“5p per bag”:: A Visit to the Dentist

I got an email from ASDA today. It said that, from 5th October 2015, when our groceries are delivered, they will be delivered in crates, and that the delivery man will wait while we unload the groceries from the crate. Or, we can elect to have the groceries delivered in plastic bags, in which case we will be charged 5p per bag. That is because the government have introduced A LAW, which dictates that large retailers must charge at least 5p per plastic bag.

ASDA has had a think and must have decided to average the charges. I suppose that what it has done is calculate the average number of bags used per shopper. Perhaps it has counted the number of shoppers over, say, a week, and the number of bags used in that week. The average seems to have come out at 8, since ASDA say that they will add 40p to the cost of delivery if one chooses to have one’s groceries delivered in bags. Thus, it seems that large retailers are going to be obliged to count the bags which they use and pay 5p per bag to someone or other. ASDA say that they will donate the 5ps to charity. Thus, despite appearances, it is not shoppers who are paying the charge, even if they are ultimately the ones who pay. It is the supermarkets. They pay the charge, but are not allowed to keep the money! Yes, it is extremely crazy. Shoppers have to pay 5p per bag, but supermarkets must account for all the bags used. Thus, it is assumed that, if a supermarket gives out, say, 10,000 bags in a day, then £500 accrues. But that £500 is not theirs, nor is it the Government’s. They are obliged to give it away, and so they give it to charities.

But who decides which charities? In my opinion, if I pay 40p for the bags, then I should decide which charity should benefit, and not ASDA.

—–

I’m in two minds. I cannot decide what is the best thing to do. Should I elect to have my groceries delivered in crates and then take my time to unload them and waste as much time as possible, keeping the delivery man waiting? Or should I elect for bags to show that I believe that Government has gone out of its mind?

But there is another point. Since I am now paying for the bags, I have a reasonable right to demand that the bags are in pristine condition. No more rips. Further, why should I give my paid-for bags back to the deliverer when I have paid for them and they are MINE? Why should I not dispose of them in the bin, or by throwing them in the sea? Or burning them? Further, why should I not have a reasonable right to demand a name and address from whom I can demand a refund if one or more bags are damaged?

Somewhat facetious, I must admit, but these sort of LAWS ought to render politicians liable for the costs. Thus, rather than supermarkets being liable for the costs involved in this idiotic LAW, it should be those MPs who voted for it who are liable. OK, I know that such an idea is impracticable since no one knows what the consequences might be at the time. Even so, for too long has it been the case that MPs can vote for anything at all and not be responsible for the consequences. The present situation absolutely stinks.

The Americans have a peculiar system for dealing with civil cases. In the UK, a Judge decides. In the USA, a jury decides. In the McTear Case, the Judge decided that ASH ET AL had not ‘proved on the balance of probabilities’ that smoking causes lung cancer. And yet, in the USA, juries are awarding million dollar awards to anyone who sues a tobacco company because they got lung cancer and they smoked. The big point is that juries can totally ignore the law and decide that black is white, or that the Sun goes round the Earth, or that smoking causes lung cancer.

So I suggest that there is nothing much wrong with our ‘representative democracy’ other than the fact that MPs are not individually responsible for the consequences of their decisions. No one else would be permitted to get away with crimes and thefts other than MPs.

What this boils down to is that Government has once again decided to use FORCE against a group of people to FORCE them to do all the work without pay.

And our elected representatives do not protest.

====

====

A Visit to the Dentists.

I honestly could not believe it.

I have known my dentist for some years. He is a grand chap and I get along with him very well. He knows that I grow tobacco plants.

I went to see him  a few days ago.

He asked me if I was still growing tobacco plants. Right. It is only a couple of months ago that I went last for a specific treatment at which we discussed my tobacco plants, but one can forgive the lapse of memory. So we talked for a little while about growing tobacco plants.

After the treatment, as I was about to leave, the nurse tried to hand me a couple of leaflets. I looked at the top one and it had the word ‘SMOKING’ on the front. I said to her, “No, I do not want that leaflet” And then I looked at the other, and it said, “Oral hygiene and smoking”, and I said, “I don’t want that one either”

Both the nurse and the dentist did not seem to know what to do. My dentist is a very intelligent chap, but he did not seem to know what to do when I refused to accept the leaflets.

How weird is that? My intelligent dentist could not understand that I find such leaflets INSULTING. They assume that I have the intelligence and knowledge of a child, and that I can be manipulated by propaganda.

