Sunday, 15 October 2017

Drafting An ASA E-Cigs Consultation Response

Tomorrow sees the deadline for a consultation by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about regulations placed on ads for e-cigs.

The ASA claim this has come about due to products becoming more reliable, but it's fair to say that their rules have been pretty much overtaken by events. What with the Tobacco Control Plan recently putting emphasis on e-cigs being part of the government's future strategy, and with Stoptober prominently featuring vapers in their ads, the rules as they are currently laid out are quite absurd.  Reason being that the CAP & BCAP rules both prohibit claims which are demonstrably true.

The accompanying consultation document states that the purpose of the rules on e-cigs are to make sure ads are "not misleading". Well, it is not misleading to say that vaping is less harmful than smoking because the same has been said by Public Health England, the Royal College of Physicians and it is mentioned in government documents too. It's a bit of a nonsense, therefore, that business can't say such things just because a bunch of idological anti-vaping extremists lobbied dullard MEPs in 2013 to protect the makers of useless pharmaceutical patches and gums.

So the ASA is consulting on bringing the rules back into the realms of reality by relaxing the wording to possibly allow general claims of relative risk. Here is the wording they intend to change ... very slightly.

click to enlarge
The simple deletion of those two words would technically permit an e-cig vendor to put an A-frame outside his shop saying that e-cigs are 95% less harmful than cigarettes (although, to be fair, the ASA were always fighting a losing battle with this because I've seen vendors do it anyway. They can hardly fear a court case when they can safely back the claim). Common sense really, isn't it?

So it's a fairly simple consultation to respond to.
Question 1 
Do you agree with CAP and BCAP’s proposal to remove the prohibition on health claims from unlicensed nicotine-containing e-cigarettes? If not please explain why. Please also provide any relevant evidence not already taken into account by CAP and BCAP in making this proposal.
Well of course.

Remember that the ASA is running a campaign on the tube claiming that they are there to ensure adverts are truthful.

So what could be more appropriate than having rules which allow e-cig business to tell the truth? It's a no-brainer.
Question 2 
Do you agree with CAP and BCAP’s proposed changes to the wording of the rules, as set out above? If not please explain why
Seems fair enough, yes. It removes the blockage and will help counteract much of the fake news put out by certain tobacco control liars which has led to a majority of the public thinking vaping is just as bad as smoking.

The consultation then addresses the confusion in its rules which could feasibly mean health groups couldn't make the same claims in their adverts. The ASA proposes this qualification.

click to enlarge, again
Well, I suppose if it's fair enough that businesses can make those claims, we mustn't be churlish and say that the nannies can't.
Question 3 
Do you agree with CAP’s proposal to add qualifying text to the introductory text of the ecigarette section of its Code as set out above? If not please explain why.
Sigh, I guess so, yes.
Question 4 
Do you agree with the wording proposed? If not, please explain why and provide your suggestions as to how it should be amended.
Yes, it seems straightforward enough.
Question 5 
Do you have any other information or evidence that you think might be relevant to CAP’s consideration of its regulation of public health advertisements which refer to e-cigarettes?
Well, I think some organisations should be prohibited from calling themselves 'public health' groups, but that's a different issue, so no.

Talking of which, in case you're wondering why this consultation is worth taking part in, I think I only have to tell you the groups who have registered their objections to the relaxation of these advertising rules.
1. Blackpool Council
2. British Medical Association
3. Johnson & Johnson Ltd (What a surprise! - DP)
4. Proprietary Association of Great Britain
5. Royal College of Radiologists
6. The Welsh Government
They may be few - and laughably miguided - but the more responses we who are on the side of the angels submit in favour of the rules being changed, the more their pathetic voices are drowned out.

Responses are due in by 5pm on Monday 16th October 2017, that's tomorrow of course, so don't delay. Responses should be submitted as a Word attachment to or by fax to +44(0)20 7404 3404.

Go on, you know you want to. 

