No Knickers Please, We're Lawyers!

I guess it's not just in England that we seem to be faced with an ever increasing number of prudes.

Take the case of the US law students getting their, errr, knickers in a twist over an advert for underwear, shot on their campus:

In an e-mail to students, faculty and staff, dean Michael Gerber wrote: 'We are as shocked and mortified as you must be by these photographs.

'When the school gave its permission to do the shoot, the school was assured that the photos would be in good taste. They are not.'

Oh, dean, if only you had ready access to people who could draft watertight contracts and stuff.

What do they call those people again?

Brooklyn Law was paid an undisclosed fee by Diesel -- which had hired an ad company for the shoot -- for use of the library during spring break last March, a school spokeswoman said. The school previously has done such deals with TV and movie productions.

"Our understanding was that they were going to be doing a shoot for jeans, not intimates," the spokeswoman said.

And it's not just the staff - it seems some of the budding briefs aren't too happy about seeing pictures of briefs:

First-year student Jordan Hersch, 22, told the New York Post: 'I thought the ad was disgusting, for a law institution to have people in their underwear where we study and work is unbecoming of a law institution.'

Yup, because when you graduate, your fees will be ensuring you leave people with at least the shirts on their backs...

One female student told the New York Post : 'It's gross. I work on those computers every day.'

Sweetie, if your office is anything like the ones I've worked in, that won't be the worst thing those keyboards and monitors have been subjected to. Not by a long chalk!

“Help Us, Andrew Lansley – You’re Our Only Hope!”

Whatever happened to the late, unlamented government’s ban on displays of cigarettes?

It is due to come into effect for supermarkets from late next year and from October 2013 for small shops. But the coalition government has not yet decided whether to implement the measure, which was passed by the Labour administration as part of the Health Act of 2009.

Oooh, let’s hope that spells trouble for the NuPuritans!

Representatives for small businesses and the tobacco industry have told ministers that proceeding with the plan will threaten the livelihood of thousands of newsagents and increase the consumption of black market cigarettes.

And it looks like they are getting through:

It had been thought likely that the cabinet's Reducing Regulation Committee, set up to ease burdens on business, would scrap the ban when it meets tomorrow. Anti-ban campaigners had privately voiced confidence that business secretary Vince Cable, who chairs the committee, shared their concerns.

However, it could be that the anti-smoking brigade has one last gasp:

But the issue's importance means the final decision is now likely to be taken only after discussions involving Cable and health secretary Andrew Lansley.

And they plan to wheel out all the big guns to ensure they get their way:

Many of the UK's leading medical practitioners, including Sir Terence Stephenson, the president of the Royal College of Paediatrics, believe a ban on displaying cigarettes publicly will cut smoking rates and improve children's health by reducing their exposure to tobacco products.

/facepalm

They ‘believe’? Based on what, evidence?

Stephenson is among several key medical figures demanding that the coalition does not go back on the ban. "This is a vitally important public health measure," he said.

No it isn’t. It’s a pointless, grandstanding waste of time.

Sir Richard Thompson, president of the Royal College of Physicians, which represents the UK's hospital doctors, said: "Our society should aim to take smoking out of all our lives, and this includes preventing children from being subjected to tobacco advertising in shops at the point of sale.
Other countries like Ireland and Canada have shown that this works, and so now it is time for our government to protect children by fully implementing the legislation to ban point-of-sale advertising and vending machines. Surely we owe this to the future health of our children."

Oh, won’t someone think of the chiiillllreeeennnn!

And all those anti-smokers out there nodding and smiling at this, just have a care. If you like a drink or the occasional fast food treat (and who doesn’t?) just remember you too are on their list…

Dr Lindsey Davies, president of the UK Faculty of Public Health, wants ministers to implement both the public display ban and the outlawing of cigarette vending machines in pubs. "Tobacco kills and these are simple, relatively cheap measures that are designed to protect children from a very toxic substance."

Ah, where ‘simple, relatively cheap measures’ means ‘something that will never affect me, so I could care less how much it’ll cost’.

And is it amazing how they never seem to use such language to vilify other addicts, say, those addicted to heroin or cocaine? Because addicts are what smokers are (along with people addicted to sweet things!) according to new studies, as Leg-Iron points out.

But maybe, just maybe, the ConDems will stand firm:

A Department of Health spokeswoman declined to say whether Lansley backed the ban or not. "The government has already announced its intention to consider options around the display of tobacco in shops that will seek to balance public health priorities with reducing unnecessary burdens on business," she said. "Details will be announced in due course."

Can’t wait!

I hope they all have to choke on their muesli, yoghurt and tap-water breakfasts….

Roll Up, Roll Up, Get Yer Bargains Here!

Poundland, the discount chain that pledges to offer everything for the home, is selling pornography for a pound across Sussex.

I fail to see how this is news, never mind bad news. I mean, presumably if they charged more for it, Trading Standards would want to have a word.

An investigation by The Argus has revealed a range of cut-price pornographic DVDs are on sale at the store's flagship Western Road branch in Brighton next to children's books, drinks and sweets.

As a commenter points out, I’m not sure what is more amusing – the thought of discount porn rubbing shoulders (or other bodily parts!) with the Chup-Chups and Smarties, or the concept of a Poundland ‘flagship’ store…

A sex manual by Haynes - the world famous do-it-yourself car workshop guide - offers readers the chance to “keep your sex life in perfect running order”.

We clearly aren’t talking about top-drawer filth, here. Besides, everyone gets that free off t’internet, right?

Poundland said a warning comes up on the till every time a DVD or book is scanned by staff, ensuring there were no underage sales.

So, no problem. Right?

