Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nickbat]

I was on the internet today and found this:

http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/03/submitted-as-complaint-to-bbc.html

(Warning: fruity language!)

The nanny BBC at it again, pouring out non-existent alcohol limits.

I am so tired of them, these days. No longer a public broadcaster, but a propaganda station.

Try watching Newsround on CBBC. I always tell my daughter to switch over when it comes on, in case I get violent with the telly.  

[albitz]

I think they just read the Gaurdian from theur autocue.saves them employing writers.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Whatever the truth is, I would always worry about so called statements made based on research work of over 20 years ago:

"What I have never seen mentioned on BBC News is the fact that these limits have no basis in science whatsoever. This was admitted by Richard Smith, a member of the Royal College of Physicians working party that produced the 1987 report on which these limits are based".

Great advances have been made in scientific research since 1987,  and I would be more interested in facts  revealed by far more recent studies.

No matter what some may think about so called "safe limits" for alcohol consumption,  it is a fact that greater numbers of people are suffering from the excessive intake of alcohol, and that cannot be a good thing for the people concerned, the country, or the tax payers who have to fund the treatment required to be dispensed by the NHS, or the benefits paid out to support their "not capable" for work lifestyle.

We all enjoy a good drink, but we must all recognise that excessive consumption is not good and advisory limits are a good thing. 8-) 8-)  

[Nickbat]

Whatever the truth is, I would always worry about so called statements made based on research work of over 20 years ago:

"What I have never seen mentioned on BBC News is the fact that these limits have no basis in science whatsoever. This was admitted by Richard Smith, a member of the Royal College of Physicians working party that produced the 1987 report on which these limits are based".

Great advances have been made in scientific research since 1987,  and I would be more interested in facts  revealed by far more recent studies.

No matter what some may think about so called "safe limits" for alcohol consumption,  it is a fact that greater numbers of people are suffering from the excessive intake of alcohol, and that cannot be a good thing for the people concerned, the country, or the tax payers who have to fund the treatment required to be dispensed by the NHS, or the benefits paid out to support their "not capable" for work lifestyle.

We all enjoy a good drink, but we must all recognise that excessive consumption is not good and advisory limits are a good thing. 8-) 8-)  

That's the whole point, Lizzie. What IS the truth? That is the pertinent point that is made in the link. No one is denying that 10 pints of Stella in the body of an 18-year old is bad, but this government (and its BBC stooges) is reeling out junk-science dressed as gospel.

..and perhaps the government need to look into the reason why its subjects feel it necessary to seek the relief of alcohol (perhaps starting at their own front door).  :-/

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Whatever the truth is, I would always worry about so called statements made based on research work of over 20 years ago:

"What I have never seen mentioned on BBC News is the fact that these limits have no basis in science whatsoever. This was admitted by Richard Smith, a member of the Royal College of Physicians working party that produced the 1987 report on which these limits are based".

Great advances have been made in scientific research since 1987,  and I would be more interested in facts  revealed by far more recent studies.

No matter what some may think about so called "safe limits" for alcohol consumption,  it is a fact that greater numbers of people are suffering from the excessive intake of alcohol, and that cannot be a good thing for the people concerned, the country, or the tax payers who have to fund the treatment required to be dispensed by the NHS, or the benefits paid out to support their "not capable" for work lifestyle.

We all enjoy a good drink, but we must all recognise that excessive consumption is not good and advisory limits are a good thing. 8-) 8-)  

That's the whole point, Lizzie. What IS the truth? That is the pertinent point that is made in the link. No one is denying that 10 pints of Stella in the body of an 18-year old is bad, but this government (and its BBC stooges) is reeling out junk-science dressed as gospel.

