That's a telling comment.

We are aghast, Denmark has banned Marmite. I'm firmly in the love it camp, by the way, so thick that it burns the roof of your mouth. Wonderful stuff.

'They'll be trying it here next.' Has been the mantra. Another example of EU intrusion.

Except it isn't.

Many well known breakfast cereal and drink brands have already been banned or taken off supermarket shelves after Danish legislation in 2004 restricted foods fortified with extra vitamins or minerals. 

Nothing to do with the EU. There's plenty of stuff we can blame on them, but this isn't one of them. This is home grown authoritariansim (if you're Danish). It's kind of a shame, the outrage in the UK if the EU tried to pull this stunt would be irresistable. For that reason I wish it was on the EU agenda. No matter, the scales are falling from the eyes of more and more people every day.

Just as with Dick Puddlecote's smoking survey, the EU aren't afraid to massage the truth to their own ends. Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so I will happily perpetuate the myth that the EU is trying to ban God's own sandwich spread.

But here's a telling comment from the article in question from 'Riwi' at ten to four this afternoon:

Lets get one thing clear - Marmite has not been banned in Denmark, the importer just "forgot" to apply for approval to sell it...... 

And there you have it.

I like the Danes, not as fun as the Norwegians, but a pleasant people. However one of Scandinavia's greatest problems is this sort of mindset. People in the majority over there really do see nothing wrong in having to ask the government's permission to sell a sandwich spread.

Can you imagine?

Sadly I find it all too easy.

The One That Loves The Daily Mail . . .

This is how authoritarianism is ushered in and personal responsibility is abdicated.

There was a story in the media over the weekend about a party in Farnborough, hosted by two teenagers in adjoining houses which got a little out of hand after being publicised on Facebook and resulted in around 50 coppers with a helicopter and dog handlers turning up to control the crowd of around 150.

1 copper for every 3 teenagers and a helicopter and some land sharks seems a little OTT to me, but that isn’t the point.

I will say that I love the Daily Mail, no-one does indignant righteousness like the Mail, if it involves the young, the police, alcohol and technology then the shrieking gets ramped up past 11 and well into 12.

It is no wonder in their article that young Jordan is ‘giving it large’ he’s the centre of attention and is loving it. Just like the Sex Pistols with Bill Grundy he’s going to say whatever he thinks is going to cause most controversy. I’ll bet he was actually quite relieved when the old bill turned up and sorted out his mess, he’s just a kid and what seemed like a wild old time in prospect perhaps didn’t seem quite so appealing when it dawned on him that it was his house and his stuff that was in the firing line.

It is the comments on the article that intrigue me most. They have in the dead tree version a section called ‘Straight to the point’ or something similar, and it is full of fantastic Blimpish bon-mots akin to ‘My grand-father spent many happy years in Africa shooting darkies, and old sambo was grateful for it. We should send them all back there.’

The comments on this article have a similar feel. Although their scope is much more diverse and representative of people in the county. They range from the almost Libertarian: ‘Make the hosts of the party pay for the police time and any damage done and it will certainly cure any further self promoters from doing it again.’ – You made the choice, you deal with the consequences.

To the predictable but incisive: ‘And the parents were where exactly?’

To the almost apologist: ‘I thought the police were meant to close parties advertised on facebook. looks like they messed up here!’ – Yes, it was the police’s fault for not calling around at 6pm, kicking the front doors in and shouting ‘don’t even think about it, sonny.’

To the mildly alarming: ‘In fact more control over facebook could help.’ – Yes, but by who? Daily Mail readers?

And the downright mad: ‘Time to get rid of the internet. It's far to dangerous. We survived long before it was around and will long after it's gone.’ And ‘ban the internet! its the only way to make britain great once again.’

To the barely literate ‘This world has lost all a control in the name of demcracy and freedom’

Ban the internet? What? Of course last year there was probably a similar story about party publicised on MySpace, the year before it would have been on a message board, a few years before that, it would have been by SMS.

Three predictable things: 1- Kids will organise parties when Mum and Dad are away. Sometimes they’ll get out of hand. 2 – It will make headlines because it is summer and silly season. 3 – The dead tree press and their righteous attack dogs will blame whichever medium of communication was used to publicise the event as the end of our civilisation.