Well, clearly the Righteous don't agree. Just the mere thought of available porn (even of the soft variety) sends them into a tailspin.

Foodie Angst

Food writer Michael Pollan in the ‘Indy’ is tackling the tricky subject of eating in 2010.

What, you didn’t think it was tricky? You just cooked food and ate it? Oh, you’ve no idea what horrors and pitfalls await the modern urban professional journalist…

Eating in our time has become complicated – needlessly so, in my opinion. Most of us have come to rely on experts of one kind or another to tell us how to eat – doctors and diet books, media accounts of the latest findings in nutritional science, government advisories and food pyramids, the proliferating health claims on food packaging.

Well, there’s a quick way out of that, Mikey; don’t listen to any of it!

We may not always heed these experts' advice, but their voices are in our heads every time we order from a menu or wheel down the aisle in the supermarket.

Ummm, no, actually they aren’t.

Most people just don’t worry about that sort of anally-retentive rubbish, preferring instead to concentrate on what’s a good deal or a tasty, quick option for dinner, or if it’s a special occasion, what will impress the significant other.

Or if they did once worry about it, they’ve learned not to as a result of the contradictions and ‘Oops, we got that wrong!’ and the just plain bad science (which as Leg-Iron points out, may have serious consequences)…

Also in our heads today resides an astonishing amount of biochemistry. How odd it is that everybody now has at least a passing acquaintance with words like "antioxidant," "saturated fat," "omega-3 fatty acids," "carbohydrates," "polyphenols," "folic acid," "gluten," and "probiotics"?

Do they? I never bother to read the list of ingredients, frankly.

Most of them are not worth bothering about anyway, being the latest fad or scare story in the media, to be quickly forgotten or supplanted by others by the time the next supermarket shelf-relocation event comes around…

But, for all the scientific and pseudo-scientific food baggage we've taken on in recent years, we still don't know what we should be eating.

I do. I eat what I like, when I like.

Should we worry more about the fats or the carbohydrates? Then what about the "good" fats? Is it really true that this breakfast cereal will improve my son's focus at school or that other cereal will protect me from a heart attack?

Oh, for god’s sake, man, just grow a pair, will you? Stop listening to the ‘experts’ who are inevitably disproved a few months or years later by their colleagues, and just eat what you want!

A few years ago, feeling as confused as everyone else, I set out to get to the bottom of a simple question: what should I eat? I'm not a nutrition expert or a scientist, just a curious journalist hoping to answer a straightforward question for myself and my family.

The deeper I delved into the confusing thicket of nutritional science, sorting through the long-running fats versus carbs wars, the fibre skirmishes and the raging dietary supplement debates, the simpler the picture gradually became. I learned that science knows a lot less about nutrition than you would expect – that in fact nutrition science is, to put it charitably, a very young science. Today it's approximately where surgery was in the year 1650 – very promising, and very interesting to watch, but are you ready to let them operate on you? I think I'll wait a while.

Hallelujah! At last, he’s seen the light!

There are basically two important things you need to know about the links between diet and health, two facts that are not in dispute.

And they are?

The first is that populations that eat a so-called western diet – generally defined as a diet consisting of lots of processed foods and meat, lots of added fat and sugar, lots of refined grains, lots of everything except vegetables, fruits and wholegrains – invariably suffer from high rates of the so-called Western diseases: obesity, type 2 diabetes.

Well, that’s undoubtedly true, but it may not be the food at fault, but our sedentary lifestyles. Did that ever occur to you?

Secondly, there is no single ideal human diet; the human omnivore is exquisitely adapted to a wide range of different foods.

And a wide range of lifestyles, too. A ‘western diet’ high in sugar and fat would be burned off very, very quickly by most third world labour-intensive jobs, or even a western farm labourer or building worker.

It isn’t the food that’s at fault, it’s the fact that we no longer adapt to our reduced activity roles.

However, Mikey has a plan:

The selection of food rules below are less about the theory, history and science of eating than about our daily lives and practice. They are personal policies, designed to help you eat real food in moderation and, by doing so, substantially to get off the western diet.

There follows a list of bizarre ‘rules’ to live by, including ‘Eat only foods that will eventually rot’ and ‘Eat foods made from ingredients that you can picture in their raw state or growing in nature’ (to avoid preservatives and ‘artificial’ ingredients).

That’s followed up with ‘Eat only foods that have been cooked by humans’ (no, not an instruction to forgo that late-night after-drink kebab, but an instruction to avoid ‘corporation’ food, i.e. fast food. Because that, presumably, isn’t cooked by humans…).

And then we get to the real meat of the article (ha, ha!): ‘Eat mostly plants, especially leaves’ and ‘Treat meat as a flavouring or special occasion food’. In other words, go vegetarian. Though he does redeem himself a little by suggesting that you ‘Have a glass of wine with dinner’, which will upset the nanny state no end…

And at the end of these exhausting, pettifogging, irritating rules (‘Eat your colours’ – WTF?), he suggests ‘Break the rules once in a while’...!

Our experience over the past few decades suggests that dieting and worrying too much about nutrition has made us no healthier or slimmer; cultivating a relaxed attitude toward food is important.

A relaxed attitude towards food doesn’t require the creation of ‘rules’, Mikey.

Epic FAIL, I’m afraid…

The Spirit Of Cynthia Payne Lives On!

There's just something quintessentially English about this story:

Police arrived with battering rams to raid the home but a plain clothes officer knocked on the door and the residents let him in thinking he had an appointment.

Can't have been the uniform that did it, though, he was plainclothes...

The sex 'dungeon' was found in a converted first floor room filled with hundreds of items including whips, gas masks, wooden bats, handcuffs, clothes pegs and shackles.

