Apparently

I’m shrill.

It all starts with a tweet from Chris Snowdon.

Actually, if you read all of Clive Bates’ excellent article, my post does make his point, very firmly, for he mentions robust responses to public health proclamations. And, in the grand scheme of things, mine’s pretty mild.

Not everyone agrees, however.

Clearly Mr Nicholls has led a sheltered life… That said, there was a time when I might have responded likewise – you know; keep calm, stay polite and respond to the facts at hand. Except that the  time for that has long passed. We are dealing with obsessive extremists here. These people take our money to fund their fake charities and use those fake charities as platforms from which to hector us about our lifestyles. Not only this, they press for increases in taxation (steal more of our money) and to set targets for our food consumption, smoking or drinking habits. Now, in my book, if I pay someone’s wages, I am their employer and I don’t know of any employer that takes orders from his employees. I certainly don’t. And I’m not about to start. No one has the authority to tell me how to live my life; what to eat or to set me targets. To do so is effrontery of the highest order. That, my friend is what is shrill, not my robust and  fruity response. It was certainly Angry, but it was not shrill – the constant stream of public health nagging is shrill.

And, not least, because my diet and that of my countrymen is not a public health matter. Cholera in the water supply is public health. Eating sugar, drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco and vaping is not. None of these things is any business whatsoever of anyone other than the individual indulging. And if it carries risk, it is their risk to take.

Referring to these parasites as fascists is simply a means of conveying well-deserved contempt in a colourful and easily grasped manner. I could have used the term Health Nazis, the terms are interchangeable – just as I could have referred to them as Nu Puritans.  All apply. Although, if you prefer, I could just refer to them as prodnosed cunts, it’s equally accurate. The time for politeness is gone – gone forever. It didn’t work. Now the only way to deal with these people is to use robust insult and to actively rebel against their diktats.

If that upsets your delicate sensibilities, well, the  problem rests with you and you are a part of the overall problem, not me, for by being polite, you give them credence and enable them. I’ve had enough of the constant barrage of junk science and finger-wagging hectoring from self-professed experts charlatans about how I should live my life, that polite discourse is no longer possible.

So, there’s a good chap, take a nice lie down and let your pomposity subside a little. You’ll feel much better for it.

    

12 Comments

  1. I think fascist is a fair description. They’re certainly authoritarian, and it seems that they think the state has a right to tell us what to do with our bodies, implying that we are in a sense the property of the state.

    Our Scottish National Socialists, Mr Salmond and his henchpeople (thinking, among others, of Miss Sturgeon,another tiny fish in the even tinier pond) push all this healthist crap bigtime.

  2. As Director of Research and Policy Development at Alcohol Research UK, James Nicholls is one of those individuals who derives a living from desiring to meddle in the lives of others. Yes, Alcohol Research UK gives out grants for research, but a look at its website suggests that most of this research is pre-conceptual, i.e. the conclusion is known at the outset, the research is then devised to support the conclusion.

    • Ah, a non-job in a fake charity paid for by me against my will in order to boss me about. No wonder he didn’t like my comments. Too close to home. Clearly I’m upsetting the right people.

  3. I wonder if I could get an Alcohol Research UK grant to investigate if going on a beer or wine cruise leads to increased alcohol consumption beyond prodnostic prescription levels?

    Getting paid to sail down the Rhine and Danube drinking beer and wine sounds just dandy.

  4. Yes, it was a good article by Clive Bates, but as I’ve pointed out to him both on Twitter and on his blog (he doesn’t respond any more), it is in a large part due to his machinations when in Tobacco Control that the situation re vaping is what it is. If you replace ‘vaping’ with ‘smoking’, the article holds just as true.

    He spent years perpetuating the lie that SHS was harmful, and lobbying to get bans enacted everywhere, and he’s now bemoaning the fact that PHE are disseminating misinformation about vaping. He can’t have it both ways. He and ‘Public Health’ lied and exaggerated about the risks of tobacco, why on earth does he think it should be different where vaping is concerned? He’s a hypocrite of the first order.

  5. Since it was me quoting Clive Bates that started all this…

    The point Clive made was that you – me*, the bloke next door, the drunk in the pub – have no duty to be constrained in language. I use the term health fascist and health fascism regularly because it is an accurate description of th emindset of some in public health circles.

    *To be fair, I do have some constraint for I am an elected person so slightly different standards apply

    • Indeed, and the point Chris made stands. Dr Nicholls got his knickers in a twist because he is precisely what I am railing against – people getting fat on the back of my tax pounds providing a service that is entirely unnecessary in order to provide the state with even more excuses to meddle in our private lives. The term health fascists sums up his ilk perfectly and he didn’t like it. The truth hurts.

