Taxing 'Junk' Food

Once again 'officials' are making calls to regulate our food consumption under the remit of preventing obesity. Today the BBC was reporting things which allegedly came from a panel of doctors after politicians recently called for the exact same thing a few months ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21478314

Of course, they kind of hope that you will have the memory of a sieve and not see these doctors calls as been blatantly coordinated with the Government previous calls. For those of you who have forgotten and or have not heard about this previously then check out a previous blog post I wrote a month or so ago:

http://theroseofengland.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/health-facism-nanny-knows-best.html

Once again, the Government (well Parliament actually seeing as Labour is one of the biggest supporters of these moves) is completely ignoring public opinion on this matter.

 When you check through the top rated comments in the messages left on the BBC articles the vast majority see that the cost of decent ingredients is the main contributing factor in an unhealthy public. It might sound presumptuous, but the vast majority of obese people that we see around aren't working, are on the dole and generally cannot afford to buy good food. This is what struck me as kind of bizzare seeing as last month the Government were talking about cutting benefits to obese folk on the dole, which would have only exacerbated the issue.

Of course it is understandable why the Government wants to cut obesity down because it puts a burden on our health system, however there are much more intelligent ways to go about this. Rather than infringe on peoples freedom to eat how they want, why not give a certain amount in vouchers to be spent in supermarkets with your benefits cheque which can only be spent on fruit and vegetables? Why not simply make children go for a run once a day? 

No, of course not. These ideas will help people, its about tax. If the first round of taxes on unhealthy food doesn't work, they'll just increase the tax until people simply can't afford them. Bit like cigarettes, drinking and using your car. Win, win for the Government. More taxes and a reduction in NHS costs. Never-mind about the complete erosion of liberty.

The worst thing about this of course is that 'fizzy drinks' are going to be singled out as one of the biggest contributors to obesity.   
It was only last week that I wrote about a particular incident with coca-cola consumption resulting in death and the real dangers laying with aspartame-rich diet drinks:
(http://theroseofengland.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/idiot-killed-by-cocacola.html) 

I fear that (as always) calories will be attacked and taxed whilst damaging diet drinks are promoted as being the healthy alternative, something which many deny very much. Calories of course are just a measure of energy. 
The suggestion that what is essentially a measurement of Joule's in your food is bad for you is idiotic. It could be quite safe to eat ten times the recommended daily calorie intake if you was doing something strenuous enough to burn them up.

Strangely, the UK isn't the only country that has suddenly began promoting diet drinks as being this healthy alternative. Because giving a toxic substance which causes tumors to children is a brilliant idea, right? Especially when you've signed up to global causes like UN Agenda 21.

Kids in America had all fizzy drinks replaced with 'healthy' options.
(http://www.nbcnews.com/id/12604166/#.USI3V2cYE2U)

 (http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/nutrition/280613-soda-candy-out-under-proposed-school-snack-rules)

Don't believe me about the bad effects of Aspartame? Well here is evidence to suggest that aspartame given to rats caused tumors:
(http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/34040.php)

List supposed Aspartame effects:
(http://naturalsociety.com/is-diet-soda-bad-for-you-4-major-negative-impacts/) 

Diet Drinks cause depression:
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20943509)

Of course this is all very ironic that at a time where they don't even know what livestock is in our burgers (or what drugs those animals were on at the time) they are discussing regulations on things which do not need it. Draw your own conclusions from the information, but all in all its just yet another example of us all being denied our own basic right to live our lives as we wish.

 

Idiot Killed By Coca~Cola

Today on the BBC there is a report of how one woman who reportedly drank up to ten litres of coca-cola a day has died of a cardiac arrest.
What a pity. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21423499

The woman in New Zealand drank so much of this shit that she had had most of her teeth extracted over the years and it had even prevented her unborn children from forming enamel on their teeth too. According to the article ten litres a day is twice the recommended daily caffeine intake and eleven times the recommended daily sugar intake. 

I guess in a way we ought to feel sorry for her as this was clearly some form of addiction or obsessive behaviour and friends and family should have taken it upon themselves to get her treated for this. As per usual there are some who are trying to blame Coca~Cola for the death, but I think it goes beyond reasonable risk assessments to assume someone out there would consume that kind of amount.

