Thursday, 6 October 2011

First it was smoke breaks...

...and now it's toilet breaks. Norway first, but Cameron is likely to be drooling at the prospect of this extra control measure.

Coffee breaks are in the sights, and then lunch breaks. Soon your clocking-in-and-out will be done automatically at your desk. As soon as your weight leaves that seat, the company stops paying you. Oh, and by the way, the seat will send a daily reading of your weight to your local NHS weight control officer in case you're getting a little chunky.

Far-fetched? So is the idea of a tax on bread, and a breathalyser in your car that won't let it start if you've had a shandy. So you'll never see those things... or will you?

Let's have a round of applause for the antismokers who started this ball rolling. Where does it stop?

It doesn't.

9 comments:

someday said...

"Where does it stop? It doesn't."

Correct.

Unfortunately.

Junican said...

O/T LI, but I think that I have found something interesting about 'the yellowing' and 'the curing' of triffids.
Take a look at the Bolton Sm*k*rs Club.

Junican said...

LI, you might wish to edit your post. This toilet stuff is in Spain. The Norway stuff regarded women who were menstruating!

And, yes, you are right - once Gov bites the bit of runaway interference in people's lives, there is no stopping them.

Of course, it has been happening since time immemorial, but the modern 'biggy' for me, which gave 'carte blanche' to Gov, was the seatbelt law. By no stretch of the imagination could not wearing a seatbelt be seen as injurious to anyone other than the person not wearing the seatbelt. So why was Gov so keen on it? Well, only to reduce NHS costs of course! Throw in complications regarding car insurance and massive advertising and, bobs-yer-uncle, all comply.

As regards the Smoking Ban, we can see several factors:
1. The compliance with the seatbelt law.
2. Massive advertising.
3. The beginning of talk about BIG C (which no one talked about).
4. Swingeing penalties for publicans.
5. Quack professors and quack doctors spouting fake stats produced by the Royal College of Physicians via the front group and fake-charity ASH (with Gov backing).

Result? Compliance. Advantage to Gov? Increased taxes. further advantage to Gov? Blueprint for further fake 'health related' taxes.
What a shit place this county is becoming!!!

Leg-iron said...

Junican - that box is excellent. I had been thinking of building a wooden one but yours costs nothing.

I have leaves in the greenhouse where there's lots of humidity but not much heat these days, and in the garage where there's heat but not enough humidity (I have to spray them). So a controlled environment is necessary.

Spain/Norway, it's all 'abroad'. Besides, looking at the commenters on that story, it's already happening here!

The smokophobes thought they could make a deal with the devil and win. Well, being self-employed, I'm finding it all rather amusing.

That 'compliance' will be claimed for the Welsh ban on plastic bags too (which includes paper bags, therefore it's nothing to do with 'green'). There will be compliance because anyone found giving away a bag will be fined right out of business.

As with the smoking ban, 'compliance' means 'rule by force'.

Junican said...

Do you know what, LI? The only reason that the dimwits are getting away with it is that there is no significant organised protest at local levels.

Imagine that, say, 20 people deliberately went into a supermarket and put lots of stuff in their trolleys. Imagine that they all went to the same checkout. Number one asks for bags. Check-out clerk says, "Got none - unless you pay". Number one says, "Won't pay - give me bags". Clerk says, "No". Number 2 says, "What's going on here? I want bags too" And number 3 shouts the same. UPROAR!!! CHAOS!!!
That's what went wrong with the smoking ban, isn't it? - no organised chaos. But they sneaked it in, didn't they? BASTARDS!!!
The smoking ban will probably only collapse when 'they' go too far with something else - as a result of hubris (or over-confidence, if you like). Chaos (as with the jail situation in the Isle of Man) is what is required.

On the topic of the triffids, I have great hopes for the box. At this time (4am), the leaves are still soft and pliable, even after some 8 hours in the box in 30 degrees c.
I assume that you also looked at the previous post regarding 'A Fast Way to Cure To*b*c*o'?
Look accasionally at BSC because I have some bits of yellow stuff currently 'browning' and they look OK.

banned said...

@Junican, I'm no supporter of the seat belt laws but unrestrained rear seat passengers do pose a significant danger to front seat passengers in the event of a crash.

Anonymous said...

I agree with banned. I don't support the seatbelt law but if I were carrying backseat passengers, I would ask them to do up their belts. Incidentally, there has been a lot of serious work done on whether the seat belt law cut deaths. It appeared to increase death among cyclists.

Junican said...

Good point, banned and anon, but do you remember that, for years, only front seat occupants were required to wear belts? Your reasoning suggests that only back seat passengers should be obliged to wear belts! Actually, I think that the danger to front seat occupants from back seat ones is overstated - but I do not know. It all sounds a bit odd when passengers on trains and busses are not obliged to wear belts, nor is the diver obliged to force them to wear them (as is the case with cars) - there are some of the inconsistencies.

I am sure that you will understand that my main point was that the seat belt law has been a precursor for other intrusive bans backed up by fake stats and propaganda.

Anonymous said...

Crash Helmet Law 1972

I could not understand how the government could feel justified in fining me for not protecting my own head.

Regardless of the fact that I wore one of the first full face helmets, I thought that it was very much up to me when and if I put it on.
On principal, it still annoys me.

Having claimed rights to my head, it wasn't long before they came for the car drivers.
You might not be endangering anyone else either, but a precedent had been set.


Rose

opinions powered by SendLove.to