Sometimes, the effrontery from the shroud waving tax teat suckers is so huge it is almost admirable. Vivienne Nathanson argues the usual totalitarian puritan line of alcohol control. It’s an excuse for not signing up to the deal done between government and the craven drinks industry that has kow-towed to the demands of the neo puritans, unwittingly placing a noose around its neck.
But, this agreement – bad though it is – is not enough for the Nathansons of this world. They want more – they always want more. They want us to do as they say and nothing less will suffice. We get the usual junk science about what is enough and that alcohol is a poison. Yes, water is a poison too – it all depends on how much you take.
But, for me, the jewel in the back passage of this risible little whinge is this:
If supermarkets can find large sums of money to fund alcohol education, fine. But that money should go to charities who know what they are doing and are wholly independent of industry, such as the Institute of Alcohol Studies and Alcohol Concern who should then commission, and evaluate, the education.
Yup, my jaw dropped too. These charities are not independent at all, neither are they charities. They are vested interests funded by us without our consent. Therefore they are dependent on government. They are about as independent as a tapeworm. They are biased. They gorge like parasites on money exhorted from us. The hubris, the irony bypass, the sheer gall of the attitude of these people. The arrogant assumption of superiority, of knowing best for the rest of us and the arrant control freakery. We know they are feeding us lies. Yet people still fall for it and they still believe that these nasty organisations are actually charities. They are not. They are lobbying organisations that are nothing more than a front for the temperance movement.
I don’t drink, but these people are in danger of driving me to it.
Totally agree about the so-called ‘charities’, which are anything but and should be prosecuted for fraud for pretending they are. I have covered this on my blog many times. But I would take issue with your heading ‘hubris’. In Greek drama, hubris (overweening arrogance, or a challenge to the Gods) usually led to nemesis: retribution or downfall. I doubt if these shysters are due for a downfall any time soon. Under the Coalition, they seem to be going from strength to strength, especially on the alcohol issue.
If they were really affronted and disgusted with the government line, they’d refuse the money, wouldn’t they?
Actually, iDave should call their bluff and defund them.
The overweening arrogance bit is pretty accurate, I’d say. As for the downfall – maybe, hopefully.
iDave should be terminating all charity funding and give us the money back. The we can decide for ourselves which are worth our support and which should wither and die.
Christ I loathe these people, our very own homegrown ( Organically of course ) Taliban.
I’m drinking more and more these days. Will be brewing it shortly…