…It’s nice to see someone kicking back.
Scientists and nutritionists have condemned the creation of a pop-up store for Maria Sharapova’s Sugarpova sweet brand near the All England club as “reprehensible”, saying it bears comparison with Martina Navratilova’s decision to wear clothes emblazoned with cigarette advertising in 1982.
Oh, the outrage. Sharapova is daring to defy the puritans of the health lobby. Next they will be demanding an apology for producing a legal product and daring to sell it.
But the tennis star’s sugary sales pitch coincides with the publication of a report which recommended that people should more than halve their intake of added sugar.
Which, as I have already mentioned is pure dreck. We should eat whatever we want and if we want to indulge in a little treat, then there is nothing wrong with that. And if Sharapova wants to sell such treats, there is nothing wrong with that, either.
A single can of fizzy drink would swallow most adults’ daily allowance.
Good God! it’s an allowance now. Who the flying fuck do these evil people think they are to dictate what we are allowed to consume? Well, the simple answer is that we can and should ignore their allowances and carry on as we are. They do not allow me to do anything. I do. They do not have the authority to dictate allowances.
Professor Tom Sanders, the head of diabetes and nutritional sciences at King’s College London, said: “I find sporting celebrity endorsements of unhealthy foods such as sweets and soft drinks reprehensible. The use of player’s clothing to promote cigarettes was outlawed almost 30 years ago – now it is time to crackdown on player endorsement of unhealthy foods.”
Yeah, well, you would, you joyless arsehole. It is her business, started with her money, so, er… she is endorsing it. Besides, the only thing that is reprehensible here is the health lobby and its incessant attacks on our liberty – not to mention constantly raiding our wallets to fund their fake charities and quangos. That is definitely reprehensible. Sharapova creating a business selling sweets is nothing of the sort – and, given the event in which she is competing, of course she is going to make a point of promoting the product at this time. She is doing no harm. This is the important point here – she is doing no harm. No one will suffer as a consequence of her endorsing her business selling what amounts to a treat that people will eat occasionally. Apart from the puritanical health Nazis who might – with a bit of luck – burst a blood vessel.
“I would like to see an outright ban on sports personalities being involved in the advertising or marketing of sugar sweetened drinks, confectionary and crisps. Celebrity endorsement has a huge impact on sales to young people who are those most at risk of become obese.”
Of course you would, you vile puritan scumbag. I expect nothing else from the leftist bansturbators who would regulate the minutia of our lives and seek bans of everything of which they disapprove. They would ban liberty if they could. I wish Sharapova well in her enterprise and I hope she sell lots of sweets during this fortnight. Certainly she has managed to upset all the right people. Tom Sanders on the other hand, I wish would rot in hell for eternity. Sooner rather than later.