Thursday, 12 October 2017

Signage And The Anti-Vaping Status Quo

In July, the government released its Tobacco Control Plan (TCP). It claimed to be supportive of e-cigarettes, including this part about vaping in public.
Public Health England has produced guidance for employers and organisations looking to introduce policies around e-cigarettes and vaping in public and recommend such policies to be evidence-based. PHE recommends that e-cigarette use is not covered by smokefree legislation and should not routinely be included in the requirements of an organisation’s smokefree policy.
As vaping bans sweep up and down the country without a whimper of objection from 'supportive' tobacco control groups we could mention, it doesn't appear that many employers or businesses are taking much notice of the TCP. In fact, it doesn't even appear that NHS Trusts have bothered to read it either, here's a telling picture of two ghastly goons from Chesterfield unveiling their retarded policy to the media earlier this month.

The very next day, Darent Valley Hospital in Kent went one better. They didn't just completely ignore the TCP, they also celebrated the Stoptober campaign ... by banning the products Stoptober said smokers could use instead of tobacco!

Of course, as we have come to expect, these creeping bans on vaping were met with complete silence by those in the tobacco control industry who claim to be onside. 'Twas ever thus.

In the meantime, Transport for London - which, again, is a state-funded arm of government - insists on these signs on all its taxi and private hire vehicles in the capital.

It is the legally-mandated no smoking sign, just with the addition of vaping as if to imply that using e-cigs is against the law - which it is not, of course - but they tweet regularly about how you can be fined by a court anyway. As I understand it, if a vehicle does not carry this sign, it will fail inspection and not be licensed.

Don't you have to wonder about how sincere the TCP and the tobacco control industry is about supporting vaping when these signs are going up without so much as a stern word from anyone in 'public health'?

Recently we have also seen private companies pretending that e-cig use is against the law when it isn't. I wrote last month about London Midland trying to brazen it out when challenged that - despite what their policy says - vaping in public is not a criminal offence. Yet here we have Aldi claiming the same thing.

Greggs, too, either think vaping is against the law, or just like pretending that it is.

Now, in light of this apparent support of vaping recently from 'public health', how can it be that so many organisations - both private and public sector - can be allowed to bastardise the law to insinuate that using e-cigs is a criminal matter rather than just a boneheaded policy decision by lazy and/or stupid people?

Surely making claims, either directly or indirectly, of law-breaking when it is nothing of the sort should be subject to some kind of sanction in a country that supposedly values freedom? Well, apparently not, because you see the government itself has said that this kind of fraud is perfectly OK.

Their update to the The Smoke-free (Signs) Regulations in 2012 states:
"While it remains a legal duty to display at least one legible no-smoking sign in smoke-free premises and vehicles, the owners and managers will have discretion as to the design and location of no- smoking signs."
In other words, you can change the legal no smoking sign however you choose, and many have chosen to include e-cigs in theirs.

How about that for joined-up government, eh? The TCP makes a pledge to support vaping, PHE provides advice saying that policies should distinguish between smoking and vaping, but all the while a government statutory instrument allows a wild west affair whereby just about anything can be described as illegal alongside smoking ... and the same state-funded organisations claiming to be in support of tobacco harm reduction just whistle and look the other way.

A cynic might conclude that seeing as tobacco control gets its grants from advocating tax hikes, bans and pseudo-prohibition, it is quite happy for vaping to be demonised in this way, considering how e-cigs have clearly been far more successful in creating former smokers - without any cost to the taxpayer whatsoever - than anything they have done at huge cost to the public purse.

Every week we see research studies from tobacco control about safety of e-cigs, liquids, views of children on vaping, even social media scrutiny of vapers themselves. I have yet to see a single study, though, which touches on the derogatory effect of vaping bans on smokers switching. It's almost like they are happy with the way things are going and really couldn't care less, isn't it?

The status quo is very profitable for tobacco control, don't expect their 'support' to be anything more than a few words here and there designed to con vapers that they actually care, when they really don't. 

