Because of the economies of scale. If it were profitable, they would do it, so clearly it is not. They exist to cater to the mass-market, not your 'once-in-a-blue-moon' purchase cycle
This 'sugar tax' crap is doing my head in!
- Thread starter MrRockliffe
- Start date
Because of the economies of scale. If it were profitable, they would do it, so clearly it is not. They exist to cater to the mass-market, not your 'once-in-a-blue-moon' purchase cycle
Should we use force against the population at large (taxation) to help adults whom don't want to be helped? No.
Should we use force against people who neglect children? Yes.
Hell I would actually have more support on banning the sale of high sugar drinks to children than imposing a tax, as that actually holds the most relevant individuals responsible and is not unethical like the latter.
They banned possession of it. This was when we were under Labour's totalitarian regime, they introduced something called "extreme porn" under the criminal justice and immigration bill 2008 in response to some whack job going around with a petition.
I think we have hit a new level of ignorance when Libertarianism is referred to as "freeman of the land", considering that the two concepts completely conflict.
Freeman of the land crap.
To be fair, he is right, it is Libertarianism crap as well
The trouble is, they will want to be helped when they are overweight and suffering problems with it in later life. I'm all for trying to educate but most of the time it falls on deaf ears as people are inherently lazy. At my girlfriends school, most of the kids in her class (year 2) are overweight but the parents consider a large bar of chocolate or family bag of crisps a suitable meal. The school has had to ban sugary drinks and are cracking down on junk food, but as soon as they leave the gates after school, the parents hand them a jumbo bag of Haribo to stuff into their faces. Hit them where it hurts, in the wallet, and they might think twice about buying sugar loaded crap. It's the only way people will change.
If the problem was much less worse, you could theoretically take these obese children away from their parents for willful malnutrition, but since a such a huge amount of children are fat, we can't rightly do what is required.
So everyone suffers instead, if you think otherwise, then you are actively helping these parents kill and abuse their children.
So everyone suffers instead, if you think otherwise, then you are actively helping these parents kill and abuse their children.
Yeah but in what context home made for personal viewing or only published for profit commercial porn?
Has anybody here actually read the government's strategy for tackling childhood obesity? https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...or-action/childhood-obesity-a-plan-for-action
On the soft drinks levy, it's quite interesting to see how the food industry has responded. If you look at Coca Cola - they've basically just said "NOPE" and are refusing to change the recipe for classic coke, instead raising the price, whilst lowering the sugar content of some of their other products, to take them below the threshold, which is a crafty move (rather predictable from a $188Bn company)
I think the government strategy is pretty weak, and in typical government fashion - is skirting around the edges. It also excludes a lot of the long-standing recommendations from the health bodies, such as a ban on opening fast food outlets near schools, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ts-should-banned-opening-near-schools-tackle/
On the soft drinks levy, it's quite interesting to see how the food industry has responded. If you look at Coca Cola - they've basically just said "NOPE" and are refusing to change the recipe for classic coke, instead raising the price, whilst lowering the sugar content of some of their other products, to take them below the threshold, which is a crafty move (rather predictable from a $188Bn company)
I think the government strategy is pretty weak, and in typical government fashion - is skirting around the edges. It also excludes a lot of the long-standing recommendations from the health bodies, such as a ban on opening fast food outlets near schools, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ts-should-banned-opening-near-schools-tackle/
Are you really surprised Coke won't touch their classic formula? Tried that once before and faced huge backlash. That awful Japanese company Suntory just wiped out two classic drinks completely. Both are unrecognisable from the original forumas. Lucozade and Ribena.
So yeah pretty much every major brand remade thier formula to be lower than the limit.
That's not crafty that's exactly what the government wanted.
Just like how driving at 29 in a 30 is not a cunning plan
If you possess an extreme porn video that you were actually involved in, it can be a defence to prove that you were actually involved in the video (good luck proving that). This of course depends on the type of content, for example even though bestiality may well be legal you could still be arrested for having a video of it, a perfect legal contradiction but I digress.
Otherwise it doesn't matter whether the video was commercial in nature or something you downloaded off Redtube etc. This is why I think everyone should use VPN's and full disk encryption, because common sense does just not cut it, without a law degree you basically have no way of knowing what ridiculous laws you could be running afoul of.
This is the unfortunate problem with having an NHS style system like we do, it discourages personal responsibility because your contributions into the system are the same regardless of how badly you choose to live.
Last edited:
The fact that most other brands have lowered their sugar content to get below the limit is immaterial, because even with all of them combined - they don't even come close to the sorts of volume of regular classic Coca Cola that is sold in the UK each year. The runner up next to classic Coca Cola in terms of sales is regular Red Bull - they've also opted to take the hit, rather than change the recipe.
There's a vast gulf, between the amount of classic coke and red bull, vs all the other drinks being sold, which ultimately makes the governments attempts at regulation look rather feeble, with low expectations of success.
To use your own analogy - some people will do 29 in a 30, but the majority will continue to do 40 in a 30, and just shrug off the fine as a business expense, because they have the market share and profit margin to do so.
Last edited:
Where on earth did you get those figures from?
Coke is the top seller but thsts including zero and diet redbull is very far down the list
https://www.statista.com/statistics...he-united-kingdom-uk-by-grocery-market-value/
People will still drink coke its just it will move to zero and diet.
Every country thst has put a sugar tax on has seen over all sales fall the uk s soft drink consumption was already falling before the tax.
Last edited:
So according to you the UK courts are wrong when they have ruled that paying tax is compulsory. I think that when you basically argue against the dictionary definition of taxation you undermine your point (not that there actually was one) more effectively than I ever could.
I don't even disagree with taxation, so trying to say I'm a "freeman of the land" because I recognise the position of the UK court makes you look rather infantile.
Put down the daily mail, and try to string a coherent sentence together for once.
Strawman. I've said no such thing. Hello Freeman of the land lunatic. *waves*