Kids do silly things. Make them take some responsibility for themselves, learn that their actions have consequences, make them face those consequences. It’s all part of the learning process. Banning the internet and democracy because some kids got a bit pissed up and rowdy, well, it’s as OTT as the kids at the party, isn’t it?

The One That Says 'Really? Is That True?'. . .

It isn't just in this country where control freakery runs wild.

Turkey has today brought in a smoking ban in its bars, restaurants etc, etc. I'm glad to see that the problems of human rights abuses, censorship of the press etc, have been sorted out to make this such an important issue in the country.

In Italy, the northern city of Milan (a particular favourite of mine) has had a smoking ban for a few years now along with the rest of the country. The fines for breaking this ban are quite steep and it is adhered to. However, as we've seen in the UK, once one evil is removed, another great evil is selected for campaigning against. We must be saved, it is for our own good.

Nanny Beeb is reporting that:

Milan has banned the consumption and sale of alcohol to young teenagers in an effort to curb binge-drinking. Parents of children under the age of 16 caught drinking wine or spirits will be liable to heavy fines of up to 500 Euros ($700;£450).

And that is where the theory falls down. Under 16 and drinking wine or spirits? That's a fine for your parents. End of story. Now if that were the case in this country, the police would be out in force on Sundays, undercover in churches, waiting for the communion.

When I was a teenager, around 15-16, the pub visiting started in earnest. A group of us started. In one particular pub. Not because the licencee had a rather laissez-faire attitude towards the laws regarding the sale of alcohol, although he did. Not because we knew we could get served alcohol in there with the minimum of hassle, although we could. But because we knew the rules surrounding drinking in this establishment. 1: He wouldn't serve you spirits. Right out. Beer and cider only, it was his pub and if you didn't like it, you could piss off outside into the cold and rain. 2: Bloody behave yourself. If you didn't, you were out, never to return. 3: When he said you'd had sufficient, you'd had sufficient and you would say good evening and go home.

This landlord took the opinion that we'd be drinking anyway, and it was better to do it in an environment where there were boundaries and people looking out for each other, rather than a load of teenagers with no experience getting well and truly Flintoffed on the street. I was certainly looked well over 18 by the time I was 16, not an eyelid would have been batted had I walked into the off licence and picked up vodka and special brew, and then my friends and I could have sat on the recreation ground and got absolutely shitfaced. We didn't, we went to this pub (now sadly no longer) instead. I even recall serving police officers amongst the Friday night crowd (and it was only Friday nights when this happened) the local old bill knew the score.

Of course these days the old sod would have lost his licence, a good deal of money and probably his liberty. Us kids would probably have found ourselves sat in front of social workers and attending alcohol counselling classes. The irony is of course, that we learned a good deal more about how to handle and respect alcohol when in that pub than we would ever have by being forced to attend some 2 day course with a hard-hitting video and *gulp* role-play.

The police knew that we were in there, they knew that we were drinking, they also knew they never got called out to a fight, to a case of vandalism, they never saw an ambulance outside, and never had to scoop some barely alive wreck off the pavement at closing time. They also knew that to close this place down, where there were no problems, would mean that next Friday night, there would be kids getting pissed up on the Rec.

If you're going to prohibit the sale of alcohol to some groups, it makes much more sense to do it on the basis of attitude rather than age. But we can't do that. So it is age. And still people don't like it, they don't like the sale of alcohol at all, getting rid of tobacco was so easy, surely we could do the same again, with drink? But how?

First we must think of the Children, have they done this in Milan? Check.

However the Children cannot be held responsible. Someone else will carry the can. Is this in place in Milan? Check.

Excellent. Now we need some astonishing, unqualified statistic to make everyone throw their hands in the air. Do we have one of those?

A third of 11-year-olds in the city have alcohol related problems.

What? A third? Right, a little guessing maths. Milan is a metropolitan area with a population of 7.4 million. According to the CIA Factbook, 0-14 year olds make up 13.5% of the national population of Italy. So we'll assume that is a happy average for each commune, that means 999,000 kids below 14 in 'Greater' Milan. So to get a rough guess, let's assume that the birth rate has been constant for the last 14 years, that means around 71,300 11 year olds.

So you're telling us that 23,000 11 year olds have alcohol related problems? That is either bullshit, or the biggest collection of juvenile alcoholics in the world, ever. I doubt that a third of 11 year olds are piss heads in Milan. Or anywhere.

But the authorities are deeply concerned about the increase in consumption of alcohol by children as young as 11 in the country's industrial and financial capital.