Police also discovered bondage chairs with straps, straight jackets, sex toys, gimp masks, S&M outfits, shackles, cattle prods and car batteries used to power the toys.

The dungeon was also stuffed with 'various electrical vibrating' items and a recording studio complete with computer equipment and mixing desk.

Which means it comes as no surprise that the police raid didn't faze the clientele one little bit:

During the raid, one customer arrived at the home and still asked for his appointment to go ahead despite the large police presence.

I expect they'd have charged him extra for it, if they could!

Detective Sergeant Stuart Gilroy of Devon and Cornwall police said officers made the 'startling' discovery last Friday afternoon.

He said: 'We were surprised to uncover this to say the very least. Upon searching the house we found a room set up as a dungeon.

'It's fair to say we were not expecting to find a masochistic dungeon in sleepy Lee Mill. You don't expect to find this sort of thing anywhere.'

Oh, what a sheltered life you must have led, Detective Sergeant..!

And naturally, the less amusing side of the English takes a bow towards the end of this story too:

A 38-year-old man from Lee Mill, a 21-year-old woman from Ivybridge, Devon, and a 24-year-old woman from Plymouth have been arrested in connection with the incident.

I wonder what for?

One neighbour said: 'It might sound funny but to be honest we are nervous about the place.

'There's been cars coming and going at night and all sorts of men arriving at weird hours.

'I've seen traffic jams caused by people trying to go there. It's disgusting. We just want them out and have a nice family move in.'

Yes, because 'nice families' don't do dreadful things with other consenting adults behind closed doors, do they?

I can, frankly, think of far worse neighbours to have!

Perhaps He Should Pay The Fine….

...in Monopoly money:

When new laws made it illegal to smoke in a company vehicle, tanker driver Chris Minihan accepted that his days of puffing away at the wheel were over.

In the two years since then he has been trying hard to kick the habit - and even invested in a fake electronic cigarette to help him.

Oh, you can guess what’s coming, can’t you?

But today the father of one will be in court to fight possible fines of up to £2,700 for smoking in a public place and dropping ash.

He claims a council enforcement officer mistook the fake cigarette for a real one when she spotted Mr Minihan during his rest-break at a picnic area.

Now, maybe he’s telling the truth, and maybe he isn’t. I guess it will all hinge on the photographic testimony.

But if this thing really is indistinguishable from a real cigarette, then I don’t see how the prosecution can prove their case…

The officer took three photographs of Mr Minihan's tanker at the Wigg Island nature reserve in Runcorn, Cheshire, which is managed by Halton Borough Council.

He said: 'If she had approached me on the day I could have shown her what I was doing and the whole thing could've been nipped in the bud then.

'Instead, I only found out what she had done when an official arrived at the company yard two days later to issue me with the fixed penalty notices.'

And the company backed him. Not just with moral support, but with money:

He will represent himself in court, but the firm has offered to pay any costs if he loses the case.

Which the BBC reports he now has:

Brian Howells, chairman of the bench, said his story was "consistent" but described the enforcement officer as a credible witness and found in favour of the council.

Uneasy Rider…

Teenager Sam Scutts has found a novel way to get around in Gravesend – he bought, and rides, a mobility scooter. Perfectly legally.

In 2009, of course, even doing something legal can get you stopped and threatened by police officers with no knowledge of the law and too much time on their hands:

However, Sam was stopped by the police while riding through Gravesend town centre on June 3.

He says two officers on foot, one on a bicycle and a police car swooped on him outside Debenhams as he rolled alongside his friends.

That’s, assuming only one officer in the police car, four police for one teenager harmlessly riding his mobility scooter?

It’s only a wonder they didn’t call in an ARV and a helicopter…

“They threatened to arrest me for dangerous driving, add three points to my provisional driving licence, tow away the scooter and fine me £110”, he says.

However, after a lengthy discussion the officers let Sam go with a warning and he drove home.

What..?!?

He said: “I was shocked by the police reaction because I was not doing anything wrong.

“I wasn’t driving dangerously, I was driving around people and stopping to let them pass, and the fastest I can go is walking pace.

“And there’s nothing illegal about me driving the scooter - I checked and its not against the law to drive one if you’re not disabled.”

He added: “The amount of police officers who came, it was as though they thought I was going to try to escape in it, even though it only does 4mph."

So, Sam can expect an apology from the police for this attempt to intimidate a young man by threatening him with a non-crime, and some retraining for the police who don’t seem to know what the law is, or what their powers entitle them to do?

Yeah, right:

Chief Inspector Pete Ayling, of Kent police, says the officers response was “proportionate” because Sam was “thought to be acting in an anti-social manner” .

He added: “The number of officers involved is a consequence of the incident happening in a busy town centre.”

So, when it became apparent that he wasn’t acting in an anti-social manner, was it still ‘appropriate’ for your officers to threaten him with something that wasn’t even an offence, and issue a warning about….well, what, exactly?

Probably this:

He is aware some people may think it is inappropriate for an able-bodied 17-year-old to ride a mobility scooter, but says: “I don’t think it’s offensive as I’m not hurting anyone, I’m just having fun.

Obviously, that can’t be allowed…

Oh, and Mr Ayling? While those officers were harassing a young lad while trying desperately to find something to add to their targets, they weren’t patrolling your ‘busy town centre’, were they?

I Suppose All The 'Gratuitous Stabbing' Was OK With You, Though...?

The NuPuritans are at it again, and have turned their attention to film criticism this time:

American Medical Association Alliance President Sandi Frost used as her chief example of a movie with "gratuitous smoking" this month's blockbuster "X-Men Origins: Wolverine," which was rated PG-13 "for intense sequences of action and violence, and some partial nudity."