..and perhaps the government need to look into the reason why its subjects feel it necessary to seek the relief of alcohol (perhaps starting at their own front door).  :-/

Yes, the point I am making is that the truth  as currently known by the health authorities IS as being broadcast by the BBC (remember, a public service broadcaster)  using evidence provided by the scientific community, as in the following:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/healthy_living/nutrition/healthy_alcohol.shtml

and not some scientist commenting on a study of 20 years ago, being quoted by some site run by a member of the public who has no real knowledge of the subject.

 In other words the truth you and that web site complain is missing IS actually there!

The challenging of this medical advice in the face of scientific research reminds me of the 1960s when people were still denying any connection with smoking to cancer, despite all the then growing evidence proving it was.

[HolyCount]

At the end of the day, the guidelines change every time there is a different report published. No only booze, but which way to lay baby down, whether to eat fish, eggs or meat, drugs to use ( of the prescribed variety) for various ailments .... use them safely for years and suddenly they are poisonous!  etc etc

As outline, humourously, in another thread ----- kids of the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's didn't have any of this nannying ---- and we survived !!

[Nickbat]

Whatever the truth is, I would always worry about so called statements made based on research work of over 20 years ago:

"What I have never seen mentioned on BBC News is the fact that these limits have no basis in science whatsoever. This was admitted by Richard Smith, a member of the Royal College of Physicians working party that produced the 1987 report on which these limits are based".

Great advances have been made in scientific research since 1987,  and I would be more interested in facts  revealed by far more recent studies.

No matter what some may think about so called "safe limits" for alcohol consumption,  it is a fact that greater numbers of people are suffering from the excessive intake of alcohol, and that cannot be a good thing for the people concerned, the country, or the tax payers who have to fund the treatment required to be dispensed by the NHS, or the benefits paid out to support their "not capable" for work lifestyle.

We all enjoy a good drink, but we must all recognise that excessive consumption is not good and advisory limits are a good thing. 8-) 8-)  

That's the whole point, Lizzie. What IS the truth? That is the pertinent point that is made in the link. No one is denying that 10 pints of Stella in the body of an 18-year old is bad, but this government (and its BBC stooges) is reeling out junk-science dressed as gospel.

..and perhaps the government need to look into the reason why its subjects feel it necessary to seek the relief of alcohol (perhaps starting at their own front door).  :-/

Yes, the point I am making is that the truth  as currently known by the health authorities IS as being broadcast by the BBC (remember, a public service broadcaster)  using evidence provided by the scientific community, as in the following:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/healthy_living/nutrition/healthy_alcohol.shtml

and not some scientist commenting on a study of 20 years ago, being quoted by some site run by a member of the public who has no real knowledge of the subject.

 In other words the truth you and that web site complain is missing IS actually there!

The challenging of this medical advice in the face of scientific research reminds me of the 1960s when people were still denying any connection with smoking to cancer, despite all the then growing evidence proving it was.

1) Lizzie, read the link, please.

"Guidelines on safe alcohol consumption limits that have shaped health policy in Britain for 20 years were “plucked out of the air” as an “intelligent guess”.

The Times reveals today that the recommended weekly drinking limits of 21 units of alcohol for men and 14 for women, first introduced in 1987 and still in use today, had no firm scientific basis whatsoever. "

(October 2007)

It's not "just some scientist". It was a quote from Richard Smith, a member of the Royal College of Physicians working party that actually produced it.

2. It is entirely justifiable for anyone, member of the public or not, to question why such guidelines were being quoted as if scientifically based.

3. The BBC is not a "public service broadcaster". It used to be. It is now a publicly-funded agenda-driven broadcaster. Subtle difference, methinks. Incidentally, why should the BBC have a web page telling us how much we should, or should not, drink? That is not their remit.

Incidentally, Age Concern, whose views the BBC happily seems to support is not a real charity. Created by the government in 1985, it receives less than 1% of its income through charitable donations (£4,991 out of £903,246 in 2007/8).

I am not defending alcoholism. I am merely against this outbreak of government-inspired puritanism that is becoming so pervasive in our society.

Perhaps that's why so many turn to drink...