A few months ago the safe alcohol consumption limit was reduced by 33%, out of the blue. Even the Chief Medical Officer supported it. It was a medical faite a compli. Virtually any alcohol was unsafe, no argument. It was prohibition by another name, independent unbiased advice said so.
Now it turns out that 4 of the committee were sponsored by a powerful temperance lobby and another was an out and out anti-drink campaigner. None of this had been declared. Will we ever be able to trust ‘independent’ medical advice again? It’s usually as transparent as cloudy beer.
Where health is concerned there is usually another report a few months later that turns an advice on its head anyway, biased or not.
Currently, they’re arguing whether a low carb diet can help overcome type 2 diabetes. One side says studies prove so, the other that such diets are dangerous and the advice should be withdrawn.
Remember the old adage, ‘Carry On Regardless’, sounds like a good middle of the road advice to me.
How much of the BBC licence payers money has gone to support FIFA’s fraud? All European and North American broadcasters and commercial corporations should be threatened with bribery investigations if they pay any money directly or indirectly to FIFA before the current investigations on their systemic fraud supporting processes are complete, and it is given a clean bill of health.
Even if it means missing the next world cup. Only financial pressure will truly cleanse FIFA.
Neil Kinnock has spent too long in Brussels and showed its typical and cynical disregard and contempt for democracy and the voting population.
When asked why he thought things looked so bad for Labour he simply said that there was nothing wrong with Labour it was the voters, they were delusional and had voted wrongly. You could see that he wanted to take the Brussels solution of ordering the voters to go back and vote again until they did it properly, as decided by him.
The Kinnock family’s contempt for democracy is shown by Stephen, his son is now MP for Aberavon and also husband of the Danish PM. So if he spends his week on Westminster and weekends on his constituency. When will he see h
Well Ed’s lost his seat, however I have to say he was extremely gracious in defeat. It showed a completely different side to him. If he had been allowed to show that side for the Labour party, I think things for both him and his party would be very different
Yes the silver tongued slippery sylph, otherwise known as the Sturgeon has three aims.
1 Defeat Labour in Scotland (not difficult) to hold the balance of power.
2 Rape a weak Miliband for as much of England’s money as she can pillage and cause as much discord and frustration in the rest of the UK as she can.
3 Then when everyone wants to see the back of her, go for independence again.
Can you imagine fatally beaten Miliband negotiating the split with Scotland, still having aspirations for the Scottish Labour party? We have seen how she runs rings round him now. It would be disaster.
The election started with a giveaway a day and is ending totally unsubstantiated claims woth no basis in fact or supporting metrics. It’s total madness.
Ed says he will freeze fuel prices. Utter stupidity, we only had 10 average days storage. Two years ago on the cold winter we came within 6 hours of running out of gas. 30% of our biggest storage facility is off line for maintenance and will not be available. Who is going to buy unlimited quantities on the spot market from Europe on peak cold (relying on supplies from Russia) and sell it at a vast loss?
Surely he should be focusing on ensuring we have adequate storage?
Ed’s just been endorsed by the biggest waster who dabbles round the edges of British politics. Russell Brand says vote for Red Ed. I’d rather be endorsed by my master’s brainless dog.
I would like to ask if Ed would endorse Brand as a suitable upright boyfriend for his best friends daughter. I suppose if it meant he would get to be PM the answer would be a resounding YES.
I see Moses Miliband has come down from his metropolitan elite ivory tower with his 7 pledges written on a tablet of stone . At first sight this may seem as dangerous to him as Cameron’s pledge to reduce immigration. Wrong they are couched in the classic terms of ‘The good and the great’. They are like the classic tarmacer’s promise to lay you a ‘nice’ drive. They are vague and have no metrics. You can do practically anything and claim you have succeeded.
Only the gullible are taken in ie. those who vote Labour.
Nicola’s plausible and desirable but unaffordable manifesto hides a vicious agenda. Firstly to get a large SNP majority in Scotland. Then try and rape England under the guise of the Barnet formula and when it fails to work (as she knows it will), push for another referendum.
The plan is both disingenuous and socially evil. Despite calling herself a socialist, everyone left or right knows that based on population and social deprivation, the premium enjoyed by Scotland should really go to Wales.
This election seems predicated on a present a day. Good or bad, each party pulls something new and random out of the hat at each morning press conference. Then they all spend the rest of the day they squabbling over each others presents to one part of the electorate or other. Mine’s better than yours or I’ll negate yours, or mine trumps it.
Where is the logical presentation of the party manifestos?
At the end of the day all the spending promises are subject tbe growth of our GDP, which in turn is subject to the vagaries of world trade growth, over which we have very little or no control. Especially the growth of our largest trade partners, the EU and USA. The whole process seems rather futile.
When will we have a proper debate on the opinions?