Monday, 9 October 2017

Another Irrelevant E-Cigarette Summit

Towards the end of proceedings on Friday 17th November, Sarah Jakes of the New Nicotine Alliance (NNA) will speak to the fifth E-Cigarette Summit at the Royal Society and describe vaping consumers as "true experts in this field", but note quite rightly that "yet often their voices are missing from the debate".  It couldn't be a more timely speech, because for the whole day that precedes it there will be no consumers involved whatsoever.

Consumers are not included on any of the panels, no consumer has been invited to present to the event, and there is not even a consumer rate given on the registration page.

Click to enlarge
The website effectively screams that vapers are not welcome.

Instead, it is the usual who's who of tobacco control and 'public health' to discuss the precautionary principle, regulations, nasty Big Tobacco and how to make all smokers switch to e-cigs (and maybe even then off those too). As a result, it will skirt round many of the topics that actually matter to vapers. The whole event will only discuss vaping in the context of health and will therefore be fundamentally flawed and irrelevant. You can read the day's schedule here but I don't think you need to look further than the post-lunch presentation to get a comedic flavour of how it is going to go. You see, Deborah Arnott of ASH is going to give her expert opinion on "regulation of ‘heat not burn’ versus e-cigarettes", which shouldn't be difficult to guess considering she has already declared that heat not burn devices should be treated the same as cigarettes.

What's more, those selected for the stage will be speaking to a room full of government, local government, and other state-funded activists, all spending a very pricey day out in London on expenses courtesy of the taxpayer.

Contrast this with Andrew Allison of the Freedom Association's Freedom to Vape campaign. If the E-Cigarette Summit wasn't such a one-sided and blinkered event - dedicated to handing 'public health' a microphone and not asking for it back - he might have been considered as a panellist. Imagine the subjects he could talk about. Why local authorities are ignoring PHE advice on vaping policies as discovered by Freedom of Information requests last year, perhaps, or how regulations imposed by the TPD are causing potentially dangerous unintended consequences. But not only is he not given a free place by way of being involved, he has also not even been afforded a press pass without having to pay for it, despite possessing a national press card issued by the Chartered Institute of Journalists, of which he is a member.

This pass may be good enough for being admitted to political party conferences and press briefings, but it's not good enough for the E-Cigarette Summit, apparently. Now, considering I don't reckon national and international media organisations are beating a pathway to the Summit's doors in droves, it's fair to say press passes on the day will probably be as thin on the ground as the contents of a rocking horse's dinner the night before.

If you've ever been to a Freedom Association event, you'll know they have to work hard at raising money and hasn't got any to burn. I've been to events where they literally rattle buckets to pull in spare change. Andrew hasn't got the unending tax tap that state-funded NGOs have, but then it would seem that the Summit doesn't really want his sort around anyway. Unlike the far superior GFN conference in Warsaw, the E-Cigarette Summit treats consumers as an inconvenient afterthought, carefully selects industry voices so as not to upset the 'public health' grandees it panders to, and therefore contributes just about nothing useful to the whole debate.

Vapers have regularly voiced the motto "nothing about us, without us" to remind 'public health' that they should be talking to and listening to the public they are supposed to serve, not haughtily talking about policy in their echo chamber and pronouncing from on high. Vapers are absolutely right about this, yet November's summit goes against all of what the vaping movement has always been about.

Basically, the whole day will be a load of people who mostly don't vape or smoke talking about what to do to people who do. In other words, yet another public health conference, and all the more pointless for it. Still, it'll suit tobacco controllers not to have to field any awkward questions, and further prove that this sphere of policy is now controlled, dictated and owned by 'public health'.

I wish Sarah well trying to convince the room that consumers should be first on the invite list for these events, because she is absolutely right, but I don't reckon many delegates - if any - will take much notice. She will be trying to make herself heard through a thick wall built with stubborn and lucrative vested interests.


The UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies (UKCTAS) has blogged on this today too, it is pretty clear what they believe the event is about and which sections of society they think should attend. Here's a clue, consumers aren't one of them.

Thursday, 5 October 2017

Who's Standing Up To Stop Vaping Being Used As A Tool Of Coercion?

For years, many smokers have expressed concern about e-cigs to me. They are obviously quite happy for others to exercise their choice to vape, but they are worried that e-cigs - if accepted by the authorities - will be used as a tool to bully them into quitting smoking. I have always said that these fears are far-fetched, and I certainly would never agree with the idea of any organisation being so crass.

In the UK, acceptance of vaping is arguably more advanced than anywhere else in the world, but it is still true that it is only spoken about by 'public health' in terms of smoking cessation. Yes, there are a very few who understand that long term vaping is fine, but they are just admirable outliers. Remember that this is the official government line on vaping, as expressed in July's Tobacco Control Plan.
The best thing a smoker can do for their health is to quit smoking. However, the evidence is increasingly clear that e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful to health than smoking tobacco.  
DH will monitor the impact of regulation and policy on e-cigarettes and novel tobacco products in England, including evidence on safety, uptake, health impact and effectiveness of these products as smoking cessation aids to inform our actions on regulating their use.
The word "recreational" does not appear once in the whole 32 page report. E-cigs are seen solely as something that will help smokers quit. The whole category is viewed through the lens of health, entirely ignoring the fact that it is continued enjoyment of nicotine that is the foundation beneath the huge success of vaping.

It is still good that our country is leading the way - albeit with ridiculous caution - on this kind of subject, because we are seeing other jurisdictions looking awkwardly our way and realising they are being a bit, well, prehistoric.

So recently we saw the FDA in America marginally relax their hardline stance on risk reduced products and - very surprisingly - now Australia is starting to move on the matter too. It's all the talk over there right now.

It's like some in Australia's health community have finally buckled. They tried to brazen it out as the last (allegedly) enlightened nation to resist common sense, but the comparison of their e-cigs policy to knuckle-headed candlemakers resisting the advance of electricity must have finally told.

The transformation has been incredible though! Dr Marita Hefler - a woman not previously noted for any particular positive stance on e-cigs - has changed the conversation from one extreme (prohibition of vaping) to another (prohibition of tobacco).
A leading Australian health researcher has called for a total ban on cigarettes as a new study finds millions of deaths could be prevented if smokers switched to electronic cigarettes.  
Menzies School of Health researcher Dr Marita Hefler says the rapid evolution of alternative nicotine products, such as e-cigarettes, meant outlawing combustible tobacco, including cigarettes, was now possible.
Just a few weeks ago 'public health' Australians were queueing up to tell a government inquiry that e-cigs were rubbish. Now they are apparently so effective that vaping justifies the government banning smoking altogether. Exactly what smokers have been telling me they have been afraid of.

How has this kind of fascistic nonsense - which I'm sure other tobacco controllers worldwide, however supportive of vaping they are, secretly dream of - happened? Well, it seems pretty clear that vaping is being considered by 'public health' solely as a cessation tool. I've long argued that e-cigs can be viewed as both a way to quit smoking, if one chooses, but also as a recreational device one would choose to indulge in. Both arguments are persuasive so I've always been supportive of both.

But with the first open admission that tobacco control want to use e-cigs to force smokers away from tobacco, it's clear that the other side have no intention of honouring the freedom of choice approach, they exclusively regard e-cigs as a method of coercion, nothing more, nothing less. They feel they have captured the idea and are now promoting it - see Stoptober - as just another tool in their armoury on the way to the 'endgame' and full prohibition of tobacco.

At the end of December, Carl Phillips described 2016 as "The year tobacco control officially came to own e-cigarettes", and this new development only serves to prove that he is correct. The whole debate has become a clusterfuck.

