Saturday, 15 October 2011

Jamie Oliver - Food industry shill.

Blubbery, chubby food fanatic Jamie Oliver has decided to lambast the government because they won't bring in the laws he wants. Welcome to the land of disappointment, Jamie, where most people just wish this government would stop making up more petty and spiteful laws and guess what - they aren't listening to us either.

Longrider has already laughed in the face of Jamie's latest little tantrum but it's worth another go because there's another side to it that Jamie himself is far too dim to grasp.

The chef who's fatter than anything he's ever roasted wants more and harder controls on what we eat. To stop 'obesity', even though he fails to explain how taxing my food makes someone else slimmer. In a rare outbreak of common sense, the Government Monster in charge of Eating has told him to stuff his ideas where used food emerges. It's none of the Government's business what, or how much, any of us eat and it's refreshing to see that at least one Monster realises that.

Oh, but Little Jamie isn't happy. So he's lying on the floor screaming and banging his fists again. It's not hard to see why. They let his pals in Tobacco Control have what they wanted. They're letting his pals in Alcohol Control and Salt Control and all the other controls have what they want. All Jamie wants to do is hurt fat people, and thin ones too while he's at it. Jamie isn't getting to play Dictator like all his pals and now he's all weepy and upset. He thinks it's his turn to tell the Government what to do and why shouldn't he get a turn? Every other pointless, opinionated, self-important little prick has had a go and the Government have been even more accommodating than a whore with rickets to all of them.

The story fisks itself. Jamie insists that not demanding to control every morsel we eat is patronising, but if the Government does as they're told and forces us to eat as if we were all still in high chairs, that would not be patronising. Irony is not Jamie's strong point.

Quite what he thinks a chef will do in a world where nobody eats pre-prepared food is another mystery. Best not tax his intellect with that one, it's already at breaking point.

Comments on the Grauniad article include -

EllisWyatt - How about good old fashioned bullying until people shed a few stone - more laughing at and not with James Corden could be a start.....

Not enough smokers around for you these days, Ellis? A Mr. Hitler called - he wants to know if you're still interested in that job as shower supervisor. Here's an idea, Ellis - How about you engage in a bit of good old fashioned dropping dead?

JonMichael - It is in everyone's interest that the country eats right and eats less. Tax what is bad more and pass the credits to fresh food. Fast food is bad and fast. Acting against cigarettes will have a postive impact on health and reduce the effective tax that we all pay for treating the ill-health of smokers. Fast Food is the same.

It is in nobody's interest that the country becomes a place where everyone wears grey overalls and queues for gruel at the local Government feeding station. Fast food is like smoking only in that if you don't want it, you aren't forced to buy it. If you think the NHS is costing you too much, campaign to shut it down. Then you can't be paying for other people's health care, can you? Oh, and if you think tax will reduce as a result of this, ask yourself how much tax has been reduced since the smoking ban. Which, despite its use as a comparison here, has only made health worse.

It's even more depressing over at the Daily Shriek:

Brace yourselves people when the Tories tend to wipe their hands over the responsiblities we have elected them to be in charge of, it means things will only get worse. I have a feeling the Tories will allow the fast food companies become more aggressives like they are in America for profit, and it will be down to us if we can hack it or not. They say man were once apes, now it is the case of man used to be men, now we are just a lump of lard with a load of health issues, and the Tories don't care!


What none of the commenters realise, and what the Man with the Infant Head doesn't realise, is where such banstrubation leads. As with the increasing control on alcohol leading to more and more dodgy distillations, the clampdown on tobacco leading to a boom in business for Man with a Van, soon there'll be Sugar Gangs hanging around school gates, competing with the drug pushers.

It also leads naturally into more controls in your home, Fridge Inspectors, Waistline Co-Ordinators and Jam Sandwich Extermination Squads. Actually, many schools already have those. Councils are already loading up with Walk-More Officers complete with their own Council transport and luncheon vouchers.