The media however should currently be doing their utmost to highlight the possible dangers of aspartame which is present in a wide range of products. It is an artificial sweetener used in diet-drinks and in most products labelled as 'no added sugar'. This would include products such as 'Diet Coke', Coke Zero, Pepsi Max, and many other products you possibly wouldn't consider such as Robinson's cordial juice which of course is generally the drink of choice by millions of children in the UK.

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/20939173/diet-soda-dangers-new-study-may-link-aspartame-to-cancer

http://www.naturalnews.com/011804_aspartame_NutraSweet.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8939194 (An old scientific report calling for review in '96.)

Despite these concerns, the European Food Safety Authority and the Food and Drugs Administration in the USA have both approved this substance fit for human consumption once again. The EU came to an agreement on this just last year in fact:

"On 8 January 2013, EFSA launched a public consultation on its draft scientific opinion on the safety of the artificial sweetener aspartame. To carry out this full risk assessment, EFSA has undertaken an in-depth review of peer-reviewed scientific and other literature on aspartame and its breakdown products, including new human studies. All stakeholders and interested parties are invited to comment on the draft opinion through the online public consultation by 15 February 2013. As part of this important process and the Authority’s commitment to actively engaging with stakeholders, EFSA will also hold a meeting with interested parties to discuss its draft opinion and the feedback received from the online public consultation. EFSA prepared a set of Frequently Asked Questions to help explain some of the key scientific concepts and initial conclusions of the draft opinion."
EFSA Website
 
Well as great as this sounds there is still some cause for concern with regards to this little compound. The biggest concern being the links to Monsanto. 
As Monsanto deserves an article in its own right, check the wiki page for a general idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto (Pay particular attention to the 'political contributions and lobbying' section.)
Monsanto sold the Aspartame rights to Merisant in 2000, who have now sold to a group which now includes PepsiCo. But Merisant was brought by shareholders who already had stakes in Monsanto before, so it can hardly be said that the financial interests behind Monsanto are not still with the new owners. 
Long story short, Monsanto and other GM and artificial food producers are getting into bed with politicians and getting campainers to support untested food to the public through Governments. Bribery and officials 'looking the other way' are rife.

Here is just one such example which was reported. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4153635.stm 



The other concern to do with soft-drinks are energy drinks of which Monster Energy has recently come under scrutiny with after some deaths had some links with the consumption with their drinks. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9627491/Monster-energy-drink-investigated.html

The owner of the company  Rodney Sacks claimed the people who were trying to claim for damages were 'scientifically ignorant' for suggesting these deaths had anything to do with his beverages. Well no mate, this is why departments are currently reviewing your product to see if scientifically these claims have any basis.

In any case would you trust ingredients like these: l-carnitine, sorbic acid, benzoic acid, niacinamide, glucuronolactone, inositol, , pyridoxine, hydrochloride, sucralose, riboflavin, maltodextrin, cyanocobalamin

If it needed a laboratory to create its probably not the best thing to be knocking back with your Jäger.

 

Free Access to Stonehenge

I've been interested in asking about the grounds for free access to Stonehenge for religious purposes for a while and so thought I'd drop English Heritage a line, here is what I wrote to them in January 2013:

Dear Sir/Madam,

As you are probably aware, sites such as St Paul's Cathedral who usually charge tourists for visits allow free access for worshipers.

As someone who harbours pagan beliefs, I would like to ask English Heritage if free access to Stonehenge was granted under Article 9 of the charter of Human Rights which allows the right to religious freedom.

Thank you for your time, I look forward to hearing a response from you.

A week or so later I have received this reply from the Stonehenge office explaining how they do not allow free access for religious purposes but that they offer the site to the pagan community at key dates throughout the year.

Here is the reply:

Dear Mr Rose,

Thank you for you email to Customer Services dated 20^th January 2013, which has been forwarded onto me.

You refer in your email to the Human Rights Act 1998, article 9; The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

English Heritage general policy is to offer access to Stonehenge and to other sites on an equal basis to all groups, and no group has special status in regard to access because of their faith or belief

However, English Heritage has considered this matter in some depth, and in the spirit of Human Rights and European Law, the Stonehenge management team and external agencies such as Wiltshire Police consult regularly with various druid and pagan groups about open access to Stonehenge for spiritual or ceremonial purposes.