Ahhhh, so the mere consumption counts as a 'problem', does it? What even in their own home? With their parents? Are the Carabineri to kick down doors and cart parents off for introducing alcohol to their kids in a responsible and measured fashion?

A national law banning the sale of alcohol to under-16s is only loosely enforced, as Italian families are used to sometimes giving young children a teaspoon of wine as a family party treat.

A teaspoon? Oh, how wonderfully twee.

In past centuries, Italian children would sometimes even be given wine to drink in preference to water which was often polluted.

No shit. Not just in Italy, shit for brains. We did it with beer and cider. On account of the fact that the climate has not often been warm enough to grow decent enough grapes for wine.

And here's the social engineering kicker. The one that tells you that all has, is and will be changing.

There has been a storm of protest by bar owners who refuse to act as alcohol police for young people.

But changing social customs mean that old easy-going attitudes towards consumption of alcohol in Italy will have to change. (Trans: But increasing political willy waving means we have to do something to justify our huge salaries, so we're changing this, and you'd better play ball, or else.)

It's not just us.

The One That Says 'You Will Look How I Say'. . .

As a kid I remember England playing a qualifying match for the World Cup or Euros away to Albania. I also remember some genuine concerns about whether Chris Waddle would be admitted to the country due to his infamous mullet. Granted, even by 80's footballer standards, it was shit, but I couldn't get my head around the fact that you could be refused entry to a country just because your hair was business at the front and party at the back.

Nowadays I believe that the reverse is almost true, and that some pointed questions may be asked at passport control in Tirana if you turn up without a mullet.

Well, 80's revival seems to be the in thing at the moment. God knows why, I remember the 80's and am glad we've got 20 years distance between then and now. Still history repeats itself, and the latter day Enver Hoxha is revealed as Joe Langley, the NASUWT branch secretary in Salford.

This person has decided that it is very important to jump into the debate surrounding a moustache.

Yes. A moustache.

I feel a certain solidarity with 14 year old Akaash Iqbal. He has been banned (there's that word again) for growing a moustache. Because? Well, as far as I can make out, because he's grown a moustache.

He's 14, when I was 14 I was turning into the hairy wolfman that sits before you today. My 5 0'clock shadow comes at about half twelve. I'm covered in the fucking stuff, and whilst I was at school, got so pissed off with the whole shaving lark, that I grew a full beard. Not some wispy poncy Che wannabe, the full beard like that bloke from Abba.

So yes, it 'grips my shits' to see this poor lad slung out for refusing to shave his face fungus off, and why the hell should he? It's his bloody face. Where do these fuckers get off, what business it is of theirs? He is doing no damage to anyone. I've blogged in the past about kids being beaten at school by their classmates and the schools taking no action at all, but grow a 'tache, you're out of here son.

Let's see what Enver Langley has to say:

Unless you start somewhere and make children abide by a code that's the start of the slippery slope if you let them get away with it.

Sub the word children for teacher and that could have come out of the mouth of Ed Balls. Make children abide by a code? Yes, wholeheartedly. Here's the code. Sit down, listen to your teacher, realise that you have to pick out the indoctrination. Be polite and respectful. Question everything you're told, think for yourself and whatever you do, don't conform. You'll be a long time conforming, so express yourself now, you're young, take the chance now because if you don't, the opportunity may not arise again.

Anyhow. . .

All the school [Manchester Academy] is trying to do is enforce standards and I would have thought everyone would be onside with that.

Ahh yes, but who sets those standards? What if the standard was to dress in Waffen SS uniform, or to have only one book on the set text list, and you had to learn it by heart whilst rocking backwards and forwards?

Nasty controlling little fuckwits who are the first to moan when someone tells them to do something. It smacks of the parlour boy kicking the cat.

You go on and keep growing those whiskers Akaash, really put the cat amongst the pigeons and tell them you've converted to Sikhism, and then ask them about Kesh.

The One That Is Exclaiming 'For Crying Out Loud!'. . .

I despair. I really do despair. Before I get to today's fury catalyst. I'll make a couple of points.

Firstly, by banning things that are traditionally English, you play straight into the hands of the people you spend so much time bleating about beating. Namely the BNP. Are you so stupid that you don't realise when you engage in the activity of banning something on the premise of preventing the offence of a hypothetical minority group, all you do is give them a stick with which to beat you?