'Public health' talk about cessation, vaping industry associations talk about cessation to 'public health', tobacco companies talk about cessation to 'public health', vaping advocates talk about cessation to 'public health'. Where are the advocates for choice for vapers and also for smokers?

As Paul Barnes said today, quite rightly:
I’m sure I don’t need to remind you, but vaping isn’t a stick to go around beating smokers with.
No, it's not, but no-one seems to be that bothered about stopping it being used as such. 

Wednesday, 4 October 2017

Common Sense Spotted In Canada

A mayoral candidate in Edmonton, Canada, doesn't seem to be adhering to the dumb politician script. In fact, he's talking sense.
Edmonton mayoral candidate Don Koziak says the city should revisit the "failed experiment" to ban smoking inside public spaces. 
"I think it's probably a suicidal type of position because everybody wants to be seen as righteous, but I think reasonable voters can see the benefit to a reasonable bylaw that allows for all of the citizens of Edmonton to enjoy what they want to enjoy," Koziak said in an interview Thursday.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone could do exactly that, enjoy what they want to enjoy? But, as he says, it is a natural instinct of humans to want to be seen as righteous and the gullible amongst us tend to believe that smoking bans are actually about health, sadly.
"I think that the smoking ban was an experiment, and we've tried it, and there's still people smoking," he added. "And I find it frustrating when I see people outside in the dead of winter, trying to keep warm, because we've decided that we can't accommodate them."
Well, "we" didn't decide we couldn't accommodate them, a ghastly clique of political wooden-tops and state-funded grant-gobblers did that, the public were excluded entirely as were any industry voices with the clout to counteract the lies. That's, therefore, a big fat "they" who decided that comprehensive bans were the only way.
In the interview, Koziak said he doesn't smoke cigarettes but enjoys the occasional cigar. He has a degree in civil engineering, which helps him view the issue from a technical viewpoint, he said. 
"It's really a ventilation problem. It's an engineering problem, not a social ills thing," he said. "The total ban on indoor smoking is not supported by sound engineering logic. I mean, we can ventilate a room."
Not if you're a tobacco control careerist, you can't. According to them (or, more accurately, a raving lunatic called James Repace) only catastrophic weather conditions can possibly clear a bar of secondhand smoke, it's a classic of anti-smoking junk science. They only disagree about whether it would take a tornado to do it or a hurricane. I'm not making this up, by the way.
The city should consult with mechanical engineers, Koziak said, to determine the level of ventilation required to mitigate the smoke in some indoor areas. 
Business owners who are prepared to spend the money could be certified to allow smoking in designated areas, he said. That would allow some restaurants, bars and patios to accommodate smoking clients.
Well yes, considering vicious and dictatorial anti-smoking lunatics are a minority of the public, this looks to be a sensible solution acceptable to all, eh? It's not mandatory, after all.
He said he finds it "horrible" that smokers aren't accommodated at the new Rogers Place arena downtown, and also suggested that smoking could be permitted in the top 10 rows of seats in the stands at Commonwealth Stadium.
Here is the Commonwealth Stadium, I'd say that only suggesting the top 10 tiers is being extremely cautious. There has never been any science, even of the junk kind, to say that secondhand smoke is remotely harmful outdoors, and the stadium has a shit load of outdoors.

