Sugar Tax kicks in 6th April



Frijj said:
Isn't Sparty a fireman?

My point is that the state is in the business of preventing harm to the population - where this is preventable.

Sparty says that it's better that some people do drink and smoke and whatever-else themselves to death as it reduces the amount paid out in pensions.

I'm sure he's right to a point. My counter would be that often the people dropping dead in their 50s and 60s have been economically inactive for many years and through ill-health and other issues, likely have patchy employment history. Had we kept them in good health, by discouraging alcoholism or smoking or obesity or whatever, then they'd likely be economically productive, which would aid the economy.

If we're happy to let people smoke themselves to death at 55 through lung cancer or COPD or whatever else, because it is economically beneficial in regards to pensions then why aren't we happy to let people die in car crashes early, or in burning homes or in unsafe working conditions or anything else? It's much the same.



Plenty of people die in their 70s and 80s despite never having issues with smoking, drinking or whatever else. These people dying at 60 haven't been economically productive from 18-59 and then suddenly drop dead, you know. In many cases (bearing in mind this is what I do for a day job) research shows that they're often from the most deprived communities and have had significant issues with employment, mental health, disability etc throughout their lives.

Had we kept them fit and healthy they'd have enjoyed a more productive working life, produced more for the state and benefitted us all.

If a detached bungalow containing a 45-year-old smoker caught fire, you wouldn't let the occupant burn to death to save the pension pot, so why you say it's fine for them to die of cancer, COPD or heart failure because of smoking, I am unsure.
Click to expand...

I knew what you were getting at I just can't believe you think it's even comparable.

Letting people get on with their shit lifestyles despite decades of constant warnings and tax rises to put them off, isnt the same as letting someone burn to death in a f***ing house fire man.

Oh and good luck getting some of the above fit and healthy. Back in my council days I heard parents ask their kids who just came in from school if they had a f***ing spare tab man. I don't think you have any idea what you're up against here...
 
I'm Spartacus said:
I knew what you were getting at I just can't believe you think it's even comparable.

Letting people get on with their shit lifestyles despite decades of constant warnings and tax rises to put them off, isnt the same as letting someone burn to death in a f***ing house fire man.

Oh and good luck getting some of the above fit and healthy. Back in my council days I heard parents ask their kids who just came in from school if they had a f***ing spare tab man. I don't think you have any idea what you're up against here...
Click to expand...

I work in public health for a local authority.

I understand the challenges that face local authorities when trying to improve the health of their most deprived populations.

It’s exceptionally difficult because almost all of it is caused by a lack of income, a lack of education and complete apathy. Factors which are not easily improved upon.

I believe the deaths are one and the same though. Only one is acute, one is chronic. Both are preventable deaths if the state intervenes effectively.

Which we must, as public servants, do. We are failing the public if we don’t, IMO
 
Frijj said:
I work in public health for a local authority.

I understand the challenges that face local authorities when trying to improve the health of their most deprived populations.

It’s exceptionally difficult because almost all of it is caused by a lack of income, a lack of education and complete apathy. Factors which are not easily improved upon.

I believe the deaths are one and the same though. Only one is acute, one is chronic. Both are preventable deaths if the state intervenes effectively.

Which we must, as public servants, do. We are failing the public if we don’t, IMO
Click to expand...
Quote from a parent at my place last year when she refused to let her little Brittany do food tech, because the school asked a £1.50 contribution towards the ingredients.

“ er man, why does she need to cook a lasagna from scratch, she can just buy a frozen one, they taste exactly the same”

I shook my head and just accepted it was a losing battle.

Far too many folk who are like that tbh
 
Tango Ice Blast at cinemas is now sugar free just in time for this

Not even getting the option to pay for it they’ve just made all varieties sugar free

FUCK OFF
 
oddjobbob51 said:
Its going to Education Dept to provide sports in schools, or so it was announced when chancellor introduced it in the Budget
Click to expand...
Funny that, seeing as PE departments all over have lost funding and a lot of PE teachers are being made redundant since they brought in the EBacc :rolleyes:
 

Back
Top