Now they want price regulation of sweets

Shoppers in Scotland buy cheap snacks containing almost 110 tonnes of sugar every day, according to research.

Experts at the charity Cancer Research UK calculated that the equivalent of 4.3 million chocolate bars or 3.1 million cans of cola was being purchased each day at discounted prices in Scotland.

The figures heap further pressure on the Scottish government to bring in regulations restricting discounts such as buy-one-get-one-free on sweet snacks when it announces its obesity strategy this autumn.

Nothing will ever satisfy these fanatics. We should therefore cut to the quick and tell them to fuck off now.

54 comments on “Now they want price regulation of sweets

  1. Telling them to fuck off never works.

    I’m with Mr. Ecks – Rope, lamp-posts, machine guns and walls at dawn, Mussolini and Ceausescu the lot of them.

  2. “Shoppers in Scotland buy cheap snacks containing almost 110 tonnes of sugar every day”

    How the hell do they get a 110 tonnes snack home?

  3. A symptom of the decadence of the West.

    We have hundreds of thousands of people with nothing better to than this and society can afford to keep them.

  4. Sugar contains Carbon, a deadly poison which is destroying the Carbon-based life forms of the Planet. Clearly a tax-target for the Carbon-free SNP government. Tax Big Sugar and Save The Planet!! Think of the Children!

  5. 110 tonnes of sugar
    Population of Scotland in 2011 (source Google): approx 5.3million

    Therefore 110000/5300000 = 0.02075… Kg of sugar each per day
    So 20.7g

    A Mars bar (also according to Google’s first search result) a 100g Mars bar has 68.1g of sugar.

    So the average Scot is buying 1/3 Mars bars or equivalent a day…

    Do we have something else to worry about?

  6. If my calculations are right, that’s only 0.6 ounces per person per day. As I’m sure all the newspapers, with their conscientious and intelligent reporters, pointed out. After all, if all they did was mindlessly copy-and-paste press releases from pressure groups, there would be no reason for them to exist.

  7. TimN, an organization with over 50m quid in assets, 300m quid in investments, 3 663 employees and a chief exec whose salary & pension is 244k per annum can hardly be classed as a charity.

  8. JuliaM, Sgt Peter Allen (wtf is a hate crime ambassador?) deserves the full Mr. Ecks treatment.

    Let’s hear no more about cuts to the Police *ahem* Service if they can afford to waste money on non-existent problems. Since when is it the job of the police to dictate what does or doesn’t constitute an appropriate sign on a toilet door FFS?

  9. Opinions Vs Facts.

    What is notable about all your stories today is that everyone writing them is quite serious that their opinions are the only matters that count. Facts are totally irrelevant and in some cases held to be harmful.

  10. We got a twofer bargain at M&S yesterday on a drink of Brazilian orange and something-or-other mango. I trust that a crackdown will not extend to such bourgeois luxuries.

  11. OK, someone’s got there ahead of me with the 20-odd grams of sugar per person per day.

    Sugar runs about 4kcal per gram, so that’s a whopping 80-odd calories of the 2000 kcal an adult female RDA. Men need 2500 kcal because of the patriarchy.

    “up to 4% of scotland’s daily calorie intake is in the form of sweeties” is hardly a massive headline though…

  12. Despite once again being slandered as a violent loon I think the best line of attack would be legal.

    I think that there is –in civil law somewhere– a line about the “quiet enjoyment” of your premises and how there can be redress if you have such quiet enjoyment violated by noisy scumbags etc.

    What’s needed is a law ensuring the “quiet enjoyment” of your life without being subject to threats , harassment and made-up nonsense scenarios trying to fear-monger you.

    Such an act would extend to all parties –including the scum of the state–and would make both civil and criminal offenses out of health hectoring and fear mongering in general. There would be commercial exceptions if you are on sites or lists with end-of-the -world type adverts as these are clearly “mere puffs” in the legal sense. Trying to claim semi-official sanction for the offense by using the name of a think-tank or using your own supposed medical rank would draw additional punishment.

  13. What’s needed is a law ensuring the “quiet enjoyment” of your life without being subject to threats, harassment and made-up nonsense scenarios trying to fear-monger you and the legal redress to summarily hang any bastard who violates said law.

    Sorry, Mr Ecks, just couldn’t resist it.