He relented in the end after trying to push the leaflets at me on the grounds that he was OBLIGED to do so. I think that it suddenly occurred to him that his behaviour was not appropriate when I said, “Look, I’m 76 years old. I know what I want”

It is weird how even intelligent people like doctors and dentists have succumbed to the brainwashing. It really is a mystery. For example, a couple of months ago, at an appointment with said dentist, I asked him if he saw many mouth cancers, and he muttered something like, “Oh Yes”. But I know for a fact from national statistics that that cannot be true unless he is very, very, very unusual. The facts are that there are around 30,000 dentists in the UK. The number of mouth cancer deaths of all sorts are around 1,500 per an. Therefore it follows that any individual dentist, on average, will see only one such terminal cancer every 20 years.  That cannot be denied. [At this time of night, my figures are very rough, but not totally inaccurate]

Why do dentists, doctors, publican, teachers, etc, succumb so easily to being used as propagandists? I do not understand. Do they not have Unions and Societies deliberately created to protect them from such manipulation? How were those organisations become corrupted?

 

Advertisements

11 Responses to ““5p per bag”:: A Visit to the Dentist”

  1. michaeljmcfadden Says:

    Interesting thoughts as always Junican! 🙂

    Two things:

    1) Heh, with the plastic bags: you should indeed keep an eye out for one that’s even VERY slightly damaged, return it to the deliverer, and ask for them to send a replacement. If they do NOT send a satisfactory replacement then you might have some grounds for refusing to pay for the bags (or at least one of the bags) in the following delivery.

    2) Re cancers: the “one terminal every 20 years” could very easily translate into “one non-terminal every 2 years.” Mouth cancers tend not to be terminal. Also, when we get to that level, the “very rough” part of your figures becomes more important. Two non-terminals a year would indeed seem in the dentist’s mind to be “many” if he is convinced that the only cause is tobacco. However, in the other direction by the same factor it might be one non-terminal every 8 years, in which case your point would still have a fair amount of validity. (Plus I don’t really know if the ration of non-terminal to terminal is actually 10 to 1.)

    In terms of them being corrupted into being propagandists, it’s probably part of their licensing requirements or somesuch from both Antis’ pressure AND from lawsuit protections. I.E. if you were a heavy drinker and smoker for 40 years with the same dentist and he NEVER mentioned it as a problem AND you then got mouth cancer, you might have a basis for suing him. Soooo… thus the requirement.

    – MJM

    • junican Says:

      You highlighted a problem that I actually foresaw – ‘How amenable to treatment are the cancerous growths which occur in a person’s mouth?’ I have tried to discover that information on the net without success. All you get is propaganda.
      So it might well be that my dentist discovers ‘a lot’ of ‘problems’, but he does not treat them. He refers the patient to his General Practitioner.
      But that isn’t really the point. It is the mouth cancer which cause death which are the point. Does my dentist know how many of the ‘problems’ are actually cancers and does he know what the outcome was?
      I seriously doubt it.

  2. jay Says:

    I’m incensed about the 5p bag charge. I take the view that the shop that takes my money in payment for goods has a duty to enable me to transport those goods such that they arrive at the place of destination in the same condition in which they were bought – that means they provide a bag. I’m not foolish enough to believe that the cost of the bags isn’t paid for by us, factored into the prices of the products we buy but with the cost of the bag now being paid for as an additional charge by us and there still being a cost to the shop of providing said bag since it doesn’t get to keep the 5p, then we are in effect paying twice! Completely agree with your opinion that I should be able to say to which charity my 5p is going.

    I think I’m going to insist if I buy a product such as a book as a gift that the shop provides some wrapping so that the fish and veg that are sitting in the bottom of my Bag For Life don’t damage the gift. Remember when shops wrapped your purchase in a neat little parcel of brown paper and string?

    The whole thing’s crazy – I use supermarket bags as rubbish bags, bags for sorting out papers and so on – I’ll now just use, em, plastic bags marketed as bin liners instead.

    My local Sainsbury’s has a notice about the charge in which it solemnly reassures its customers that their own bags won’t be charged for!! If I forget to take my own bin liners and have to buy a bag I’ll bloody well stand in the shop and turn it inside out unless the supermarket’s willing to put the 5p in the can itself in return for the free advertising it gets from its bags.