"Millions of children have been exposed to the main star of the film, Hugh Jackman, with a cigar in his mouth in various scenes," Frost said. "I'm willing to bet that not one child would have enjoyed that movie or Mr. Jackman's performance any less if he hadn't been smoking."

/facepalm

You know what makes me want a cigarette right now, even though I’ve never smoked in my life?

The bloody AMAA, that’s what!

Because People Can’t Be Trusted To Make The Right Choice…

Heard the one about the restaurant that told diners not to eat its food...? Well that would be Nobu, the celebrated sushi restaurant, which is advising diners to avoid ordering an endangered fish.

The chain, whose customers include Brad Pitt and Kate Moss, has put a notice on menus at its London restaurants warning customers that the bluefin tuna served for up to £32 a time is "environmentally challenged", adding: "Please ask your server for an alternative."

And what’s wrong with that?

The slebs who want to wave their eco-credentials in each other’s faces will seize on the chance to declare their support for endangered species and select another overpriced dish to push around their plates for a while before leaving to do a few lines of coke at some nightclub, while those who don’t give a stuff for the latest eco-fad will have a nice meal.

But it doesn’t suit the campaigners, of course, who would prefer no-one had a choice at all:

The advice is a novel concession to a five-year campaign against Nobu's refusal to stop stocking the bluefin, a fish once so plentiful that it fed Roman legions but which now hovers on the brink of extinction.

It seems to me that the greens aren’t very certain of their message, if five years later, people are still ignoring them.

Nobu's new policy, featured in a new feature film about the destruction of the world's fish stocks released next month, has bemused conservationists. "They shouldn't sell endangered species. They should change their menu to incorporate a fish that's sustainable and not one that's critically endangered," said Giles Bartlett, senior fishers policy officer for WWF, formerly the World Wildlife Fund.

That’s a lot of ‘shoulds’ there, isn’t it?

Just why should they bow to pressure from a small bunch of politically motivated campaigners? Particularly as it’s likely to cost them a pretty penny:

Tom Aikens, the Michelin-starred restaurateur, said bluefin was probably one of Nobu's three best-selling fish and its withdrawal would hit the chain's profits hard.

He described its advice to diners as "very peculiar."

"That's insane," said the chef, who stocks environmentally-friendly fish such as line-caught cod, ling and gurnard. "If you're serving it you shouldn't say don't order it. It's contradictory. They should take it off."

Err, Tom, I think you just answered your own question there as to why they don’t….

You Gave Them An Inch, Why Complain When They Come Back For The Mile?

Food manufacturers gave in and reduced the amount of salt in their products as a result of a sustained lobbying campaign. Did that appease the campaigners?

Well, what do you think?

Pre-packed sandwiches, pizzas and cheese will have the amount of salt they contain slashed under proposals from food watchdogs.

Big brands are in the firing line from the Food Standards Agency's tough salt-reduction targets, including Kellogg's corn flakes.

Health campaigners claim that more than 7,000 people are dying earlier than necessary each year because they eat too much salt.

A claim they can’t in any way prove, but then, since when did that matter any more?

After all, in modern science, if you seek out, and then find, evidence that actually contradicts your theory, then the evidence must be wrong, and not your theory…

But I digress:

However, manufacturers, including the Federation of Bakers, argue that the public is not prepared to accept the change in taste that will result from using less salt.

They also claim that salt operates as a useful preservative.

‘The public’…? What have they got to do with this?

They can just help themselves to a big mug of ‘Shut the hell up’. Their betters are talking:

Rosemary Hignett, of the FSA, said: 'To continue to make progress we have set 2012 targets at levels that will make a further real impact on consumers' intakes, while taking into account technical and safety issues associated with taking salt out of food.'

In other words: ‘Suckers! You thought you could appease the crocodile!’

Stephen Robertson, of the British Retail Consortium, said: 'Our members are Europe's leaders in salt reduction and have made fantastic progress in the last decade.

'But the new salt targets are much harder and, in some cases, we believe customers won't accept the change in taste.'

Sorry, Steve, but you should never have taken the bait the first time. You cannot satisfy these people.

They don’t care whether customers will accept this or not. As far as they are concerned, customers aren’t there to take informed decisions and exercise a choice, they are there to live their lives according to the latest whim or diktat from government.

Gordon Polson, of the Federation of Bakers, said it could be ' technically impossible' for the industry to deliver further reductions 'without compromising taste or quality'.

Yeah, I’m betting they aren’t going to let any ‘technical’ matters stand in their way, Gordon. Your companies are ‘rich’, they can just bear the huge cost. If you go to the wall as a result, they’ll be just as happy with that.

And, on cue:

However, Graham MacGregor, a professor of cardiovascular medicine and chairman of the salt reduction lobbying group CASH, insists more must be done.

He said: 'It's sad to see that some bakers and ham and bacon producers are not prepared to lower the salt content of their products and we can only speculate that this is for commercial reasons. Is it really worth thousands of lives? '

Why, yes! That’s the only possible reason for the companies to balk at this unscientific hogwash, isn’t it? They positively relish the thought of killing off their customer base!

Cretin…

Update: The inimitable 'Daily Mash's' take on this.

Hat tip: Pavlov's Cat in the comments

"What's wrong with this picture?"

A man with a website devoted to Spandex-clad women has been given a 28-week suspended jail term after secretly filming female swimmers.

This is a crime...?

Michael Matthews, 40, filmed participants at a gala in Sheffield's Pond Forge International Sports Centre.

A fellow commuter noticed Matthews watching the footage on his laptop on a train to London and told police.