  14. @Mr Ecks

    “Despite once again being slandered as a violent loon…”

    It was meant affectionately. And anyway, you are *our* violent loon. So that’s OK then.

  15. Rubbing my hands with glee. I don’t live in Scotland, can then sell discount sweets to the Scottish if they bring in a ban on the B&M shops selling discounted sweets.

  16. When Scotland gets independence, customs will confiscate your sweeties at the border, Martin, you’ll be stuck with warehouses of the stuff.

  17. ‘Experts at the charity Cancer Research UK’

    The old unnamed experts trick. You can’t challenge the authority of an unnamed expert.

    Internet rule: without names, they don’t exist.

  18. Thank God they cured cancer. Thank God.

    Lemon sucking Puritan fanatics wanting to control how many sweets you can buy is a small price to pay.

  19. @dearieme – you’ll get away with your middle class fruit sugar for the time being, but once the lower orders have succumbed to ‘diseases of despair’ you’ll find yourself at the top of the list.

  20. Sugar in middle class foods is fine, no health effects at all, except good ones. Double health benefits if those foods are “locally sourced” and ‘ethical’.

    It’s sugar in working class foods which is the problem, you see. Lots of studies by experts prove this to be the case.

  21. Docbud – customs do not know what deal the buyer has had.
    Only if they ban sweets could customs take them.

    First of course have to have independence. Cannot see that happening any time soon.
    We had a once in a generation referendum not so long back on the issue and the voters decided to stay in the UK.

    Of course if a future referendum results in deciding to go independent we would need another one called for a couple of years later to make sure. Known as the SNP method. 🙂

  22. “The picture shows a woman and child. The picture in the comments just shows a man, why?”

    Er…because, all other things being equal, the gents is not the safest place for a child?

  23. Anyone notice the hypocrisy of the bremoaners over the EU egg scandal. Per them only the EU can save us from contaminated food and the great satan wants to flood the country with substandard food products. Deafening silence from bremoaners about contaminated food from Holland and belgium………..

  24. @dearieme

    First they came for the Mars bars, and I did not speak out—
    Because I didn’t eat Mars bars.
    Then they came for the M&S Guava & Lime Caipirinha …

  25. DocBud: “When Scotland gets independence, customs will confiscate your sweeties at the border”
    The Scots, of course, have NEVER been associated with anything so crass as smuggling. (Do I need sarc tags with this?)
    Martin would make even more money as he would not be breaking any law, but could still charge a premium for the legal risk (which he doesn’t even take). That would also be how one destroys the rule of law – pass a law on an activity that no one considers immoral, and everyone will break it (see Prohibition in the US for an example).

  26. I see the McMillan Nurses Charity are organising nationwide coffee morning to raise funds. The advert is full of cream cakes and biscuits. “Bake it or fake it” so we have one cancer (faux) charity anti sugar and another (real) cancer charity encouraging its consumption.

    I’m with McMillan.

  27. “Then they came for the M&S Guava & Lime Caipirinha”

    I have noticed that M&S have some mini ‘salad’ bowl things, all with four ingredients or so, and every single type has one ingredient I have never heard of.

  28. I once bought a 3 for 2 at Hotel Chocolat on Frederik St in Edinburgh. Is this ok in the eyes of CRUK as it is ruddy expensive to begin with? Condescending twats. There’s no point debating with these punishers of the poorer contributors who ameliorate their lives with Greggs, a nail bar treatment or four ciders for £3. ‘Fuck off’ is the only thing to tell them. As Tim said at the beginning.

  29. ‘It leaves a bad taste to know such an enormous amount of discounted sugar is lining our stomachs’

    If you had just paid full price, it would have been fine.

  30. The mistake with the original Puritans was to think it was all because of their religion. This gets things exactly the wrong way around. Such movements have existed throughout history and have had both religious and secular manifestations. The true driver is human nature, the urge to dominate and control every aspect of human life.

    These days the cloak is “public health” and Progressivism in general but the source is always the same.

  31. “These days the cloak is “public health” and Progressivism in general but the source is always the same.”

    I’ve long thought that a lot of religious observances were really public health, but in a goodish* way:

    Jews with shellfish. In those days shellfish food poising will have been a killer and its quite common.