In fact the stadium has no discernible indoors whatsoever.
[He said] "There is a football game on Saturday. There's going to be … a couple thousand people standing outside smoking, and I think more than one of them is going to think, 'Geez, that would be a great idea, why can't we be up there watching the game instead of standing out here?' "
They can't be up there watching the game because a bunch of vile state-funded zealots have said they can't, and a load of woolly-minded politicians are too cowardly to stand up to them, so illiberal and science-free bullying has - up till now - won the day.
Koziak is the general manager of the Chateau Louis, a hotel and conference centre at 11727 Kingsway. 
"I have a lot of smokers that I employ," he said. "We have to accommodate them by sticking them outside the back door of the hotel, and I don't have a choice in the matter because the city has tied my hands. 
"If it were up to me, we would have a smoking room … that the employees could use, and we would put in better ventilation so that it wouldn't offend other people."
Oh, but it would offend other people, Koziak, and that is entirely the problem. It would offend people who would never have to go anywhere near the smoking room, and they will be offended because smokers are being given somewhere comfortable and humane to smoke instead of being bullied.
Koziak's idea didn't meet with approval from the manager of a popular Old Strathcona nightspot. 
"If that is coming to an option to come back, I would be against it," said Jezzy Letros, general manager of The Pint, at 8032 104th St. "It's not fair to people who don't smoke to be in that kind of environment."
Well here's the amazing thing, Jezzy, people who don't smoke would not be forced to be "in that kind of environment" because they could be in your smokefree one instead. Well, I presume you'd stay smokefree anyway considering you think it such a bad idea and that customers would desert places that permitted smoking in their droves. Surely it's a till-ringer if other businesses want to choose to allow smoking and tobacco controllers are telling the tuth about smokefree venues being massively popular. What's not to like?

Or, hmm, do you quietly suspect that maybe it could be a popular thing that might threaten your business? It's a puzzler isn't it?

The article ends with a telling description of Edmonton's slippery slope when it comes to smoking bans.
In July 2003, Edmonton banned smoking in public places that permit minors, including restaurants, billiard halls and bowling alleys. Bowling alleys and casinos were allowed to have designated smoking rooms. Smoking was also banned on outdoor patios. 
Two years later, the ban was extended to include total restrictions at all establishments, including bars, bingo halls and casinos. No designated smoking rooms were permitted.
Don't forget to mention big fuck off open air 56,000 stadiums for no reason whatsover except someone might be afflicted with a hand-flapping condition. And the cherry on top?
In October 2015, Edmonton banned the use of electronic cigarettes in all public spaces where smoking is prohibited.
It has never had anything whatsoever to do with health. Merely ignorance, rent-seeking, cant, lies and snobbery.

Good luck Mr Koziak, I think you'll need it. You should be a shoo in for the mayoralty, but common sense has fallen like litter into the hedgerows beside a thundering road of scheming careerists and selfish, intolerant human beings. Those of us who are not gullible intolerant fools salute you though, and wish you well. 

Monday, 2 October 2017

More Vile Lunchbox Snooping In Yorkshire

Some cynical types hinted in the comments under my last article about a Bradford School's ban on sausage rolls - which really ground my gears if you hadn't noticed - may have had more to do with the pork than health.

Sadly, it seems it's not that simple, there appears to be something very rotten in the county of Yorkshire.
A fed-up mother of four, whose children attend Westgate Primary, in Otley, says she is considering launching a petition urging the school to review its strict packed lunch policy 
The mother, who does not wish to be named, said: “The teaching assistants take at least half-an-hour inspecting children’s packed lunches in the morning while wearing rubber gloves.  
“Kids as young as eight are being given the responsibility to ‘advise’ and tell on their friends if they have inappropriate items in their lunch. 
“If an item is removed it is bagged-up with the child’s name and given to parents at the end of the day.
Teaching assistants acting like prison guards; young kids egged on to become snitches; confiscating perfectly legal and benign products? It's quite staggering and shows just what a cancer the rent-seeking 'public health' industry is to have driven our public sector institutions to such insanity over fripperies.

As I said last week, a child's lunchbox is firmly in control of the parent and - as such - is a private space between the child and home and therefore out of bounds to teaching assistants, so I really struggle to understand how any school can believe this is acceptable behaviour.

Incredibly, the school head seems to think it is, though.
Helen Carpenter, headteacher at the school, said: “Encouraging healthy eating amongst our pupils is really important to us here at Westgate Primary School, therefore we have adopted a packed lunch policy, like many other schools, with a view to ensuring our pupils have a healthy, balanced and nutritious lunch."
And there's that word 'encouraging' again. Mandatory lunchbox inspections, the use of informers and forced confiscation is not encouragement' by any definition of the fucking word. It is hardline coercion. You'd think a teacher - even a hellbeast as vile and gullible as this one - would know that.