Next it will be illegal to make your own jam or chutney and there'll be a mandatory five-year sentence for possession of a frying pan. Ten for a chip pan or deep-fat fryer. If they find lard in your fridge, they'll execute you on the spot. For the cheeeeldren.

Then it will be illegal to grow any fruit that contains sugar (that's all of it) because that prevents the Fat Police controlling your sugar intake.

Therefore, the only place you will be able to get food is the supermarket. No making your own, no growing your own, just buy your ration every week and that's it.

Explain why supermarkets would put up any resistance at all to that scenario?

Jamie Oliver is leading us into a world where we have to pay for all our food and anyone trying to not pay by growing their own will be punished.

The only logical conclusion is that Jamie is in the pay of Big Food. He is doing his best to boost their profits and force everyone into captive customers.

Logic is fun, isn't it?

17 comments:

subrosa said...

Speaking of chutney, you don't happen to have a tasty apple and plum recipe sitting around anywhere do you LI? I've a glut of gorgeous apples and a few plums here.

Leg-iron said...

I've been looking up chutney recipes for all these green tomatoes. Lots of sugar involved, apparently.

My last two pounds of plums are well ripened and now frozen. I'll make wine out of them when I get the chance. They have to be ripened before freezing because they won't ripen properly after thawing.

Most chutney recipes include apples, it seems. Personally, all apples should be baked under a crumble made with two parts flour, one part sugar and one part real butter. It's the only sensible way to eat them.

With custard.

Try a search online, loads of people put recipes up now. I even found a few good ones for decent bhajis (unlike the stodgy lumps supermarkets pass off as bhajis now).

Beware of Olivers. They'll tell you not to put sugar and salt in there!

Andrew said...

Scarily, it's already started in the USA:

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/wisconsin-judge-rules-no-right-to-own-a-cow-or-drink-its-milk/

TheFatBigot said...

It's also chutney time here at FatBigot Towers.

I have found over the years that only one thing matters. The cooking liquor needs to be one pound of sugar for every half pint of vinegar.

Obviously different flavours come from using white, malt, cider and wine vinegars, just as they do from white, soft brown, demarara, dark brown and caster sugars. It really doesn't matter though because there is no standard taste we have to achieve. It's best to use what you have.

One pound of sugar & half a pint of vinegar requires about 5 pounds of fruit, be it fresh or dried. Just boil it to buggery and the result will be joyous.

Last year I made a plain apple chutney, then when more apples arrived the second batch had sultanas and prunes added (because I had sultanas and prunes in the cupboard). The third type was called "Christmas Chutney" because I had a jar of unused mincemeat from the previous festive season and threw it in.

The key is one pound of sugar to half a pint of vinegar to five pounds of fruit.

Curmudgeon said...

It seems we already have Sugar Gangs peddling the vile poisonous stuff to innocent children.

Wolfers said...

I had cause to use the Channel Tunnel yesterday and was disappointed to see that I had been sandwiched between two coaches from the same English school. I try to avoid children, as individuals I have no problem with them, but when you have around a hundred, in a confined space, using the areas fore and aft their coaches as an impromptu playground, an area that included the car I was sat in, they get a little trying.

Whilst not a representative sample, it was entirely random. Normal kids from a normal school. They were all stuffing their faces with chocolate, sweets and fizzy drinks they had bought in catering portions from the shop in the terminal building. Out of a hundred kids I saw one porker. These were boys and girls about (I would guess) 11-13 years old.

So where were these obese kids we keep hearing about so often? On the basis of the sample, let's say five adults on each coach, so that's ten in 104 seats. Therefore, of the kids I saw that would mean 1.06% were demonstrably obese.

Now of course the definition of obese is wonderfully fluid thing and will mean whatever the Righteous moron using the term wants it to mean, but I saw a group where 98.04% of the kids were happy, healthy, slim kids with all too much energy to burn whilst I tried to slumber in my seat.

