Realist, not conformist analysis of the latest financial, business and political news

A Call To Action – We Can Tell The Prodnoses To Bugger Off

We have that glorious opportunity to tell the killjoys, prodnoses and assorted idiots what we really think of them. For there’s a government consultation on what to do about those junk foods. What restrictions should here be on price offers on donuts, bacon and butter? Should there be a chocolate rack by the till? All that sort of stuff that our governing class thinks should be restricted. As if there are no real problems in the world to try and solve.

But it’s a public consultation. As we’re part of, members of, the public we get to tell them. So, do, go and tell them.

It’s all here.

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] Consultation description
This consultation asks what you think about: restricting volume-based price promotions of HFSS food and drink that encourage people to buy more than they need, for example, ‘buy one, get one free’ and free refills of sugary soft drinks restricting the placement of HFSS food and drink at main selling locations in stores, such as checkouts, aisle ends and store entrances [/perfectpullquote] [perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] This consultation also seeks your views on: which businesses, products and types of promotions should be included in the restrictions
definitions for HFSS products, price promotions and locations in stores
how businesses can put this into practice and whether they will face any difficulties [/perfectpullquote]

My answer to all being bugger off but those who craft more exquisite answers will most likely have more success.

Go on, tell’em.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Total
0
Shares
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
8 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
The Mole
The Mole
2 years ago

Sir Humphrey would be proud of that consultation. It really was skewed to give the responses they want and didn’t even seem to consider that it was all an excessive and unnecessary idea.

Matt Ryan
Matt Ryan
2 years ago
Reply to  The Mole

More government is never an unnecessary idea if you are in the business of sucking on the state teat.

literate3
literate3
2 years ago

Blimey – 36 pages: I stopped reading at page 27. Only bigots and those who really care want to do that. But I’ll have a go when I’ve had a pint to compensate me for the mental stress and I encourage everyone else to do the same [sorry I can’t afford to buy all Tim’s readers a pint: I’m an OAP].
The last time I got free refills was in Spain last year, after a 20km race so I was thirsty and not in grave danger of childhood obesity.

Rhoda Klapp
Rhoda Klapp
2 years ago
Reply to  literate3

It was fun filling it in. Pity they won’t pay attention, totalitarian bastards.

Matt
Matt
2 years ago

“Sugar and calorie reduction programmes are a waste of everybody’s time and money, reduces consumer choice and forces consumers into lower-quality products containing artificial sweeteners on which few longditundinal studies have been conducted. As ever, the poorest are hit hardest by these regressive price manipulations. Sugar consumption per capita is already at a post-ww2-rationing low. Deliberately making food more expensive is highly regressive and will hit the poorest hardest. There is no evidence that increasing the price of food will cause children to do more exercise, and reduced levels of exercise rather than increases in sugar/calorie consumption are the main… Read more »

Rhoda Klapp
Rhoda Klapp
2 years ago

Answer yes or no: (radio button, yes or no)

No.

Please explain your answer.

NO. It means no.

Malcolm Coghill
Malcolm Coghill
2 years ago

Told ’em. Not that it will make any difference as an army of civil servants are probably salivating at the chance to impose more rules that they must administer on business.

David Bishop
David Bishop
2 years ago

Good grief what a dreadful survey, based on control freak assumptions.
Here’s my response to Q79 … “likely to have an impact on people from lower socio-economic backgrounds?”

This is perhaps the one even remotely sensible question in this whole risible so-called ‘survey’.

The answer is clearly “Yes”. These PHE policies, dreamt up by do-gooder middle class busybodies, invariably have the most pernicious effect on those least able to bear the burden.

For goodness sake, get out of people’s lives.

8
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x