    India with vegetarianism. In that climate meat goes off so fast it’s not worth the risk without modern food prep.

    A devout Muslim I knew reckoned the prayer ritual was really about Calisthenics.

    There’s plenty more out there.

    * ok the priests also wanted control and killed 2 birds …

  32. OT but talking of deep fried Mars bars we on our way up to the Orkneys in our motorhome we stopped in a pub car park on the A9 just North of Perth.

    The deal is you are expected to eat in the pub, which we did. One of the starters was deep fried haggis balls in a whisky cream sauce, which we shared. Scrumptious and highly recommended, sod the calories.

  33. “One of the starters was deep fried haggis balls in a whisky cream sauce, which we shared.”

    What were the main courses?

    ‘Cos I can imagine having to share them as well…

  34. BiND,

    pork is a prime example and it’s not because the pig is a filthy animal (it is, pigs sleep and root in shit), it’s because of the (justified) taboo of eating your relatives.

  35. BiND,

    let me clarify,
    I don’t mean that you eat your relatives or that you or any of your relatives are pigs.
    Human meat and pig meat are indistinguishable on the platter, the only way to ensure you aren’t eating some ones’ Auntie Mabel is to avoid anything that looks like pork.

  36. While waiting for some compiling (obligatory xkcd reference), I was wondering how many calories of suger I put in my tea. So, naturally, I googled “weight teaspoon of sugar”. I then googled “weight UK teaspoon of sugar”.

    Yea gods, the misinformation is rife. Level teaspoon? Heaped teaspoon? I get the impression that media articles on “X contains Y teaspoons of sugar” use pictures of heaped teaspoons regardless of what the report actually uses. In school cooking class we always used level X-spoons for measuring. But of course it’s scarier to show heaps of sugar in sugar-scare stories.

    Which of course is teaching people to think “yea gods, 16g in a heaped spoon? Thank god I only have two level spoons in my tea. Phew!”

    I ended up resorting to working out that I’ve just bought a 1kg bag of sugar because I’ve run out, and I last bought a bag more than a year ago. Now, just need to work out how many cups of tea I’ve had in the last year.

  37. Anyone ever noticed? If not using sugar you use something else in the preparation of food?
    Reduced prices on things means people can afford to buy more food.
    These people are the same people who want us to cut out processed meats.
    I rather like processed meats. I eat more of them now (bacon sandwich) in order to spite them.
    I may die of a heart attack at age 50 but I do not care. I will have lived life and lived! Plus enjoyed a lot of sandwiches.

  38. The journalism of the contemporary intellectual scene tells us much about the zeitgeist:

    ‘The figures heap further pressure on the Scottish government to bring in regulations’

    In a more sane age the figures would have done nothing of the sort. Is Sugar legal? Yes. Is the consumption of it harming anyone else? No. Then for Christ’s sake do nothing. Sadly that response would be highly unusual these days.

    The rot starts from the top (no pun intended) – I would look closely at all ‘charitable’ organisations in the UK and potentially remove any governmental funding from those which indulge in this kind of campaigning. An Ecksian purge might also be a good idea…..

  39. “Jews with shellfish. In those days shellfish food poising will have been a killer and its quite common.” The Jews were shepherds and bandits in the hill country of Palestine. Did they get much opportunity to eat shellfish? Anyway, you’d have to explain why the taboo on shellfish was a rational prophylactic policy whereas the taboo on pork wasn’t.

  40. Any shellfish shepherds in the hill country of Palestine would have encountered would have travelled in the hot Palestinian climate for days from the coast, so likely to be rancid by the time it arrived. Pork, no idea. Probably protectionist trade barriers.

  41. Twitter has taught us that enough humans acting irrationally together are capable of anything. An irrational ban on eating pork isn’t that unlikely, in retrospect.

  42. ‘Now they want price regulation of sweets’

    Don’t be silly. They want price regulation of EVERYTHING.

    We won’t let them have it. So they go after it incrementally. They see an opportunity here to get it on sweets. Should they get it, they won’t go away. It’s just one small step in the march to controlling everything.

  43. I was taught that pork can contain some nasty parasites which was the reason for the ban.

    However, I believe it was a rabbi that sugested that the reason for dietary prohibitions was to prevent adherents of religion A breaking bread with adherents of religion B and discovering that they were OK blokes really.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.