So, there we go. You can have that stat, Leg-Iron, and make your own 'studies have shown' claims.

Woman on a Raft said...

It's important to challenge Jamie because there is always a chance that if he screams loud enough it will be assumed he has great support. We'll see. His latest is his mug on the frozen fish fingers, fish cakes and fish pies going out via Tescos who have taken the range from Youngs.

Plenty of packaging on that with a plastic insert and cardboard box. Would the price be better spent on a nice bit of haddock quickly fried in a dab of butter? I think so, but there is a lot of perceptual psychology in food. A piece of fish on its own is not regarded as a meal. Take half that fish, extend it with potato, fry in oil, and people think they've cooked a dinner.

The most important thing to know about Jamie is that Michel Roux pulls one of those French faces when he is mentioned which means "Ah 'ave to be a politicerrn and not say eny zink".

Woman on a Raft said...

And many thanks to FTB who has told me exactly what I need to know.

Conan the Librarian™ said...

I wonder if my neighbour is going to make chutney with those tomato-like plants he's growing in his bedroom?

Budvar said...

I was in favour (at least in principle) of Jamies school dinner crusade, right up to the point his twattery began to shine through.

Meat+ 2 veg and something with custard for afters, dead right, but Jamie had to come out with ingredients like fucking asparagus and celeriac.

Jamies problem stems from the fact he's so used to serving pretentious twats with Hache boeuf en croute, avec a mirepoix de vegetables, Pomme de terre en puree, Au Jus.

But you can't charge £75 a portion if the menu says Minced beef pie, mixed veg with mash and gravy.

English Viking said...

Jamie fecking Oliver is an utter **** who should be punched in the face very, very hard.

I´m more than happy to be the one that does it.

Second thoughts, scratch that. Just shoot him in the face. Twice.

Curmudgeon said...

On this post by Dick Puddlecote, I described Oliver as "a vile, arrogant, patronising snob who exemplifies so much of what is wrong with this country nowadays."

Was I too kind?

WV = "scouspot" ;-)

Junican said...

@ Wolfers.

The clever trick, as Tobacco Control has shown, is to turn that 1% into thousands. So, say 5 million kids, equals 50,000 obese kids. Sounds an awful lot, doesn't it? But the reality is that it is the equivalent of only 1 or 2 or 3 children per primary school. Even for those 1, 2 or 3 children, some kids tend to be small and broad rather than tall and thin.

There are some very fat kids, but very few in reality.

Politicians are not stupid really - they just act that way. One cannot help but feel that there is some hidden agenda, although I cannot for the life of me see what it is - pretexts for raising taxes sounds about right.

smokervoter said...

Excise taxes are the duplicitous politician's dream. Instead of a general income levy increase it's the old "Don't tax me ; don't tax thee; tax that fat (or smoker) fellow behind the tree".

And what's with this 'cut the equivalent of 16.9m cheeseburgers from Britons' daily diet' ? What is so lethal about bread, meat, vegetables and cheese pray tell?

Amusing Bunni said...

This jerk oliver came to the state and the lefty MSM actually gave him his own PRIME TIME TV show!
It lasted not even one season, I think. He was barging into schools and making over the lunch rooms.

I thought it was great when one school principal threw him out. He must have had some sort of pact with moochie obummer, who is also telling everyone in the USA what to eat, while she chows down at each meal with enough food to feed a football team.

Fat assed twats should tell others how to eat, while they look like crap. Even if they were thin, they should MYOB.

Anonymous said...

I thought I was alone in the disliking of Herr Oliver.

Reading these comments I have had a life-affirming experience.

There are folk out here hate the mokney, slaverering cunt.

Thank you.

Avril said...

I've always called him"SpitNSpot" because he lookth and thoundth like a teenage boy who squeezes his acne. I could never eat anything he'd touched.

opinions powered by SendLove.to