Self -Justification

My attention was drawn - by An Englishman's Castle -  to a posting on the BBC website, under the section 'Viewpoint', by one Dr. Alan Maryon-Davis on the subject of why we need more 'nannying'.

If ever there was a case of a bureaucrat justifying his own and that of his organisation's existence, then surely this is but a prime example.

"I see an increasing acceptance that we, all of us, need not only more information and guidance from government, but also more legislation to save us from ourselves."

The 'increasing acceptance' that you see is not what you believe it to be. It is an acceptance due to the fact we, the people, are resigned to the dictatorial attitudes of this government and people like you and are just waiting the democratic opportunity we have to 'change' your views.

"We are happy to see bans on tobacco advertising and the selling of alcohol and tobacco to minors because we understand the dangers for young people."

Oh, here we go again - using the 'its for the children' reasoning again. Who said 'we' are happy to see bans on tobacco advertising - no-one asked me.

"And to my mind the really shining example of how far the public have come in accepting laws to help protect us from self-harm is the huge support for smoke-free public spaces and workplaces throughout the UK."

Perhaps the good doctor would supply statistics to support this 'huge support'? Once again, when was I asked whether this is what I wanted?

"But it was ordinary people who really tipped the balance to change the law. It was the steady shift in public opinion that gave legislators the courage. It proved that we, the people, can have a powerful influence on the way laws can be made on our behalf. I strongly believe we should exercise that influence much more."

No sir, it was not ordinary people who 'tipped the balance', it was so-called charities like ASH, a fake-charity that derives most of its income from the Government, that through the use of false statistics founded on unproven 'scientific' facts, dictated this policy.

"We need a big stick to curb the worst excesses of the various commercial interests who shape our lifestyle."

The one sentence in this post with which I agree is this last quotation in that yes, we do need a big stick to curb the worst excesses of the various interests who shape our lives. However, the good doctor fails to recognise one rather important fact and that is our, the people's stick, is a damn sight bigger than his, or that of the government. and that it will, in the fullness of time, be exercised! As a result another point on which he can rest assured is that there is a lamp post and length of hemp with his name already on them!

"What next? I would like to see a ban on smoking in cars with a child on board and a ban on displays of cigarettes in shops. I would like to see a real hike in tax on alcohol and a ban on deep price-cuts for booze. I would like to see a wider ban on junk-food adverts around TV programmes watched largely by children.

I would like to see a whole raft of other legislation for health. This is not 'nannying'. This is responsible government acting on behalf of a consenting public."

What you, Doctor, would like to see is nothing more than a form of 'social dictatorship', a form of society in which your power increases along with your own personal publicity and thereby your own importance, whilst that of the people decreases. What happened to the idea of 'personal choice of lifestyle' that is surely one of the freedoms of a free society - mind you, that is a silly question to put to someone who obviously does not accept the idea of freedom of choice.

As you have had the opportunity to express what you would like to see, perhaps I may have the same opportunity - in the interests of fairness?

What I would like to see Doctor is for you to disappear from my life!