Richard Murphy says:
November 9 2024 at 3:30 pm
Do we ban the Mars Bar, created as I recall to provide sugar hits for rear gunners in bombers in WW2 who could not otherwise access food? Yes, why not? We’re banning high salt foods. We’re banning tobacco. We’re successfully limiting access to alcohol. Why not ban sugar hits? Isn’t it the job of government to prevent addiction in the social interest, and this one is now proving massively destructive. Of course we should ban it.
…
Richard Murphy says:
November 9 2024 at 4:27 pm
Why do we ban addictive substances then? Is it because society cannot afford the harm they cause? Why should we permit that harm in the case of ultra-processed food? Isn’t it the most basic duty of a state to protect people from harm? In this case, these things aren’t even food. Foods meet a craving. These create them. They can’t even be described as food as a result. So, perhaps I agree with you. We shouldn’t ban foods. We should ban things that are not food but claim to be so.
Bet you he’s already sketching up the spiffy uniforms to send off to Hugo Boss for manufacture.
The Mars bar was invented in 1932, he can’t even get that right.
Furthermore, the glycemic index of a Mars bar is less than that of white bread, the “sugar hit” statement is pure wibble.
We had Mars bars as ‘in-flight rations’ during my service. Exactly the same shape and form factor (back then) as the magazine for your Browning 9mm You had to keep them separate to avoid confusion.
Anyhow, it helps you work, rest and play, what could be wrong with that?
“Foods meet a craving. These create them. They can’t even be described as food as a result. ”
This is a truly ridiculous argument. They should name a logical fallacy after him.
I agree Martin.
This IS a truly ridiculous argument. The sheer stupidity of even considering regulating peoples’ food is just insane.
I’d better get stuck into my glass of wine in case the Oz government decides to adopt this nonsense!!!
And Hugo Boss did not design Nazi uniforms.
I’m pretty sure things like Mars bars, for most people, work the opposite way from what he’s suggesting. At least they would for me. One’s feeling hungry so one eats one to satisfy the hunger. If one didn’t do that, one would go & look for something more substantial. So a single Mars bar might replace an entire meal. The net result being one’s eating less. Surely that’s what’s happening with his imaginary tail gunner. The guy’s cold & tired & would really like to be tucking into a full English. But with the absence of Rosie’s caff not being installed on Lancs, he scoffs a Mars bar. It’s what I used to do on the long haul commutes from northern France to here. Scoff the occasional chocolate bar at the wheel rather than pull over for a restaurant. How I could do the entire 2000km plus in a single day. I was effectively missing breakfast, lunch & dinner in favour of about 500km of distance.
In a sense, they’re a remedy for food addiction. Which is the reason for people becoming fat bastards.
Isn’t it the most basic duty of a state to protect people from harm?
No. That’s it. End of argument.
WW2 was won on amphetamines, not sugar.
And – not to pile on or anything – dieticians have known for decades that the ‘sugar hit’ or ‘sugar rush’ has no objective reality. It’s a convenient explanation for abnormal or undesired behaviour, but it doesn’t exist.
Mars Bars in Lancaster bombers? What a maroon. You only have to study the standard kit of a rear gunner in a Lancaster bomber to grasp that a Mars Bar would be effectively inaccessible. Try eating one wearing i) silk inner gloves ii) worsted wool glove liners iii) electrically-heated leather gauntlets iv) combination rubber oxygen mask and intercom microphone – and you have to keep the oxygen mask on, if you take it off for more than 20 seconds, you pass out. Oh – and after 30 minutes or so at altitude, a Mars Bar would be frozen solid – a fun treat on a summer’s day, but absolutely useless to the poor bugger at the back. What rear gunners in Lancaster bombers took with them to sustain them were boiled sweets and thermos bottles of hot drinks.
llater,
llamas
after 30 minutes or so at altitude, a Mars Bar would be frozen solid
Could drop them on the enemy. Or the ex-wife’s fishpond.
What rear gunners in Lancaster bombers took with them to sustain them were boiled sweets and thermos bottles of hot drinks.
Key thing was amphetamine
“Isn’t it the most basic duty of a state to protect people’s rights and freedom?”
TFTFY
“Isn’t it the most basic duty of a state to protect people’s
rights andfreedom?”Even better
If mars bars then what about twix? Will they be allowed? How about if one only eats the biscuit of the twix? Is cake to remain legal? What about birthday cake? What if I have birthday cake the day after my birthday? So much regulation for the potato do do.
Just when you thought you’ve seen everything from the polymath he throws out this cracker (are you allowed crackers) – definitely in his top 5 most deluded rants.
At least we know what the porky professor got tubby on. I had him down as a tin of biscuits guy, but it’s mars bars that made him fat
I think it may have been barley sugars, Llamas. Whatever it was, I know my uncle said he’d never eat them again because the flavour reminded him of the Ruhr & Berlin.