Now, why would a fellow commuter call the police to report that someone is viewing boobie shots on his laptop, and have any real expectation of them not laughing and putting the phone down.

Well, as you might have guessed, it's 'for the children'!

Prosecuting at Southwark Crown Court, Peter Zinner explained how Matthews was caught looking at the images.

He said: "Unfortunately for him another member of the public was able to use the reflection of an adjacent window to see Matthews use what he believed was a laptop to view them.

"There appeared to be indecent images of children on moving footage which showed the maker... had zoomed in on genitals, breasts and buttock areas of young people at a swimming pool."

So, several uniformed officers nabbed him as he got off the train.

The swimmers involved were later identified as aged over 18.

Ah, so, not children after all?

They were spoken to and although until then "completely unaware" of what happened, said they felt "distressed and violated", the court heard.

And who made them feel that way? The defendant, or the people that told them what the defendant was up to?

And since when did this kind of 'violation' get taken seriously? I'm pretty sure when the old Victorian explorers came upon remote tribes who viewed photography as 'taking their souls', it was regarded as a sign of how primitive they were; they never thought in their wildest dreams that one day their descendents would say 'Hey, maybe those tribes were on to something after all!'

There's no doubt whatsoever that Matthews is a skeezy perv, to use a technical term:

A search of Matthews' home uncovered a makeshift studio with lighting and other equipment and more than 600 pornographic films.

Mr Zinner said: "It all appeared to be consistent with the copying and making of porn material, some commercial, some home-made."

But does that really justify the waste of time and resources:

Matthews, who is unemployed, was given a 24-month supervision order, ordered to attend a sex offenders' rehabilitation course, banned from public swimming pools until 2012 and ordered to pay £300 prosecution costs.

Contrast this case with the one in the week of the two burglars pictured by a neighbour breaking into someone's home.

They stole £1,400 of belongings, had records as long as your arm, yet received only a suspended sentence (12 and 18 months) and supervision order, thanks to the utterly barmy decision that drug addicts should be spared jail.

Who is causing real harm here?

Now, I've no special love for the dirty mac brigade, and if one of the fathers of these 18 year olds caught him in the act of taking pics and decided to, shall we say, forcefully invite him to depart, fair dos.

But wasting criminal prosecution on one of the lookie loos while actual thieves, muggers, rapists and HoC expense fiddlers go free? Where are our priorities?

The UK Today: Mawkish Sentimentality 'R Us...

I always wondered how bloggers became 'swearbloggers'. Is it because they have a natural flair with the scatalogical descriptive?

Or is it because one day, they see, read or hear something that cannot be conveyed using plain English, so clearly is it an indication of how this country is completely losing its collective shit! FFS! WTFF!..!

*whew* Glad to get that off my chest...

And what prompts this, you ask? Well, it seems a footballer (no, not a famous one - I think, anyway!) has been suspended from his club for 14 days for 'inappropriate behaviour'.

Well, you'll say, that's typical. What did he do? Smash up his Ferrari? Spit roast a couple of teenage groupies? Assault someone after a drunken nightclub evening?

Well, no. He failed to show adequate interest in the Two Minute Hate Sorrow.

To translate this into English, he can be seen 'smiling and nudging a team-mate'.

He didn't drop his trousers and moon the stands, he didn't stick two fingers up to the opposing team. He didn't vault onto the pitch and urinate on the referee.

He simply failed to stand there and play along with the rest of the players, who may (or may not) have been thinking of the Hillsborough tragedy, but certainly looked as if they were. And in the UK today, that's all that matters...

And the Football Authorities are minded to have him made an example of, lest their supporters deluge their mailbags with self-pitying, self-righteous complaints that a young French man employed on £stupidmoney per month simply to kick a leather ball around a pitch failed to understand that he needs to fit in with the superstitions and practices of the locals:

Les Lawson, secretary of the Merseyside branch of the official Liverpool Supporters' Club, said: "I think he should be sacked.

"There is no excuse for not showing respect to the 96 supporters.

"It was a sombre occasion and for him to do what he was doing was a total and utter disgrace.

...

...

Nope, I still can't figure out why he should be sacked, either. A few words about his behaviour are all that would be necessary. Hell, a glare from a coach of the likes of Bryan Clough would once have been adequate punishment. But that was then, and this is now.

Christ, why don't we just go the whole hog, overthrow the Queen, install Jeremy Kyle as the monarch (with Tricia or Vanessa as his consort), replace the national anthem with Elton John's 'Candle In The Wind' and have done with it...

The UK - a nation of self-pitying, overblown hysterics. No wonder everyone's leaving.

"What Do You Mean, We Need 'Proof'...?"

Charges of illegal hunting against three members of the Devon and Somerset Staghounds have been dropped, a decision described by the Countryside Alliance as further evidence that the ban has failed.

It seems the bunnyhuggers are getting out of their tree because the law states that you need to prove that someone is doing something illegal. And they weren't planning on having to account for that...

Strangely, standing there pointing at your arch enemies and saying 'Arrest them, officers, they're icky and we hates 'em!' doesn't fly in this country, despite the best that NuLab has done to it.

And if you are expecting the CPS to do some work for a change, well, forget that!

The CPS said yesterday that in the light of a High Court ruling in February, that it was for the prosecution to prove a hunt was not carrying out exempt hunting, it would drop the case.

Oh, deer dear. Sucks to be you, League Against Cruel Sports.

”This isn’t just any marketing opportunity…”

Billed by the supermarket as the perfect quick fix, credit crunch lunch, it is the ultimate sign of how busy we have become.

Free from the flourishes of many M&S products, the sandwich is exactly as it says on the pack: two slices of white bread with butter and jam.

