Power to the people ... or Hearn and Warren

Discussion in 'British Boxing Forum' started by Tyson Furry, Jan 5, 2019.



  1. S.K

    S.K Active Member Full Member

    833
    524
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 7, 2017
    Quote me once where I have been ‘childish’.

    Once.

    I’ve stated a couple of facts through this whole debate:

    1. The sugar tax is immoral, it doesn’t, and will not, do what the government claim it will. (Curb diabetes / obesity etc)

    2. People need to be educated on how to avoid diabetes / obesity, if the government actually want to curb it.

    3. I don’t drink sugary drinks.

    4. I’m an educator in social care. I advise / train nurses doctors managers directors clinical leads on everything in including nutrition / hydration / safeguarding etc. Hence I’m directly involved in this sector.

    5. I’ve claimed you don't see the full picture of you are in agreement with the sugar tax.

    6. You seem to be of the opinion that if it helps mitigate ill health then it’s a positive. Does that mean we should be taxed on everything that causes ill health? Did you know the WHO classifies processed meats in the EXACT SAME category as ASBESTOS and TOBACCO regarding their carcinogenicity? You may have, but the vast majority of the population do not. Hence my passion for increased education in this area.
     
  2. S.K

    S.K Active Member Full Member

    833
    524
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 7, 2017
    So your still in agreement the sugar tax is a POSITIVE?

    Do you not question why so many professionals in the industry are against it? Does that not ring alarm bells?

    We see, first hand, that it simple wouldn’t make a difference.

    No idea how your mind is failing to grasp this. It’s very simple.
     
  3. 305th

    305th Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,827
    1,589
    Sportsbook:
    10,555
    Apr 28, 2018
    I was in healthcare, in the private sector although I have experience of the NHS specifically the effects of diabetes. If you asked someone who was having their foot amputated at 45 due to type 2, or a 50-year-old with stage 4 bowel cancer if they would have consumed as much processed red meat or sugar if it were higher priced, I would hazard a guess a significant % would say no. Higher prices are inhibitive for most things however way you want to look at it, smoking being a prime example. But I agree that education is essential alongside it but for most it's a combination of being hit in the pocket as well.
     
    Sugar 88 likes this.
  4. Sugar 88

    Sugar 88 Judges Doom, Dredd and Judy would do a better job Full Member

    17,531
    7,257
    Sportsbook:
    1,050
    Feb 4, 2012
    You started with silly name calling when anyone didn't agree with you and your tone is childish.

    You keep mentioning education being key as if in someway I disagree with you when I've said numerous times that should be our primary weapon in the battle for a healthier society.

    The statistics show that in similar circumstances levies have led to a decrease in consumption with an especially noted decline in the most vulnerable groups. Thus it's worth a try. I don't think the cons - a price increase inconveniencing consumers - is outweighed by the potential benefits - a potential drop in consumption and a new revenue stream for our over stretched health service.

    And processed meats are a huge problem. Weirdly Mike Skinner - yes the 'Dry Your Eyes Mate' guy - said to me years ago when working on a project that 'sausages are the new cigarettes' and thought processed meat should be banned so it's not like it's something people aren't aware of or something I don't think should be addressed.
     
    305th likes this.
  5. S.K

    S.K Active Member Full Member

    833
    524
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 7, 2017
    Not a chance. Your telling me if that piece of meat cost £1.20 instead of a £1 they wouldn’t have bought it? You seriously believe that? Surely not.

    Tell you what though, if they bloke was told that piece of meat is ranked in the same category as ASBESTOS (biggest workplace killer as of right now)for carcinogenicity then I believe there is a good chance they’d have chosen not to consume it.
     
  6. Sugar 88

    Sugar 88 Judges Doom, Dredd and Judy would do a better job Full Member

    17,531
    7,257
    Sportsbook:
    1,050
    Feb 4, 2012
    Read my last post. Look at the data when similar taxes have been proven to be successful and then get back to me. Your anecdotal examples of seeing a fat guy buying regular Coca Cola despite the sugar tax don't quite cut it for me.
     