Secondly, offence, or perhaps more correctly, the taking of offence, is not a passive activity. Leg-Iron has made the point in the past that in order for offence to be given, it has to be taken. Offence cannot be thrust upon you, you have to accept it, to allow yourself to be offended. Some things are truly offensive, supporters singing songs about the holocaust when Israel play football is offensive, for example. However I will state that offence doesn't actually have any consequences. It makes you feel that the offender is a twat, but that's about it. Offence does not cost lives or limbs.

Morris Dancing is not offensive. So I was literally crying 'For fuck's sake!' when I read this story.

A group of Morris dancers say they are "disappointed and frustrated" after performances were cancelled because they wear traditional black make-up.

Why would there be a problem with the black make-up?

Chantry Primary School in Gravesend is one of three event organisers which have cancelled perfomances this year.

The school said it had to weigh up any potential offence to its community.

But how likely is that? Just as we hear about H&S bannings exasperating H&S experts, as the assessment of risk does not take account of the most important aspect, the likelihood of damage being done, decisions are being taken with a hugely amplified risk of offence.

Really, who is actually going to take offence at this display of dancing? Any spectator will realise that this is not some crude pastiche of how black people dance, indeed Border Morris uses the blacking of faces to act as a disguise, not as a lampoon of the population of Africa. If anyone decides they want to take offence and complain, what is to stop the Morris side themselves taking offence at the implication they are terrible racists? Does the accusation of racism trump the feelings of those who have been unjustly accused? The whole situation is ridiculous.

No matter, someone, somewhere, has decided that this could be, not is, offensive, and as a result the display of English cultural heritage must be stopped, 500 years of tradition must be washed away, and the bad guys get another victory, another arrow head for the BNP to loose is forged.

Oh, I don't doubt that the decision has been made for laudable reasons, there is no conspiracy here, it is just that the reasoning is deeply, deeply flawed. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I leave you with the wonderful Steve Hughes from Nanny Beeb's Comedy Roadshow the other weekend. Excellent stuff which I cannot recommend highly enough, it isn't often I adivse the consumption of media, but please do watch the whole thing.

The One That Can See The Future. . .

It wasn't in the Queen's speech, but this morning the story has broken about how Alan Johnson will today announce that cigarette displays will be banned (there's that word again) in shops.

It would appear that Mandelsnake thinks it will hurt smaller businesses, Johnson has decreed it will go ahead anyway.

It was always going to happen, that or cigarettes would have to be sold in blank packages. Few people will make a fuss, passive smoking kills more people than the holocaust, Stalin's purges and the Cultural Revolution put together. Every year, if you believe the Righteous. It's for our own good.

We've already seen the first skirmishes in the next war break out. A plan to ban the sale of discounted alcohol has been announced. Of course, it won't apply in the Commons Bar, some are more equal than others. We'll carry on paying for the MPs' booze. They'll still be able to have a fag whilst they're drinking their subsidised gin and tonics as well.

Next? Well, we've already heard about the idea of a dedicated boozers' checkout in the supermarkets. But you'll still be able to see it, won't you? Best to build a partition wall around the booze section of the supermarket. Stick a man in uniform (paid for by the supermarket) at the little gate so he can check everyone's ID before they go in. ID cards will stop binge drinking.

Better still, I remember in Moscow in '91 they had this wonderful system, you went to the desk and told the nice woman what you wanted and paid for it. She would then give you a little chit which you would present at the counter when you were summoned to collect your wares. It's worked in Argos for years. What about a drinkers' database? Present your new smart chipped ID card when you order, a quick scan will ensure that you haven't gone over your unit limits for the week. You'll not be able to buy stuff for other people and parties, but it'll be so much safer, don't you think? It's a bit of a pain, but there are people throwing up in the streets and ending up in hospital, we can't have that.

A member of the Righteous says:

'But there is still the problem of the pubs and clubs. People can just walk in off the streets and order booze. It is a disgrace. Let's force the pubs and clubs to put card readers on the bar. 'A pint of Old Peculiar? Certainly, sir. Would you just put your ID card into the reader please? Oh, I'm sorry, you're only allowed one more unit. A single shot of Victory Gin? Very good, sir.'