And how much are they charging for that most simple of ‘meals’?

The simple snack would take just seconds to prepare in a kitchen, but M&S is offering to remove the effort in return for 75 pence.

Ha ha ha ha! Recession, what recession…?

Mind you, having read this, I think I’ll go buy one after all:

While nutritionists and the health-conscious may baulk at its high sugar content and low GI value, M&S are confident it will sell.

Go to hell, alfalfa-munchers…!

”This is the operative statement. The others are inoperative…”

Fears that eating one egg a day will lead to high cholesterol and heart disease were challenged yesterday by scientific research.
It seems that there is no reason after all for healthy people to limit egg consumption to three a week — even though nearly half of British people believe that this is the maximum recommended number.

Well, fancy! So, no ‘scientific research’ was done on the subject before they dished out the original advice, was it?

And they wonder why people are rightly sceptical about ‘man made climate change’ and don’t know who to believe on the great MMR debate….

A paper to be published soon in the British Nutrition Foundation's Nutrition Bulletin has found that cholesterol in eggs has only a small and clinically insignificant effect on blood cholesterol. While people with high blood cholesterol are at increased risk of heart disease, only a third of the cholesterol in the body is attributed to diet.

Needless to say, the people with egg on their face over the incorrect advice will be quick to point out that this could be an attempt by the dastardly egg producing industry to muddy the waters:

There was some scepticism about the findings when it was confirmed that Juliet Gray, a public health nutritionist, was funded by the egg industry for her research time. The co-author Bruce Griffin, a professor of nutritional metabolism at the University of Surrey, did not receive payment, though in the past he has advised the British Egg Industry Council on scientific issues.

So what? This is another brick often thrown at those who produce man made global warming-sceptical research that is discovered to be funded by the oil industry.

But if it’s the case that their science is therefore dodgy, it should be easy to disprove, shouldn’t it? There should be no need to resort to ‘Well, you would say that, wouldn’t you?’ arguments…

And it seems that other organisations have been quietly walking back the previous advice for some time:

However, it also emerged yesterday that the British Heart Foundation (BHF) revised its advice on egg consumption two years ago and no longer suggests a maximum of three eggs a week.

Did they ever launch a publicity campaign to revoke the previous advice, and therefore expose themselves as credulous fools in thrall to the latest theory, no matter how little evidence it is based on?

Perish the thought:

This advice is in line with guidance from the Food Standards Agency, which also says that most people have no reason to worry about the number of eggs they eat a week — though anyone who has inherited a genetic susceptibility to high blood cholesterol linked to increased risk of coronary heart disease, about one in 500 people in Britain, is still advised to stick to two or at most three eggs a week.

You mean, one size doesn’t fit all? And we should all consider our individual circumstances before deciding whether to follow official advice?

Well, you can see why they wouldn’t want to shout that from the rooftops…

The study concludes that health chiefs and GPs should demolish the myths about eggs and heart disease and communicate a message that there is no need to limit the number eaten as long as they are part of a healthy low saturated fat diet.

Let’s see if they do that. And let’s see if people draw the inevitable conclusions…

”Well I'll tell ya, with the way nature's been cheating us, I don't mind cheating her a little.”

For most pensioners in their 70s, going for a brisk stroll is the perfect way to get some exercise.

But walking is is far too sedate for septuagenarian Geoff Dornan who prefers to race around on a pair of rollerblades.

And good luck to him, you might think! I only hope I have that much energy when I’m 71…

Sadly, Mr Dornan dared to be different. And NuLab’s Britain doesn’t like difference, and seeks to crush it whenever it can:

However living life in the fast lane has landed the 71-year-old daredevil in trouble with the law after he was deemed a danger to pedestrians.

The retired youth worker, who says regular skating keeps him fit and healthy, had his rollerblades confiscated by police.

And this week he was hauled before the courts where he denied endangering public safety by rollerblading and breaching local bylaws.

Excuse me…?

So, if he’d driven around in one of those deadly-silent electric buggies, he’d be perfectly fine? But because he rollerbladed, he’s hauled before the court?

Hmmm, deaths and injuries caused by electric buggies – about 8000, vs the same caused by rollerblading pensioners – 0. At least, that I could find.

Certainly, Mr Dornan claims never to have had an incident:

A panel of three magistrate were shown two videos, one 22-minutes and another 16 minutes long.

The recordings showed Mr Dornan, wearing a dark jumper and trousers, skating along the pavement, dodging and weaving between pedestrians.

However, none of the people walking appeared to take any evasive action to avoid his path nor did any of them appear to break their step.

So, the case seems clear cut – why was he even questioned?

PC Paul Harwood said: 'There was an ongoing complaint regarding the roller-blading of Mr Dornan. On 16th October I was on duty in in Chapel Street and saw Mr Dornan rollerblading.

'He had been a regular rollerblader over the summer months, but as I watched him I believed his actions to be a danger to pedestrians because he was weaving in and out of people and in front of shop doorways.

'I approached Mr Dornan and explained that due to the fashion of his skating he was breaching a town centre bylaw.

'I cautioned him but he replied by saying 'The bylaw says I can skate as long as I am safe'. I explained that although he thought his skating was safe I still thought he was breaching the bylaw.'

He said: 'I told him he could be arrested and his rollerblades seized but he continued to skate. When I seized the CCTV discs I handed them to the council and it was their decision to prosecute.'

Well, aren’t you just a brave little soldier, PC Harwood! Not for you the safe, easy option of arresting aggressive youths, burglars or shoplifters. Not when there’s a 71 year old skater to deal with, anyway…

And I suspect that the real offence in this jumped up little popinjay’s mind was that Mr Dornan dared to show a good understanding of the council bylaws and failed to meekly back down when he was challenged.