    305th likes this.
  7. Sugar 88

    Sugar 88 Judges Doom, Dredd and Judy would do a better job Full Member

    17,531
    7,257
    Sportsbook:
    1,050
    Feb 4, 2012
    Why is it a direct choice with you? Why can't you educate people AND introduce a levy? Your posts on this are bizarre.
     
  8. 305th

    305th Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,827
    1,589
    Sportsbook:
    10,555
    Apr 28, 2018
    You have to look at it long term. And yes I do believe that, firmly in fact. Only the most committed of consumers are going to accept a sizeable % increase in any consumable if there is an alternative for less and if the more expensive product has been shown to be dangerous to health. I'd love to see figures for red meat sales, I bet they're way down. I know that veganism and such like is now seen as normal wheras 10 years ago was rare.

    People's habits change over a course of time, obviously. Regarding the asbestos comparison, a lot more people are dying of bowel cancer than asbestosis and at an increasingly younger age.
     
  9. S.K

    S.K Active Member Full Member

    833
    524
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 7, 2017
    I started with the name calling because your so far off the mark, the government have successed in brainwashing you that they have implemented this sugar tax in the hope in a reduction in diabetes and obesity.

    Ok fair one we are in agreement with the education part.

    Your third paragraph - firstly if the revenue went straight to the NHS I’d somehat agree, but the government specifically stated it would not go straight to the NHS. Link to the statistics? I love statistics but they are usually guesswork it sometimes even made up. Even by what you would imagine are credible sources like the BBC or NHS.

    And finally, interesting that he knew that back then. But even still today the vast majority of people are unaware of this classification by the WHO. It barely even made the news so how are they going to know?
     
  10. S.K

    S.K Active Member Full Member

    833
    524
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 7, 2017
    Because the levy has no positive impact. It’s a money grab. Won’t say it again, said that exact statement about 10 times now.
     
  11. S.K

    S.K Active Member Full Member

    833
    524
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 7, 2017
    Of course they are, asbestos is the biggest workplace killer not the biggest killer.

    So what alternative would the bowel cancel casualty have chosen if he baulked at the 20p increase in his favourite processed meat? Would he have bought a salad instead?

    Seriously. There’s not a chance in hell any meat lover is not paying an extra 20p. I mean, it’s 20 ****ing p your not gonna argue that’s a lot of money now are you?
     
  12. Sugar 88

    Sugar 88 Judges Doom, Dredd and Judy would do a better job Full Member

    17,531
    7,257
    Sportsbook:
    1,050
    Feb 4, 2012
    Well you need to learn how to articulate yourself properly if you want to discuss anything of any substance. Trying to agitate people with name calling and insulting people based on them needing treatment in the future casts you in a very poor light IMO.

    Here's a link to a number of papers in Lancet - a medical journal:
    This content is protected


    And for your last paragraph, yes it's a problem. I just don't see why the tax is inherently a bad thing. You keep saying the money won't go to the NHS, then that's the issue - not a sugar tax itself.
     
  13. 305th

    305th Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,827
    1,589
    Sportsbook:
    10,555
    Apr 28, 2018
    Ahhh no point in debating this any further, we're on different pages.

    For the final time. 20p on its own no, 20p multiplied many times over the course of years combined with publicised research showing a link to cancer with whatever it's buying, damn right.
     
  14. S.K

    S.K Active Member Full Member

    833
    524
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 7, 2017
    That’s a good little paper there with some half decent evidence it seems the only criticism I have if it is that the vast majority of the countries it looked at at relatively low income countries. For example turkey, Nigeria chile etc etc. So I’m not that surprised at the results.

    It may cast me in a poor light but that is me - I have a short temper. Apologies.
     
    Sugar 88 and Twentyman like this.
  15. S.K

    S.K Active Member Full Member

    833
    524
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 7, 2017
    If only people had that long term view, regarding the 20p multiplied thousands of time. Almost nobody has this frame of mind. Almost everyone is a short termist. 99/10 view it had 20p. Hence 99/100 aren’t bothered about the 20p if it’s a food they want they will get it.

    By the way now you’ve added in publicised research and being informed about the risks into your argument but a few minutes ago these where not to be seen, you merely mentioned you believed purely the price increase would significantly reduce consumption.
     

Share This Page