Next on the list, all those bottles of fizzy drinks, packets of crisps and sweets and chocolate bars at the end of the checkouts, people are getting fat. We're going to have to remove them. Then there's the microwave meals and the cheap frozen stuff. That is all packed with fats, salt and sugar. Then there's red meat, I'm sure I read somewhere it gives you bowel cancer. Is that fish farmed? Tut tut. What about those vegetables? Are they GM free and organic? Blimey, look at the electricity these supermarkets are burning. Don't they know they're killing the planet?

Look, if we collectivise the farms we can issue rations to everyone who lives in the area, they don't need to go shopping. We'll look after them all, they just don't teach Home Ec in schools anymore. Rightly so, those happiness and citizenship classes are so important. Next door's kids came home yesterday singing a perfectly charming song about the new tractors the farms have been given.'

All of a sudden there is a knock on the door, followed by a voice shouting, 'Comrade! Open up, this is the anti-terror police.'

The One That Is Saying 'Enough Now, Stop It. Really. Stop It This Instant'. . .

Not content with coming after us who do smoke, now some bunch of self righteous arse-clowns are coming after those of us who don't smoke.

Now to declare my interest, I am a smoker. I think I'd quite like to give up, but to be honest I get so much joy out of pissing off bastards like ASH that I'm going to carry on. Cutting my nose off to spite my face? Maybe, but it's my nose and my face.

Anyhow, there's a company called The Electronic Cigarette Company that produces inhalator style thingies that vapourise nictoine electronically and let you 'smoke' without breaking the ban.

Oh no, no, no, no, no, say the righteous. That will never do. There could be anything in that leccy baccy, they could be dangerous. More dangerous than cigarettes? Do they contain tar? Do they produce carbon monoxide? What about benzine or the whole host of other thoroughly unpleasant ingredients? I would have thought not.

No, the real problem with these things is that they allow the users to thumb their nose at these bastards who will not stop at tobacco, these complete fucktards who want to control every aspect of your life, who will undoubtedly go on to ban alcohol (contains alcohol), crisps (fat), peanuts (salt), coffee (caffeine), tea (milk, you could be lactose intolerant), sandwiches (you could be wheat intolerant*), water (there's a shortage) and anything else that gives people even the merest sense of enjoyment, will not rest until every single facet our lives is documented, licenced, regulated or otherwise under control. Then we will be safe.

Well, not safe exactly, safe from ourselves. Because so many resources will be used on controlling us that bank robbers, corrupt politicians and muggers will be free to do as they please. But at least we'll be safe from ourselves. I mean it isn't as if we're capable of making a decision for ourselves, is it? So we can all sit safely in our houses, with our hands on the table in clear view of the telescreen on the wall, in the knowledge that nothing we are allowed to do will hurt us. Best not go out on to the street. Chris Rock jokes that in his neighbourhood you can get shot whilst getting shot. Well, soon, in your neighbourhood, you'll be able to get arrested by the fingermen for breaking curfew whilst getting shot by the feral chav for not showing him respect.

Choose a night in, choose Labour TV, choose conformity, choose surrendering your responsibilities, choose an approved dinner menu, choose safety, choose security, choose existence. But don't, whatever you do, choose life. Leave it all to those who know better than you.

* I love the idea of being lactose and/or wheat intolerant. Isn't that a hate crime? Do you see people in Sainsbury's shouting 'AAAAAAAAAAAAARGGGGGH! Get out of my store, bread, you grainy little bastard!' or people producing alternative league tables for the football, discounting goals scored by people who take milk in their coffee? White goals don't count!

Oh, you mean an allergy. Just fucking call it that then, won't you. Don't be such a bloody drama queen. Actually I know someone with a wheat allergy (sorry, Ben) I also know someone who is allergic to nuts, but I've never heard her talk about being 'kernel intolerant'.

The One That Wishes They'd Stop Bloody Banning Things. . .

It really does beggar belief.

Now we have plans to ban (I'm starting to respond to that word as I do to the word 'Nigger' - with revulsion) the sale of alcohol in off licences and supermarkets to the under 21's in Scotland.

What


The


Fuck?

There was some Johnny on Al-Beeb a moment ago representing the Scottish Licencesee Association, or some-such bemoaning the fact that the supermarkets are knocking out booze much, much cheaper than pubs.

Well? Yes? Should we also ban the little counters selling pre-cooked chickens and curry on that basis?

He then goes on to moan about falling numbers in Scottish pubs.

Now, what has recently been banned in pubs that means a large number of people could turn to drinking at home?