As a consequence, arrangements are made for open access to be available several times a year. Groups and individuals of any faith are welcome into Stonehenge, free of charge, to celebrate their beliefs and to perform their sacred ceremonies. At these times, we expect the people attending to adhere to the published entry conditions, to ensure public safety and protection of the monument.

The next available opportunity to take part in open access to Stonehenge is on the 20^th March to celebrate the spring Equinox. Gathered attendees will be able to enter the monument at dawn (from approximately 05.30 am) and remain until 08.00 am.

You and your group would be very welcome to attend free of charge.

Yours sincerely

Sally

You aren't allowed to touch Stonehenge unless you are a dirty, unkept
hippy cunt.

I'm not quite sure how to take the reply as it is partially a knock back, but at the same time I did only think the site was available to religious processions at the solstice events. What annoys me about Stonehenge in particular is the English Heritage's inability to manage the publics handling of the monuments. 

They build a car park over a part of the site of which is of historical interest (wooden post holes were found under the car park which pre-date the monument) and then charge us £8 a pop to visit a monument which has stood for up to 5000 year independently. Once you get to Stonehenge you are unfortunately reminded that you cannot approach or touch the stones, and you are forced to walk in a wide circle around the monument where you get no closer than the road anyway (thus making the whole paying for entry a pointless endeavour. 

 The over zealous security goes out of the window however come Solstice time. Then its perfectly acceptable to allow a load of acid-taking, wanna-be-hippies climb all over the fucking thing.

 These people are not pagans, pagans would respect an ancient monument built by their ancestors. These people are just a load of cunts

 In any case, it doesn't make a great deal of sense. The only reason why these bellends are there is because of the novelty of being able to get up close and touch the stones which you aren't allowed to do any other time of the year. I'm all for religious freedom, but I'm also about preservation. It makes no sense to offer it seven times a year for thousands of idiots instead of just opening it to everyone at all times with a few static security - of which we pay for anyway, right?
 

I have to ask, who in their right mind would want to spend time with these cunts anyway?

  

England: The Great Scapegoat

Growing up in England, most children are brought up with the idea of Britishness, and, as I will continue to explain, an idea is all it is. I too used to be fiercely ‘British’, I would display the union flag at any opportunity, proclaiming my love for our countries heritage. Then, slowly, I came to the realisation that all was not well in ol’ Blighty. ‘British’ history has been deliberately mis-taught for generations for the sole purpose of keeping English identity to a minimum whilst promoting the Imperialistic non-entity known as Britain. As added insult, the English are also usually blamed for all the atrocities committed by the ‘British Empire’, including the Scottish who of course were the ones who forged the British Empire to begin with.

If you think I'm talking crap, let us take a (relatively) quick tour of the United Kingdom’s history:

The first lie comes from the idea of there ever being a race called ‘The Celts’. Indeed Celt seems in recent times to denote someone who resides in the UK or Ireland and is an indigenous person to these lands. Truth is, there was never a single cultural or racial group known simply as ‘the Celts’. There had been waves upon waves of small settler groups from the continent all throughout the neolithic period and bronze age – all of whom displaced the earlier group. That been said, it has been noted that during the Neolithic period, all Northern European cultures (Germanic and ‘Celtic’) were very similar which seems to suggest a common lineage. Essentially there is no difference between someone of whom is of Germanic origin, and someone who is of Celtic origin.

Why is this important? Well it is very important on account of the fact that in recent times they’ve used immigration to break social cohesion and national identity in the UK, and in England in particular. In many instances our race replacement programme is justified by the likes of the BBC etc because of the fact that ‘all English are foreign anyway.’ Well, no actually. Our people have always lived in Northern Europe.

Skipping the Roman conquest entirely, we then get onto the creation of England. After the fall of the Roman Empire the King of the Britons Vortigern, essentially paid protection money to the Anglo-Saxons to stop them marauding their coasts with the absence of Roman naval units - but eventually, after a few attempts to butter the Saxons up, they went on to take England by force from all the independent tribes. England then, is a completely separate nation from Wales (which ironically means Foreigners in Old English) and the Scots to the North.

