Not to be put off, I've gone back for round two:
Dear Mr BerryThank you for your stock reply to my email. It must have been a stock reply as you did not address or even acknowledge any of my concerns.You make it clear that the Government fully intends to introduce minimum pricing and that you are totally behind this.In your reply you quote 1.2 million hospital admissions due to alcohol at an estimated cost of £3.5 billion. In my original email I explained how alcohol relted admissions are calculated by attributing certain accidents and ilnesses to a percentage of one admission regardless of weather alcohol was actually involved.I would also be greatful if you would supply your source for the cost estimates, as I demonstrated in my email that alcohol consumption was declining year on year.I have read many reports from the anti-smoking group ASH on the cost to society of tobacco consumption. They inflate thier figures by including things like the cost of smoking breaks at work. This is not a cost but a private matter between employee and employer. It helps to inflate the figures though and keep the public money rolling in.I would bet that your alcohol figures are calculated in a simillar decieving manner, although without access to those figures I cannot analyse them properly.I give another quote from your reply that was also covered off in my email:""The crime and violence it causes drains resourses in our hospitals, generates mayhem on our streets and spreads fear in our area""That's all very well for a sensationalist piece in the Daily Mail but let's be realistic. If you want a solution then it must be proportionate to the actual problem. Why can we not come down hard on those who break the law and act in an anti-social manner? Why do we have a modern propensisty to punish the entire society for the acts of the few?Being drunk is almost acceptable mitigation in courts these days. Surely it would be better to hand down a stiffer sentence where alcohol is involved rather than accepting it as an excuse? That would leave the rest of us responsible people to enjoy alcohol without Nanny State interference.According to your Public Health Responsibility Deal, The DoH will work with the alcohol industry in a range of areas. We both know this to be untrue. The government and it's sock puppet charities only intends to work against the alcohol industry. Look at the tobacco control plan. Was it Lansley who said you want to work towards a situation where the tobacco industry does no trade in this country? Well it is going the same way for alcohol. If the industry wants to survive then they would do well to tell you to butt out rather than working with you towards thier own destruction.It won't end with alcohol either. The soft drinks industry has just become the new 'Big Tobacco'. This article in PLOS Medicine:directly compares the soft drinks industry to Big Tobacco and suggests identicle means to deal with it.Your alcohol strategy also wants to spend public money helping people 'maintain a healthy lifestyle'. An individuals health is no concern of the Government. We are adults. New Labour introduced the idea that the population should be treated like children, but quite frankly I am shocked that the Conservatives would choose to carry on such a policy.YoursBucko
8 Comments:
alcohol relted ?
regardless of weather alcohol ?
I would also be greatful?
inflate thier figures ?
"spell some stuff wrong" - ?! - yeah - easy man.
OK - It was a genuine comment,
- I've looked at your blog a few times over the last few weeks and months.
From the information you are publishing for the world to see. I can see that you are doing well for yourself, living in a nice leafy area, across from a river and park, two new cars, numberous foreign holidays and a recent promotion at work. Obviously the system isn't failing / penalising you that much.
On the whole the content is good, valid points often well made.
However, the lack of attention to detail (spellcheck?), and comments such as calling Dianne Abbott a "Big Fat Whap" undermines and cheapens the whole message and social commentary that you are trying to convey.
Also please treat this as a genuine question as intended - why do you (and others) spend your time on this?
Is this the strongest and most effective tool for change that you have available to you?
For what it is worth I agree that the vast, vast majority of people take all that is enforced upon them without question and barely a whimper.
Anyway - Keep fighting the good fight...... (I've got some poorly written letters from my customers to reply to).
Life is what you make it.
"On the whole the content is good, valid points often well made."
Thank you
"However, the lack of attention to detail (spellcheck?), and comments such as calling Dianne Abbott a "Big Fat Whap" undermines and cheapens the whole message and social commentary that you are trying to convey."
I suppose there is no reason to publish a post with spelling errors in it, but as long as it's a rarity then I'm not too concerned.
As to the fat whap thing, this is only a blog, not a newspaper. I'm not an impartial obsever. What I write is my own opinion. I dislike Dianne Abbott for a number of reasons but when she gets involved in nannying others about thier health then calling her a fat whap is a valid observation. In my opinion.
"why do you (and others) spend your time on this?"
It may not be the most effective tool to change the world but it's the best that some of us have and is still more than most.
It's also interesting. There is a community out there in the blogs and it's good to be a part of it.
"For what it is worth I agree that the vast, vast majority of people take all that is enforced upon them without question and barely a whimper."
And that's another reason. Maybe we can change a few minds.
"(I've got some poorly written letters from my customers to reply to)."
I'll not take that as an insult :-)
The spelling etc comment was not trying to be overly picky against your posts, (dumbing down and all that, although I think the Daily Mail and yourself could cover that off it you wanted to) but more about being present in your letter in response (assuming it's a straight copy and paste job?.
Agreed it's your view and of course, you are entitled to it, my view is that you would do well to not 'lower the tone' (for want of a much better phrase) and dilute your message with these comments - maybe I'm an old fuddy duddy....
(What is a 'whap' anyway, and does one have to be fat to indeed be a whap?)
As for a whap, you do have to be fat to be a whap. It was a term I heard an old Welsh bloke use when I was a child and I've remembered it ever since, just because of it's comedy value.
I never found out what whap means but I do know there are no thin whaps :-)
Post a Comment