Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Friday, 8 January 2016

Cull Health Fascists to improve health, say experts

Experts reported to Parliament this week that only a radical cull of health fascists and self-styled diet and health experts will bring overall improvements in the nation's health. A cull, they said, would bring immediate health benefits including decreased blood pressure, lower rates of depression and anxiety and reduced frequency of eating disorders. If we cannot cull all the health fascists at once, government health recommendations recommend the following incremental effects:-
Cullee                                                      Effect
Dame Sally Arrogant-Bitch                     15% health improvement
The BMA                                                 25% health improvement
Council Obesity Counsellors                     7% health improvement
Government advice continued that if you are unable to cull at least one health fascist, an alcohol intake of one bottle of wine a day or four pints of beer a day was required.

The government now recommends that both men and women drink a bottle of wine a day, without making any allowance for body mass. "If we included a proportionate level for body mass, then 17 stone bankers would get 3 bottles of wine a day as a healthy allowance and little blond Chelsea mums would be limited to half a bottle. This is clearly wrong". 

Dame Sally Arrogant-Bitch commented "It's all a load of bollocks, really. I only do it for the money and the title".  

Those who disagree with the new government limits are advised to move to France, Spain or Germany, where the recommended wine intakes are respectively 3 bottles, 2 bottles and 1 bottle and some schnappes each day to achieve the same health levels as the UK. The fact that all these nations have a vastly more effective health service than the UK has something to do with the differences.

"We can't make the bloody NHS work even to a minimum level of efficiency" said Dame Sally "So we have to make people live like bloody vegetarian hermits instead". 


Anonymous said...

Nail , head.... hit on

Weekend Yachtsman said...


Cuffleyburgers said...

Nice one Radders - great to see you back on top form.

meltemian said...

Abso-bloody-lutely correct!
Mine's a couple of shots of tsiporou please.

Ed P said...

Good one Radders

Even the dimmest of the sheeple might wonder why the Spanish or Australians are 2.5 times more resistant to alcoholic health issues than we Bricks (thick Brits, my neologism).

Anonymous said...

Humour aside now that alcohol is the new tobacco by not imbibing the former drinking public can integrate more easily with the population set to replace it. That's a win-win for the government, and the professional multi cult classes. Cheers.


Dr Evil said...

There should be no government guidelines on drinking, eating or anything of a personal or private nature. It is none of their damn business.

Ravenscar said...

Is this the same lot who want to legalize cannabis and all other proscribed drugs?

Those fucking Puritans, they never really went away did they?

May the good Lord preserve us from, the sanctimony of the lefty/liberal 'do gooders', and all of their fuckwit quackery.

DeeDee99 said...

Fortunately, no-one (including our so-called health professionals) are going to take a blind bit of notice of the Health Nazis.

Anonymous said...

Moan if you like (and I moaned, calling the Health Nazi on the telly last night a f*cking c*nt, to the annoyance of Mrs Anonymous) the question I ask is just how many people down 14 pints of lager a week on a regular basis? I might have reached the equivalent in 2 binges per week in the past, between 30 and 40 years ago, but with the £5 pint and income tax at 40% this is way beyond my means, let alone capabilities, now.

Besides, has anyone worked out that while this might improve the health of the population at large vis a vis cancer by 1%, because that is where the statistics come from, even if they are true; it simply does not mean by 1% for every member of the population. If you think it does, then you don't understand the problem or statistics.

Gerry Mandarin said...

As commented above, one size does not fit all. Caveat Emptor.
Prohibition - that turned out well, didn't it?
If brewing had been prohibited over the centuries, how many more deaths would have occurred due to cholera and dysentery? I wonder how many of the sanctimonious would not be alive today if their ancestors had been prevented from drinking beer?

Wait a minute:

Bacon is evil.
Alcohol is evil.
Paper money to be got rid of ("money is the root of all evil")
We must all be vegetarian or eat insects.
Anyone who disagrees is evil.

You are right Anonymous #2. There seems to be a pattern forming...