For some time, England suffered with a terrible war of attrition with the Danes which effectively at one point left England with only the far South West, but was eventually able to regain control of the most of England. Of course, in 1066, the English suffered a great defeat, a defeat which has seen the English people enslaved ever since. Some may scoff at this notion, but here are the facts. With the Norman conquest came a genocide and a complete upheaval of a class system. Before the Norman conquest, England's societal system was mostly based on merit. It was quite possible to start life as a servant and become someone of influence and power later in life. With the Norman system came the consensus, harsh taxes and the super-elite. Whilst the serfs worked night and day to survive, the Norman nobility stuffed their faces. (In fact, the Normans never used plates, they ate their meat off of blocks of bread which was given as a meal to the servants afterwards.)

So why is this important?

Because it proves that no English nobility stood at all after 1066, and the class system in this country has always been horrific. Even today, class in Britain transcends profession and monetary accumulation. Someone can tell another person's ‘class’ merely by their accent. All political decisions for nearly a thousand years have been made by a super-class of usurper bastards.

Even after the Civil War which Oliver Cromwell the Parliamentarian won against the Royalists, we were still dicked because all the anti-Jewry laws which were repealed in order for us to take on a debt based ‘modern’ banking system.

Now onto the interesting part.

England is always seen as being the main nation behind the British Empire, but is this really true? After Queen Elizabeth I’s death, the crown passed to James I, her Nephew who was from the Scottish throne. Then since then, up until the arrival of the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha crew, all monarchs were either Scottish, or German.

So when did the United Kingdom become united? Well, despite the same throne been held in both the Scottish and English state for a long time before, the union never came about until 1707, but it was done to stop Scotland going bankrupt after they tried their own bit of territorial expansionism in Panama, and to stop them from ever becoming allies with the French again like they had so many times before (which was actually the main reason for the film Braveheart because Scotland kept aiding France.) No one was ever asked, and the only people who have ever done badly from the British state are the main contributors: the English. 
Of course the English civil war in (1642–1651) was fought against King Charles I, the main reason for that war was to prevent the monarch from uniting England and Scotland because the opponents were concerned that such a move would but English customs and traditions in danger. 

Ironically after a long and bloody civil war only fifty years later the Parliament had reinstated a monarch as a constitutional monarchy and signed an agreement which united Scotland and England. The true purpose of the Civil war must therefore be looked at in scrutiny and it is a well known fact that Cromwell's round-heads repealed the usury laws and allowed Jewish banks to start dominating England (and later on allowed the sell out of Scotland too.)

There remains facts however that some people who remain hateful of the English seem to ignore. Despite the pressure from various monarchs and the imposed imperialism over the years from foreign powers and banking interests, England still managed to contribute so much liberty to the world which remains as a beacon of hope and justice throughout the world. It is generally forgotten that Britain banned slavery around the same time the United States did. It is conveniently not mentioned that the English legal system was based on evidence, and presumption of innocence rather than the usual presumption of guilt like in other nations, it is conveniently not mentioned that the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights is the corner stone of modern freedoms, both of which came from peaceful English reforms. 

Another thing which seems ironic is that a term used by liberals these days against English nationalists is ‘Little Englanders’. This term can correctly be tracked back to the days of the British Empire where the term ‘Little Englander’ was coined for English who disagreed with Britain's Imperialistic approach, and the creation of the British state. This would seem to imply that the 'nasty, filthy nationalists' are actually against the kind of international pillage that faux-liberalism seems to support.

Lastly, let us not forget from where most of the prominent secret societies now based in the states originated – Scotland, not England.

So why do I feel this article is important?

That is simple. I grow tired of hearing from groups whether they are African, American or Scottish about how bad we English are, when in actual fact, our history was not ours to control. We have been at the mercy of Norman and German hierarchs, Scottish bloodlines and foreign banks for a very long time. I'm not saying we are perfect, but I would just like to say that we deserve to exist as a nation and as a people. We do not deserve to be deliberately forced out of our homeland by migrants, nor do we deserve the sole blame for all of the atrocities played out by the British Empire.

Britain is a term meaning slavery. Slavery for all of us involved. I only hope that the Scottish vote for their independence in the next coming years as it will grant us a loop hole to take back control of our destiny also – from both the British state, and the EU (since we joined as the UK, not separate nation states.)