But who complained? One of the usual suspects, a thirty-something public sector busybody, cowed into believing that the State Is Right In All Things?

Nope:

Witness Harold Craven (Ed – appropriate name!), 76, told the court: 'On several occasions I saw a gentleman skating, going very fast in and out of people. I always wondered what would happen if he hit someone.

'I saw a police constable and I asked him why he was allowed to skate when an accident could happen. The police officer took my name and address and said he would look into it for me.'

Well, Harold old sock, why are any of us allowed to do something when something bad might happen? Better we all stay at home with a nice mug of cocoa and wait for Nanny to tuck us in, eh..?

I think Harold’s problem is he doesn’t have a fraction of this gentleman’s get-up-and-go. But the police shouldn’t feel free to act on another elderly man’s jealousy.

Outside court Mr Dornan said: 'In the months during which I have been unjustly deprived of my blades, I was shocked to discover how swiftly the health of someone of my age can deteriorate.

'At the time of my arrest, I was as fit as a flea, and entirely free of pain. Yet by Christmas, I found myself confined to bed with severe back trouble.'

I would never want to put anybody in danger and always adopt a good skating practice, which means nobody should ever feel threatened. I don't believe I'm a danger to anyone. This case should never have been brought to court.'

That’s right, it shouldn’t.

The case was adjourned and will reconvene later this month.

When hopefully the magistrates will show some backbone and some common sense and throw the case out, and request, instead, that the book be thrown at the officious little gauleiter of a police officer and the cretins at the council that decided to take it forward…

Oh, Do Please *!$&* Off, Nanny State!

Tesco and Asda were condemned last night for selling a string of books and CDs with the F-word in their titles.

The items were available on their websites, where they were easily accessible to children.

It was an error, of course. Both supermarkets normally filter these things out:

They appeared even if inoffensive words from their titles were entered into the sites' search engines, with the potential to shock and offend shoppers.

Asda quickly apologised when The Mail on Sunday brought the books and CDs to its attention and promptly removed them from its stock list.

So, problem solved, right?

Oh, no:

Tesco explained that its technological filter system, designed to prevent any products with offensive titles from appearing on its main site, had been faulty. It has since been repaired, making the titles more difficult to view.

But MPs and campaigners are now questioning whether a change in the law is necessary to prevent unlimited access to such products.

I’ll save you the trouble – NO!

Not that that will stop the bandwagon jumpers, of course, for whom this represents a chance to get their names in the media:

Don Foster, the Liberal Democrat MP for Bath, criticised falling standards of decency among retailers. He said: ‘In terms of magazines, CDs and DVDs, standards seem to be slipping. If the industry can’t collectively sort itself out then we must seriously look into external regulation. If they can’t regulate themselves, we may have to introduce a statutory code.’

They are regulating themselves – this was a simple error, which when brought to their attention, was quickly fixed.

What’s the problem, Don? It’s not like the LibDumbs never make a boo-boo, is it? I don’t see you hollering for valuable Parliamentary time to be wasted then, eh...?

Of course, then there’s the rest of them:

Nadine Dorries, the Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire, questioned how selling ‘adult’ material fitted in with Tesco’s image as a ‘family supermarket’.

She said: ‘Is this the beginning of Tesco’s drive to dominate the entire retail industry by abandoning all moral boundaries? Is this Tesco’s first step into the adult retail market? ‘

Yup! Pretty soon, the vibrators and butt-plugs will be available next to the saucily-shaped carrots and the sticks of butter...

The two supermarkets are not alone in featuring controversial titles on their websites. Last week WHSmith had 23 titles containing the F-word while Waterstone’s had 38.

This widespread availability reflects the lack of regulation on the display of such goods on the internet. As the products are legal to sell, the stores themselves agree on a code of conduct over their availability.

And what’s wrong with that? Barring computer errors like this one, it works. What legislation can prevent computer error, Nadine? And if you find one, better apply it to the government first...

John Beyer of campaign group Mediawatch-uk said the products were legal to sell. But he described the law as ‘ineffective’ and stressed that retailers had a duty to protect shoppers.

He said: ‘Sellers have a wider responsibility to the community they serve. Having that word in the title on full display is not something you’d expect of a supermarket.’

Oh, give me strength...

Look, the Victorian Age was an age of great discovery and invention, but can we all recall that though they were exceptionally prudish (even beyond the standards shown here) they also had the same number of vices, sex crimes and blue jokes as today.

Let’s not reinvent those times, eh?

Gone To Earth…

This ‘Times’ editorial sums it up succinctly:

If hard cases make bad law, new Labour's attempts to ban foxhunting have been a spectacular example. The Hunting Act 2004 has proved virtually unenforceable: only five people connected to hunts have been convicted of any offence. The Act has been counterproductive: the Countryside Alliance says that the number of people hunting has actually risen, by 11 per cent, in the past four years. Now it turns out that the very nub of the Act was equally misconceived. The High Court yesterday brought the Government, and hunt saboteurs, to bay.

Which, I seem to recall, was being said at the time, but the MSM were in the tank for Blair (in a way they mostly aren’t for his hapless successor) and these arguments never got much of an airing.

But though the wheels of justice grind slow, they do grind exceedingly thoroughly:

Sir Anthony May and Mr Justice Maddison yesterday made three crucial rulings: first, that “hunting” a wild mammal under the Act was not the same as “searching for” an animal to stalk it or flush it out; second, that prosecutors must prove that hunting was “intentional” rather than “accidental”, to secure a conviction; and third, that it is for the prosecution to prove that defendants are not covered by exemptions to the ban, rather than for defendants to show they are exempt. This judgment will make it extremely difficult to mount any successful prosecution.

