Archive for the ‘uk like GDR’ Category

Not Worth Their Salt

Thursday, February 5th, 2009

The lobbying group Consensus Action on Salt and Health have really shot themselves in the foot here with this FAQ entry:

Are there any incidences where I should up my salt intake- e.g. if I have been physically working hard on a hot day, or when abroad in a hot climate?
No, if you eat little or no salt then there is no salt in the sweat.

No s#!t, Sherlock.

The salt concentration in sweat is controlled in the exactly the same way as the urine. The body will adjust and hold onto any salt if a lot is being lost in the sweat.

The converse is also true: if you consume more salt, then you excrete more salt.

Call me paranoid if you like, but I’m finding it difficult imagining that these people do not have an ulterior motive. We’ve been eating salt for years, and some people eat quite a bit more salt than us Brits; so how come it’s only started affecting us now?

Disclaimer: Speaking as someone who once came close to dying of acute hyponatraemia, and as someone who no longer enjoys a certain high street bakery chain’s pasties because they do not contain enough salt to bring out any flavour, I do have a bit of a vested interest in this.

A Great Day for Freedom!

Thursday, December 4th, 2008

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that South Yorkshire Police acted illegally in retaining the DNA of two people who were arrested but not charged.

Article Eight of the European Convention on Human Rights , which is written into UK law as the Human Rights Act 1998, clearly states:

Article 8 Right to respect for private and family life

  1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
  2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Seventeen senior judges decided unanimously that the retention of this information “could not be regarded as ‘necessary in a democratic society’”.

Smith is not taking this lying down, though. She said “The existing law will remain in place while we carefully consider the judgement.” Whisky Tango Foxtrot? Does this mean any defendant, duly pronounced guilty, may now remain at liberty and continue committing further instances of the offence with which they were charged while they “carefully consider the judgement” ?

Read more here [BBC] and here [The Register].

Now you can’t even take a walk in the park!

Wednesday, September 10th, 2008

Adults walking in a park in Shropshire unaccompanied by children risk being stopped by council officials — just in case they might be paedophiles.

Now, never mind that if you ask a paedophile if he (or she — not all paedophiles are men) is a paedophile, they’re hardly going to answer in the affirmative, but whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty” ? This is surely a breach of Articles 5, 6, 8, 10 and/or 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, however you look at it.

Measures such as this will not protect a single child. However, they will fan the flames of panic and acclimatise the population to ever more intrusive surveillance.

Quote Of The Year

Monday, March 17th, 2008

I haven’t broken any law.
I know who I am, and I don’t have to prove that to anyone!

– Benedict Cumberbatch as Stephen Ezard in The Last Enemy
(more…)