The way I heard it, aircrews (and especially the rear gunner) avoided the issued ‘wakey-wakey’ pills because they contained large amounts of caffeine, which has a significant diuretic effect. As the man put it, ‘that’s a parade that nobody wants to go on’. There was no doubt extensive use of benzedrine/methamphetamine, even though those were notionally for emergency use only. But the downside of those was long-term headaches and uncontrolled drowsiness later – not good when some units were operating 3 or 4 times a week. And the effects of mixing with alcohol were well-known. As the man said, ‘what’s the point of risking death or maiming for 8 hours to Berlin and back if you can’t go down the pub and get rat-arsed in the evening?’ Hangovers were easily and quickly cured. He told me that he sometimes kept awake by thinking of that first cigarette after landing – some commanders ignored the rules and allowed smoking in flight, but most did not.
llater,
llamas
llamas:
“He told me that he sometimes kept awake by thinking of that first cigarette after landing – some commanders ignored the rules and allowed smoking in flight, but most did not.”
How on earth do you smoke when you’re on oxygen, which you’d have to be for much of the flight?
I guess people will be ingenious about it. But I doubt the commander has much to say about it to the tail gunner. I’m not even sure you can get to that position in flight on some of those planes.
“They should name a logical fallacy after him.” They’d be spoilt for choice.
Murphy’s First Fallacy. Murphy’s Second Fallacy. Murphy’s Third Fallacy. …
After a rethink: Murphy’s Zeroth Fallacy. Like Thermodynamics but stupider.
@jgh, nicely slipped in ‘Cabin Pressure’ reference there.
Which makes me think: Can “The Lemon is in play” be used to mean that Murphy’s at the keyboard again?
Coming soon in Murphyworld: A Bill to prevent people eating Crunchie on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays. Saturdays and Sundays.
And another to prevent the consumption of After Eights prior to 20:00:01.
A Scottish perspective.
(Sorry, it’s on Facebook, so only visible to Facebook users.)
Implicit in this kind of bollocks that there are 2 distinct groups of people – the group that needs to be “Protected” and the group of wise operatives of the State who will do the “Protecting”.
To completely disavow yourself of this notion, all you need do is look at the quality of the people leading group 2.
It’s a stupid, hateful conceit.
Plus, I’ll lay odds that Murphy has never considered the fact that he’d be in group 1 on almost any subject.
The first part of his campaign will to get the Jaffa Cake VAT tribunal case overturned.
I’m horrified to say one of his videos appeared on my YouTube suggestions. I don’t know why the algorithm would think I’m interested, but I clicked on and gave him a thumbs down.
My favourite use of methamphetamines in Ww2 was the Finnish guy who was carrying his whole squads reasons of meth.
They got ambushed and had to do a runner. He started to fall behind so took the entire lot. He reported that his vision went fuzzy the blacked out.
He was found two weeks later having survived on pine cones and a bird he ate raw, with a resting heart rate of 180+, weighing 45kg and having trodden on an anti personnel land mine sometime in the intervening two weeks.
Implicit in this kind of bollocks that there are 2 distinct groups of people – the group that needs to be “Protected” and the group of wise operatives of the State who will do the “Protecting”.
Ah! That explains a lot. Lord Spud has accidentally ingested some tree-of-life virus, and he’s become a Protector with a genetic compulsion to protect the rest of the species from the universe. Shame so many of the protectees are opting out of the Breeder stage.
How on earth do you smoke when you’re on oxygen, which you’d have to be for much of the flight?
At 20000 feet oxygen isn’t a necessity. You wouldn’t succumb to anoxia. Everest at 28000 has been climbed without it. So you could probably snatch the odd fag if you got the opportunity. But above 12000 or so there can be some degradations in physical performance. Particularly eyesight. Loss of dark adaptation & progressive tunnelling of vision. And your mental processes will be less acute as will physical strength & endurance. It’s a progressive failure not an instant one. So the reason for oxygen supply is to keep the user at peak ground level performance, not to sustain life.
You’d have to be doing an awful lot of amphetamine to be suffering long term headaches & uncontrolled drowsiness. It was proscribed as a slimming aid up until the late 60s. And that’s about the quantity you’d be taking for what they were doing. Heavier dosing doesn’t have better effects. In fact you’d start getting effects you don’t want like irrationality & inability to concentrate. If you were using it just for missions, as it wore off you’d feel pretty tired. The main problem is it’s an appetite suppressant & you’d have to ensure you kept to a proper diet or suffer the effects of undernourishment.
@jgh
Undoubtedly we would be far better off if he was on Bussard ramship bound for Alpha Centauri with a couple of centuries travel time in front of him. Or better still, behind him.
@bis
Lots of people fail to climb Mt Blanc (15,771 ft) because of altitude sickness. First time I skied it I had a little episode in the Vallon hut and I’d been touring every weekend of the season. (It might have been hypoglycaemia, though.)
Partial pressure at 20,000 feet is 0.097. Given they flood petrol tanks with nitrogen to bring the O2 level below 9% (ppO2 = 0.09) so even the petrol won’t burn I doubt WW2 bomber crews could light a fag even they disobeyed orders.
At 20000 feet oxygen isn’t a necessity.
It is if you are operating an aircraft. All the aircraft I flew, the oxygen systems automatically delivered 100% above 10,000 ft because performance rapidly degrades with increasing altitude. Go above 50,000 ft cabin altitude and you are on to pressure breathing, not a pleasant experience. The Everest climbers without oxygen spent very long periods acclimatising, something you can’t do in an aeroplane.