Thus restoring an age-old concept of UK law – that the prosecution needs to prove your guilt, you do not need to prove your innocence. Let’s hope this concept spreads to those other illiberal laws NuLab has forced onto the statute books…

The ruling is a victory for Tony Wright, huntsman of the Exmoor Foxhounds, and the first man to be prosecuted for hunting foxes. It is also a victory for common sense.

And we don’t get many of those.

So whatever your personal opinions of the morality (or otherwise) of foxhunting, let’s at least savour the overturning of this poorly-drafted, unenforceable law…

The 2004 Act came into force after seven years, a virtually unprecedented amount of debate on one issue. New Labour spent seven years talking to Islington about a sport that provided many countryside livelihoods. Ministers have now gone to ground, and are unlikely to break cover. Rightly so. The hunting ban was unnecessary meddling in an issue in which Parliament had no need to intervene.

If only Parliament would confine itself to those areas they do have a need to intervene, we’d all be better off.

And we’d need a lot less of them too….

Meat Is (Environmental) Murder!

The militant vegetarians have seen an opening in the recent government promise to cut carbon emissions to push their agenda:

I saw a little sign on the tip jar at a US airport cafe recently. It said, "Scared of change? Leave yours here!" Human nature makes us resist change. There's a biological reason for this. Our ancestors knew that if they ate unfamiliar foods, they might die. Not much has changed, which was clear yesterday in the hysterical response to the government's decision to take measures to cut carbon emissions – including by changing hospital menus to make them more environmentally friendly.

It's pie-in-the-sky and a waste of time to lament that farming isn't what it used to be. With hospitals strapped for cash, no one can seriously suggest that they buy only organic, range-fed meat.

Funnily enough, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that. Certainly, the government isn’t – it’s merely suggesting that meat in NHS menus should be reduced, while more fish, and local vegetables, be provided as an alternative.

Sorry, did I say ‘fish’? I meant ‘sea kitten’, of course… ;)

And of course, we all remember the last great £40million hospital food initiative, don’t we? And just how well that was received too.

But the watermelons are on a roll:

The facts about carbon emissions from livestock are just that: facts. We can ignore them to our children's and grandchildren's peril, or we can do something positive. Hospitals should be applauded for taking the latter path. You needn't have read the United Nations' report on global warming to know that raising animals for their flesh, eggs and milk is one of the world's leading causes of carbon dioxide emissions.

Ahh, right – it’s ‘for the childen’.

It isn't hard to see that, if anything, the recent ruling hasn't gone far enough. We need to stop feeding meat not only to hospital patients but to schoolchildren as well. And we should eliminate dairy products and eggs too.

And when no-one eats the stuff and it all ends up in landfill? Are you going to demand that hospital staff force it down people’s throats with a stick?

Hospital meals, like school dinners, have never been something to write home about. That "mystery meat" on the tray on your lap might be pork, it might be lamb, it might be, oh I don't know, cuttlefish? I'm betting that hospital patients – and certainly not their poor clogged arteries – will never miss the pink-beige blob of meat on their food tray.

Maybe. But who the hell do you think you are to blithely seek to make that decision for them, based upon your own choices, while they are a captive audience…?

Militant, authoritarian vegans. Love ‘em. Couldn’t eat a whole one, though…

"So many innocent children would choose the wrong way..."

In a move that's bound to ignite passions (particularly those of 'The Filthy Smoker' at the 'Devil's Kitchen'), the NHS has taken a leaf out of the Nazis book and decided to get 'em young:

Toddlers are being told to encourage their parents to quit smoking in a "sinister" move by health service officials.

I'll say it's sinister...!

Anti-smoking advisors are going into nurseries for the first time to give children as young as three lectures on the evils of cigarettes.

They are showing them dolls that demonstrate how the lungs of smokers and non-smokers differ, then handing them NHS leaflets and questionnaires to take home for their parents.

Colchester and Tendring NHS Stop Smoking Service in Essex believes it is a good way to get an important health message across, and insists it is done "delicately and tactfully".

Well, of course they do. The fact that they see nothing whatsover wrong with lecturing and hectoring children (of three, for God's sake!) to get at their recalcitrant parents shows exactly what the state thinks of the people who pay its wages.

So far the Essex service has given "pre-school smoking education sessions" at the Kiddi Caru Nursery in Colchester and the Little Pals Neighbourhood Nursery in Clacton-on-Sea.

In addition, it is giving pregnant women £20 in Co-Op vouchers if they stop smoking for a week, another £40 after a month and a further £40 if they give up for a year.

So if you live in Essex and send your kids to those two nurseries, you can expect tears before bedtime should you spark up tonight. And maybe even if you don't smoke, if your kids have had the bejeesus frightened out of them by those dolls that 'demonstrate how the lungs of smokers and non-smokers differ' (wonder if they are made by the same company that makes the 'anatomically correct' dolls so beloved of child abuse witchhunters..?).

Emma Ferdinand, Specialist Stop Smoking Adviser for Young People, said: "More than 40 per cent of children live in a household with at least one smoker and children of smokers are more than twice as likely to start smoking. Our aim is to target parents by providing leaflets via the children on the effects of passive smoking and, as importantly, providing information on how to access the Colchester and Tendring NHS Stop Smoking Service if any parents decide they want to stop smoking."

There's a name for people who target children because they find that adults are too intelligent or too stubborn to fall for their claptrap, Emma.

Still, I'm sure we can expect the usual suspects who whine at McDonald's and Coca-Cola's 'malign influence on children' to be up in arms about this, can't we?

Can't we....?