Furthermore, this causes problems because people are now drinking out of pubs and out of a controlled environment. A controlled environment? Give me strength. Go to my local Weatherspoons, the very embodiment of a controlled environment, no music, no telly, no sitting at the bar, drinking in the new Soviet is upon us. See how controlled it is at kicking out time. I was in NY a few years ago and was amazed to see a little sign on a bar-top which said something along the lines of 'For your enjoyment a maximum of three drinks may be consumed.' In other words, we've decided how much you can safely drink, it was like trying to buy more than a dozen paracetemol. For Pete's sake, don't let the politicos hear 'drinking in a controlled environment' next thing will be having to go to a State Booze Shop and buying vouchers which can be exchanged in state approved drinking dens and we'll be limited to the daily amount of units allowed for our gender.

Then he went even further and suggested a state set minimum price for alcohol, to prevent supermarkets knocking out Belgian stubbies at 12p a bottle or whatever. This isn't binge drinking control, this is competition nobbling. To dress it up for the social good is cynical and underhand, you should be disgusted with yourself.

But where has all this come from? Ah yes, the SNP. Now I have no problem with the Scots having a chance to vote on splitting from the Union (in fact here's an idea, let's save some cash and have it on the same day we have a referendum on our continued membership of the EU, bugger Lisbon, let's go the whole hog), but fuck me, what a bloody shower. Quite happy to argue for the vote for sixteen year olds, this suggests their vote is quite young, banging on about marriage, taxes and the army, but then turning around and saying you can't buy a bottle of wine to have with your dinner until you're 21! I bet all those 14 year olds are quaking in their boots as they score a bottle of Buckie, they'll be breaking the law by seven years now, rather than four. I'm sure the good burghers of Greenock will be able to sleep safely in their beds.

STOP FUCKING BANNING THINGS.

JUST STOP IT.









STOP IT NOW.




YOU FUCKERS.

The One That Thinks It Knows What's Coming Next. . .

And how do I know? Simple, it has already started.

OK, let's start with smoking. I smoke, and I hate it. It is expensive, makes me stink, destroys my taste buds and is generally unpleasant. I started when I was 21, it was the single stupidest thing I've ever done and I wish I'd never started. The whole bansturbation mania surrounding smoking pisses me off, although I personally prefer pubs without smoke, I can see no reason why smoking exclusive and smoking inclusive venues can't be had, but that and the new proposals surrounding the display and sale of cigarettes isn't the point here.

The point is that as soon as smoking is trussed up, the target of the nannies is going to be alcohol. We've seen the first shots fired today. Firstly, today is the day that drinking on the London transport network is now verboten. We also have notification of plans to stop the under 18's drinking in public.

Now, most reasonable people would respond that this is a reasonable step. Isn't socio-political conditioning a wonderfully insidious thing? Because teenagers drinking in public is immediately associated with teenagers fighting, intimidating passers by, vomiting and any other of a legion of anti-social activities. It always starts with the children. (Won't someone pleeeeeease think of the children?) Firstly, isn't existing drunk and disorderly and public order legislation robust enough to deal with this?

Secondly, the reason that kids are carrying on like this is because they're so fucking bored. There's nothing to do, where are the town centre cinemas? Closed, to go out of town with the wonderful shopping centre, and there's no public transport, that's where. Where are the youth clubs of yore? Closed, because of obscene insurance rates brought about because if an accident happens, it must be someone's fault and thus they owe you a shit load of cash.

Thirdly, what about kids drinking perfectly legally, such as is allowed under licencing laws with their meals with a family. That is drinking in public, is this to be banned as well?

Once again we see huge amounts of our cash spunked on another initiative, the Police with loads of PCSOs but no officers to enforce the law. It isn't a legislation problem, it is an enforcement and parenting problem.

I smoke, and smoke responsibly, but shortly will not be allowed to do so, or if allowed my perfectly legal behaviour will be made very difficult indeed.

I drink as well, I await the ban on alcohol advertising, drinking in public (excepting Royal palaces, obviously), the display of alcohol in shops and so on. This will be because a small number of people cannot behave in a reasonable fashion. It is akin to the teacher threatening to keep the whole class in detention if the miscreant fails to own up. . . And when the miscreant does own up, punishing the whole class anyway.

Then the ban on advertising confectionary and fatty foods, eating these products in public, the display of said items. . .