      As an aside, Alcohol Research’s website starts with a big fat hairy lie. It states that they are an independent charity. That they are certainly not. They are funded via money stolen from us by the state. They are an arm of the state in all but name. To call such an organisation a charity despoils the meaning of the word. It’s time Dr Nicholls got a proper job and stopped sponging off me.

    • Small point, Simon.

      Shouldn’t it be “A View from Cullingworth” rather than “The View from Cullingworth”, or does everyone in Cullingworth unreservedly agree with what you write?

  6. Ah – I’ve only just spotted this. I do apologise for upsetting you so much – I hadn’t realised expressing irritation at the ‘nannying fascist tyrant’ tone of some ant-public health posts would upset you so much, or that it would qualify me for an ‘aim for Clarkson, hit Alf Garnett’-style ad hominem attack.

    It’s all the more depressing given that I was actually sympathising with Clive Bates; but then, the problem with ad hominem rants is that they do generally miss their target. This is especially the case when the target appears to be some odd figment of your imagination (a ranting public health tyrant paid for by the state – I’d like to meet this chap, he sounds charming). If I wasn’t so sheltered, I would of course consider replying to you in kind but that would have to be ad pseudonym – which isn’t fair, really, is it Mr “Longrider”. I’m perfectly able to have civil disagreements (and agreements)* with Chris Snowdon – ask him – but he doesn’t mind people knowing who he is, so it’s a lot easier.

    My point was that, as Clive ably demonstrated, it’s quite possible to highlight the frustrations people may have with public health advocacy without rambling on about fascism and what a bunch of nazis those health people are. For your information, though, I frankly couldn’t care less what you do with your life. For your further information, I’ve tweeted a number of times on my support for e-cigs – though, again, while I’ve actively encouraged friends to use them I really don’t give a toss if you do personally.

    Um, you also obviously know nothing about my work. If you could explain how you are paying for it in any way shape or form, then please do let me know. I’d be intrigued. I mean, obviously it’s up to you whether you find out anything about the subjects of your blogs before you hit upload. It’s your blog, who cares really? Well, obviously, subjects of personal diatribes care, but that’s understandable isn’t it. Look how furious you got at being called ‘shrill’. Some might even say your response was … well, a wee bit on the shrill side. *ducks*

    Having said all that, since it obviously upset you so badly I’ll apologise for tweeting that blogs which go on about health fascists etc. might, to my over-sensitive ears, sound shrill sometimes. You can, if you like, apologise for making extended, utterly misleading and directly personal comments about me but I won’t hold my breath

    *We agree on e-cigs, Bench Girl and obscure Frank Zappa videos.

    • Well done for missing the point I have been making – which was the point of this piece in the first place. Are you really so utterly obtuse that you are not aware of the public health industry and its shills that is daily issuing demands for us to change our lifestyles and if we do not, we must be forced by the state? I mean, really?

      Calling these creature fascists is perfectly reasonable – and as Clive Bates pointed out, those of us on the receiving end of this constant barrage have no obligation to be polite and I certainly have no intention of being so. These people are worthy of only contempt and contempt is what I will dish out.

      Your attempts at sarcasm are pretty weak, frankly – best give it up. Citing Jeremy Clarkson and Alf Garnett merely underpins your stupidity. Those two are funny because they are revealing truisms – and I’d rather be likened to them than a pompous lefty prick. And as for the whine about my using a pseudonym, oh, fer fuck’s sake! Grow up man! Some people write under a pseudonym. Get over it. If you really, really wanted to find out my real name it isn’t difficult. The obsession of the state and its various hangers-on with anonymity on the web is profoundly pathetic.

      And as for an apology – when the sun goes super nova. You are a part of this industry, providing research that we neither need nor want. There are countries in central Africa that have public health problems. The UK does not. If people drink too much (or smoke or eat the “wrong” foods or drink coke or whatever is the villain du jour), that is up to them. Not you, not the public health industry and not the state – the individual and the individual alone is responsible for what he puts in his body and everyone else should mind their own damned business and that includes the usual shonky research that is used to justify ever more intervention in our lives.

      If you think that the rebuttal above is shrill, perhaps you need to invest in an English dictionary, for you have little understanding of the word – likewise, look up “furious” sometime. Your whinge here is the one that is being shrill, not I. I wasn’t furious at all. I merely observed in a calm and rational manner that you were being a prick – a pompous self-righteous one at that. Your response here merely confirms that and I’m certainly not apologising for making such an observation.

Comments are closed.