You'd also expect her to be using school resources better. There is no point her, or any other teacher, squealing about how their budgets are squeezed while they are wasting time and money on such vacuous and sinister nonsense.

Still plenty more to cut in her school's budget, of that there is absolutely no doubt. 

Thursday, 28 September 2017

Psst! Come Here Little Boy, Lemme Look In Your Lunchbox

A Bradford teacher, pictured today
Considering the habit that the 'public health' movement has of dressing their puritannical snobbery up as some kind of concern for kids (which it isn't, kids are just a tool they use to further their rent-seeking agenda), there is nothing more vile than when their policies actively contribute to detracting from the enjoyment of childrens' lives.

Here is one such example, via the BBC.
Bradford school bans sausage rolls from packed lunches
The new policy at Shirley Manor Primary Academy in Bradford states parents will be called if banned foods are found in packed lunches.
By "banned foods", they mean things that are readily available from every supermarket in the country, some of which - like sausage rolls - that have been in the British diet for hundreds of years.
[The policy] states pork pies, sausage rolls and pepperoni sticks should not be included and neither should fruit squash or flavoured water.
I'm wondering if these educators are aware of how brilliantly they have mirrored the antics of Mr Bumble, the "cruel, pompous beadle of the poorhouse" which Dickens used to "characterise the meddlesome self-importance of the petty bureaucrat".

Because that's exactly what these odious teaching professionals are. This part - carefully worded to mask their bullying - is particularly vile.
The policy says pupils are encouraged to show their packed lunches to staff before and after they have eaten.
Encouraged? What if they say no? Are they left alone to go about the rest of their day? I think we all know the answer.

The reason these bansturbating teachers use the weasel word "encouraged" is because they know that a kid's lunchbox is a private place between the parent and their child. It has always been a little piece of home brought into the school. How many Mums have packed their kid's food along with a little note to their loved one to keep the parental link during the day? By wanting to peer inside what should be between parent and child, this Bradford school is forcing its way into private family life.

They know this, or else they would have used the word "ordered" instead, because that is precisely what they mean and it is exactly what it will be in practice.

Yes, teachers are bestowed the role of in loco parentis while kids are at school, but it is only a role given by consent, and only in areas where the parents can have no control themselves due to their being absent. The lunchbox does not fall into that category because, well, parents know what their kids like to eat far better than a teacher, they give their permission for that food to be eaten, and they also paid for the fucking contents. They are very much parents in that space and teachers have no right whatsoever to interfere with that. None. Whatsoever!

You should go read the policy, it's a work of art. It kindly says that "parents and carers will receive a letter detailing healthy choices that are permitted in a packed lunch". If I was a parent at that school, I'd be writing back to say that what is "permitted" in my kids' lunch is what I fucking choose to put in it.

In a decent educational establishment this policy would be pinned to a wall as an example of what not to do if you want to avoid being seen as a seedy, heartless curtain-twitching cunt. What's more, it has taken man hours to produce, which is odd considering today the BBC also tells us that there is a teacher complaining about school funding, saying "the system is under massive duress" due to "not enough money, not enough teachers".

Well, considering this Bradford school is fannying around with obnoxious and sinister shit like peering into kids' lunchboxes to see what they can take away to make the kids cry, it tends to suggest they have ample resources. If not, they'd be using their time more efficiently by focussing on teaching rather than what Mum put in a Disney lunchbox they shouldn't be snooping into anyway.

What with Jamie Oliver being the modern equivalent of the dinner lady serving up gruel, and teachers confiscating sausage rolls, Club bars and Fruit Shoots, I bet it's a real blast being a kid these days. Wouldn't it be nice if, occasionally, these bollock-chinned prodnoses actually thought of the things that children enjoy rather than their own lofty self-importance?