people with placards in the street protesting against the thwarting of our right to eat a slice of bread with as much salt as a packet of crisps.

These Nannystaters take an absence of people waving banners and marching as a green light. But what about the fact that most people (who are too busy for this) simply shift their buying habits?

I am, after all, quite capable of making my own bread.

The beauty of food reformulation is that because it happens gradually, our palates adjust and we simply don’t notice that certain foods are 30% less salty than a decade ago.

I call bollocks on this. I've lost count of the things I no longer buy because they don't taste the same as they used to. How about you, reader?

Another Champion?

The government has appointed a food waste champion to tackle the problem of 250m meals being thrown away in the UK each year.

Will they have to undergo a Thunderdome-style clash with the obesity champion, I wonder?

Elliot’s first task will be to oversee the Food Waste Fund, a £15m pilot scheme which will redistribute surplus food, Gove said.

Working with businesses and other stakeholders from across retail, manufacturing, hospitality and food services, he will also support government consultations on the introduction of mandatory food waste reduction targets and redistribution obligations.

You can all look forward to prices going up in the supermarkets then. Don't worry, they'll just blame Brexit!

Elliot said: “While families all over the country struggle to put food on the table and children still go to school each day with empty stomachs, there continues to be an unforgivable amount of food waste, which is both morally deplorable and largely avoidable.

“As a nation, we need to stop this excessive waste and ensure that surplus food finds its way to people in our society who need it most, and not let it get thrown away and go to landfill.”

Who is this cretin to tell us what is 'morally deplorable?

In his role as chair of the Quintessentially Foundation, Elliot, who is the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew...

Ah. I take no lessons in morality from such.

...has worked with the Felix Project, a charity targeting food waste and food poverty in London which claims to have diverted up to £1bn of surplus food to those in need.

Has anyone tested the claims? No? Didn't think so.

And don't believe all you read about piles of 'wasted' food rotting in mountains. It's just not true.

Currently around 43,000 tonnes of surplus food is redistributed from retailers and food manufacturers every year, the government says. It is estimated a further 100,000 tonnes of food – equating to 250m meals a year – is edible and readily available but goes uneaten. Instead, it is sent away for generating energy from waste, or for animal feed.

Which will in turn provide more food and the energy to heat that food. So it's not 'wasted' at all.