    • junican Says:

      I am 100% determined not to argue with the delivery staff about it. I have in mind to get some big cardboard boxes and insist that the deliverers transfer the goods into my boxes. Thus, the work involved becomes their problem.

  3. smokingscot Says:

    We’ve had it for some time in Scotland. So I scribbled a piece that sort of warns the English what to expect.

    http://www.mullingscot.com/carry-bag-tax-forced-donations-to-charities.html

    Make sure you quiz your supermarket, shop or whatever to find out what charity they support. They MUST tell you.

    • michaeljmcfadden Says:

      Tell the market you want them to add some of the more worthy nonprofits to their list…. Forces, SmokersClub, F2C, TICAP, etc etc…

      – MJM

      • junican Says:

        Ultimately, the whole thing is just a ‘precedent’. Expect more demands that ‘big business’ must ‘do something’, but it will be ordinary people who pay.

      • MICHAEL J. MCFADDEN Says:

        Actually, you may remember my ranting and raving about the USA’s “Master Settlement Agreement” that has been pumping between 400 million and 900 million dollars a year into the pockets of our “Tobacco Control” folks since 1999. Your “precedent” is **EXACTLY** what happened there!

        Although the basis for the MSA was “punishing the tobacco companies” for their supposedly “illegal” acts under the RICO racketeering laws originally aimed at drug cartels, the MSA evidently expressly FORBIDS the Tobacco Companies from paying the fine themselves or passing it on to their shareholders.: It demands that 100% of the payment come straight out of the pockets of innocent smokers.

        Which is a good bit of the reason the idiot tobacco companies probably went for it …. and paved the way for all the insane tax increases that followed. Prior to the MSA it was sen as political suicide to propose for that sort of tax increase on cigarettes outside of a few *very* select markets (e.g. California got a 25 cent per pack tax passed in 1988 that became a “watershed moment” for the Antis here as their monetary resources suddenly increased by something like a full order of magnitude overnight.)

        I’ve always wondered if there was a second, silent, factor involved in Big T’s agreement to the MSA. My guess is that the coalition “compact” of 45 State Attorney Generals acting together (a seemingly quite direct violation of the US Constitution’s prohibition against States acting in any sort of “compact”) threatened the Big T execs with jail time under RICO and the execs ran like scared little girls and surrendered — getting themselves off the hook with smokers’ blood money.

        – MJM

    • Some French Bloke Says:

      @MJM
      My guess is that […] the execs ran like scared little girls and surrendered

      Then your guess would also be that they believed in the lethality of their own product! Mine is that the collusion/corruption goes far deeper than that…
      If the MSA evidently expressly FORBIDS the Tobacco Companies from paying the fine themselves or passing it on to their shareholders, then the “disgorgement of past benefits” of Tobacco Companies is yet another TC myth, concealing the reality of the planned extortion of a fraction of the income of tens of millions of US smokers for a quarter of a century.
      Doesn’t “Agreement” in MSA say it all? They never were sentenced! And if those trials were deemed so exemplary, and considering the FCTC is (sadly) a worldwide phenomenon, why are they used just as a reference in antismoking MSM reports and didn’t become a model for the world at large, since most of the world’s tobacco, I guess, is produced outside the US?
      Part of the answer is to be found at http://www.bat.com:
      The Master Settlement was not the result of a trial defeat, but was a business decision taken in the light of the peculiarities of the US legal, regulatory and political system. It is not by any means a potential ‘template’ for other countries.
      As Junican says above: “The present situation absolutely stinks.” and this goes far beyond shopping bags.

      • junican Says:

        I seem to remember that tobacco companies were ‘found guilty’ of some technicality, which paved the way to the ‘Master Settlement’. The ‘guilt’ was connected to advertising, but I cannot remember the details. What is certain is that the Master Settlement was, as you say, an ‘agreement’. It cut out further lawsuits originated from States for the time being.But it did not cut out lawsuits from individuals,or groups of individuals.

      • Some French Bloke Says:

        it did not cut out lawsuits from individuals,or groups of individuals.

        Yet I just read in this article that “The agreement also exempted the companies from private tort liability regarding harm caused by tobacco use.”
        http://www.tobaccoontrial.org/?page_id=321

        And of course, by exclaiming “They never were sentenced!”, I meant that on a practical level, since only smokers and tobacco growers wound up the real targets of the ‘sentence’, (not to mention collateral victims of the stigmatisation such as non-smoking lung cancer sufferers).

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: