View Full Version : No birthday cake for you my lad.
InsaneApache
06-02-2006, 08:56
No. Not because you've been a naughty boy, because the 'thought police' say so.....
A home-made birthday cake for a 96-year-old man has fallen foul of health and safety police
HE WAS born before the discovery of antibiotics and survived the Depression and two world wars, yet staff at a day centre run by Age Concern decided that it was too much of a risk to let him eat a slice of home-made birthday cake.
The Madeira cake was baked for the 96-year-old man by Elaine Richards, a retired district nursing sister and a member of the Women’s Institute.
But when Mrs Richards, who is in her 70s, tried to deliver the cake to her elderly friend, who does not wish to be identified, her contribution to the birthday fare was rejected because of food and hygiene rules.
No cake today (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2207296,00.html)
I remember just before my grandmther died (aged 96) I took her down a bottle of rum for her nightcap and was told by the warden that she was not allowed to have it. I pretended to take it away only to slip it to her later. Bloody do-gooders. The country's gone potty. :viking:
Papewaio
06-02-2006, 09:17
I agree with you, but this statement could be used as the reason why:
I remember just before my grandmther died (aged 96) I took her down a bottle of rum for her nightcap and was told by the warden that she was not allowed to have it. I pretended to take it away only to slip it to her later. Bloody do-gooders.
"Shortly after giving his grandmother rum she passed away. The prosecution rests." :sweatdrop:
InsaneApache
06-02-2006, 09:43
Hehe Pape....you got me there. :laugh4:
This is revealing though.
WHAT’S IN THE MIX
Elaine Richards’s cake ingredients: 9oz (255g) flour, 6oz unsalted butter, 6oz sugar, milk, three eggs, candied peel, lemon zest
The shop equivalent: wheat flour, egg white, sugar, vegetable margarine (hydrogenated vegetable oil, water, salt, emulsifier (E475) colours (E100, E106B flavourings), glucose-fructose syrup, humectant, vegetable glycerine, vegetable and hydrogenated vegetable oil, emulsifiers: E471, E475, egg, baking powder (raising agents E450, E500) colour (E170), wheat flour, salt, invert sugar syrup, skimmed milk powder; preservatives: E202, E200, flavourings, soya, flour, stabiliser: E415, dried egg white, colours E104, E124
I know which one I'd rather eat. :chef:
Kralizec
06-02-2006, 10:20
That's just because you know what the "E" stands for ~;p
'Thought police'... ?! Where in the article or your statements does 'thought police' come into it?
It seems a simple case of the people meant to look after and be responsible for the man in question, thought that the cake posed a risk to his health too significant to ignore. Whether their decision was correct I don't know, if he wants to kill himself by eating cake, he probably has the right to do so, but I don't know the case well enough to pass judgment. However if, for instance, the old woman was bringing the man a knife to cut his throat with, would you be so against the authorities decision? I don't think you would be, the case isn't too unlike this one, if the cake would be a risk to his health and well being.
Duke Malcolm
06-02-2006, 18:51
There is a slight difference between a cake and a knife...
Kanamori
06-02-2006, 19:09
This is thing I don't like about the medical field in general. When they get you there, they'll not let you do anything you want to with yourself that might endanger. I'm perfectly alright with them informing their patients but controlling them seems to be a bit too much.
A.Saturnus
06-02-2006, 22:01
I know which one I'd rather eat. :chef:
That's because you don't know what vague and misleading terms like "butter", "milk" and "lemon" actually stand for.
InsaneApache
06-02-2006, 22:50
'Thought police'... ?! Where in the article or your statements does 'thought police' come into it?
It seems a simple case of the people meant to look after and be responsible for the man in question, thought that the cake posed a risk to his health too significant to ignore. Whether their decision was correct I don't know, if he wants to kill himself by eating cake, he probably has the right to do so, but I don't know the case well enough to pass judgment. However if, for instance, the old woman was bringing the man a knife to cut his throat with, would you be so against the authorities decision? I don't think you would be, the case isn't too unlike this one, if the cake would be a risk to his health and well being.
The sad thing is, from our historical duels, I know you mean this.
So when, in your opinion, did a 96 year old man have his personal preference removed by 'we know best' ideology?
Who decided he must be treated as an infant, unable to have a say in what he can and cannot eat?
This is one of the reasons I dislike the plague of political correctness and why I despise the hubris of our political classes. Just who the **** are these idiots that decide what we can and cannot do?
Socialism has found a new home. They can't win by arguement, because it has been found to be flawed and wanting. No. Better to run peoples life by stealth and control.
InsaneApache
06-02-2006, 22:51
That's because you don't know what vague and misleading terms like "butter", "milk" and "lemon" actually stand for.
:laugh4:
scooter_the_shooter
06-02-2006, 22:54
So when, in your opinion, did a 96 year old man have his personal preference removed by 'we know best' ideology?
Who decided he must be treated as an infant, unable to have a say in what he can and cannot eat?
.
Wow... you said exactly what I am thinking and put it in words, better then I ever could! :2thumbsup:
Nowhere did I say I thought the decision was right or I believe people should have decisions made for them, I actually think the opposite, I am a liberal not a social conservative.
But your jumping on an 'omg it's political corectness / thought police / next right wing bashing term gone mad!!!!!!!!!!111one' does grow tiring and I was trying to point out some of the reasons for their decision, which is quite plain to see. Though again, I do not agree with them.
InsaneApache
06-03-2006, 00:16
That's OK then, so we're buddys again. ~:pat:
BTW; are you as drunk and stoned as I am? :laugh4:
InsaneApache
06-03-2006, 00:18
X2 post
scooter_the_shooter
06-03-2006, 00:25
The far right and far left seem to be anti freedom to me... I like the libertarian view on things like this which is "leave me the hell alone" as far as I understand it.
Libertarians beat the far right and far left in idealology by a landside. Far right is to restrictive and impose their views on you. Far left is a dog gone nanny state where they won't mind their own business.
A libertarian would let him have his cake:laugh4:
Crazed Rabbit
06-03-2006, 00:30
It seems a simple case of the people meant to look after and be responsible for the man in question, thought that the cake posed a risk to his health too significant to ignore.
Your passive acceptance of such power is disturbing.
However if, for instance, the old woman was bringing the man a knife to cut his throat with, would you be so against the authorities decision?
That comparison is most absurd.
Crazed Rabbit
InsaneApache
06-03-2006, 00:52
The whole premise is absurd.
Tribesman
06-03-2006, 00:52
Who decided he must be treated as an infant, unable to have a say in what he can and cannot eat?
No one , what they do have a say in though is that only their food , that they are responsible for can be seved at their day center , or food from a shop where the shop is responsible .
Blame the lawyers and the litigeous public not the nanny state . Though of course the lady could open her kitchen to food safety inspectors to get certified and purchase the appropriate insurance . But I doubt that a retired nurse would be able to afford the remodeling of her kitchen to the food hygine inspectors standards .
InsaneApache
06-03-2006, 01:08
Who decided he must be treated as an infant, unable to have a say in what he can and cannot eat?
No one , what they do have a say in though is that only their food , that they are responsible for can be seved at their day center , or food from a shop where the shop is responsible .
Blame the lawyers and the litigeous public not the nanny state . Though of course the lady could open her kitchen to food safety inspectors to get certified and purchase the appropriate insurance . But I doubt that a retired nurse would be able to afford the remodeling of her kitchen to the food hygine inspectors standards .
Talk about clutching at straws.
Again, and do try to pay attention you guys, if he wanted the bloody cake waht the (procreation act) has it got got to do with anyone else?
I love the left. They pass draconian laws then blame the judges and lawyers. Sorry to disillusion you guys, but ordinary people just want to be left alone from your insane morality.
Divinus Arma
06-03-2006, 01:22
'Thought police'... ?! Where in the article or your statements does 'thought police' come into it?
It seems a simple case of the people meant to look after and be responsible for the man in question, thought that the cake posed a risk to his health too significant to ignore. Whether their decision was correct I don't know, if he wants to kill himself by eating cake, he probably has the right to do so, but I don't know the case well enough to pass judgment. However if, for instance, the old woman was bringing the man a knife to cut his throat with, would you be so against the authorities decision? I don't think you would be, the case isn't too unlike this one, if the cake would be a risk to his health and well being.
I think I will make it my personal responsibility to look after YOU. Hurry up and finish school, so I can tell you where to work. Give me all of your money and I will keep you alive after all expenses have been paid to "The state" (me). :laugh4:
Tribesman
06-03-2006, 01:23
Talk about clutching at straws.
Not at all .
Again, and do try to pay attention you guys, if he wanted the bloody cake waht the (procreation act) has it got got to do with anyone else?
It would have absolutely nothing to do with anyone else ......if it was being given to him and served to him in a private capacity, but it wasn't was it .
So apache , pay attention .
I love the left. They pass draconian laws then blame the judges and lawyers. Sorry to disillusion you guys, but ordinary people just want to be left alone from your insane morality.
Sorry to disillusion you , but would you like to check the dates of the enactment of the current food safety or care centre regulations , they came in under the Tories .:oops:
Byzantine Prince
06-03-2006, 01:28
[there is already a drunk thread.]
/edited for content
InsaneApache
06-03-2006, 01:35
Aha, there we (you) go again, It's the tories.
I'm well aware of current legislation, even the Food Act 1990 (UK) (of which I have a certificate for)...but there's no room for common sense anymore, it all has to be regulated from 'above', a common thread from the 'we know best' state I have to abode under.
Funny how the 'We know best' attitude got us embroiled in Iraq.
Ohhh. sorry, that's all the rights fault.
Now I really can't stop my vegas nerve from either laughing or throwing up at the hypocrisy.
Tribesman
06-03-2006, 01:54
Aha, there we (you) go again, It's the tories.
Well it was wasn't it , so before you go on about the "lefts draconian laws" could you explain how the tories were leftist ?
And then you might explain how new labour is leftist:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
BHCWarman88
06-03-2006, 05:30
what are Tories??
Reverend Joe
06-03-2006, 06:08
How did socialism get involved in this?! Any good socialist would tell you that this man had the right to eat whatever he damn well pleased, be it cake, insulating foam, electrical wires, whatthe****ever. Socialism is all about freedom. What you speak of is "totalitarianism", and if it just has to be Left, then it would be Communism.
JAG, I'm shocked at you! You call yourself a Socialist?! You speak like a Facist! :furious3:
Duke of Gloucester
06-03-2006, 08:54
This arose because of the litigious nature of modern Britain. One of the problems associated with the rise in this trend is that you don't sue the person with the most blame when things go wrong, you sue the person with the most money. If Mrs Richard's cake had given everyone in the Day Centre food poisoning, no matter how careless she was in preparing it, she would not get sued. Age Concern would. That's why shop cakes are allowed. They aren't safer, or less likely to give people food poisoning but if a shop cake poisons everyone then the shop gets sued. Age Concern's policy is not about keeping people safe; it's about making sure the charity doesn't lose money that it would rather spend on its actual charitable purpose.
InsaneApache
06-03-2006, 10:10
what are Tories??
Cattle rustlers. :laugh4:
The term Tory (from Irish Gaelic tóraighe, an Irish outlaw or guerrilla fighter, during the British civil wars of the 17th century -literally meaning "pursued man") applied to the Tory Party, the ancestor of the modern UK Conservative Party. To this day it is often used as a shortened form for Conservatives. Its usage also applied to the pre-1965 Scottish Unionist Party which operated independently of, although in association with, the Conservative Party in England and Wales.
A similar usage for 'Tory' exists in Canada to describe its Conservative Party. It was also used during the American Revolutionary War to refer to British Loyalists in the colonies. During the American Civil War, supporters of the Confederacy extended the term to Southern Unionists.
from wiki. :embarassed:
How did socialism get involved in this?! Any good socialist would tell you that this man had the right to eat whatever he damn well pleased, be it cake, insulating foam, electrical wires, whatthe****ever. Socialism is all about freedom. What you speak of is "totalitarianism", and if it just has to be Left, then it would be Communism.
JAG, I'm shocked at you! You call yourself a Socialist?! You speak like a Facist! :furious3:
Sigh. Yes, I am clearly a fascist, so clearly in fact that swatstika on my head doesn't do my filthy fascist ways justice.
Zorba, if you are going to make statements like you did in this post, I would prefere for you to read my statements first, likewise with you DA, you both should probably expect more from yourselves.
However, I will be willing to give you both a chance to redeem yourselves and not look like such arse clenching idiots and copy my second post again, here we go.
Nowhere did I say I thought the decision was right or I believe people should have decisions made for them, I actually think the opposite, I am a liberal not a social conservative.
But your jumping on an 'omg it's political corectness / thought police / next right wing bashing term gone mad!!!!!!!!!!111one' does grow tiring and I was trying to point out some of the reasons for their decision, which is quite plain to see. Though again, I do not agree with them.
How many times should I say that I believe the decision was wrong for people to actually see that I have said it, never mind. I guess some people see what they want to see.
A.Saturnus
06-03-2006, 20:51
That's because you don't know what vague and misleading terms like "butter", "milk" and "lemon" actually stand for.
:laugh4:
I was dead serious. If you don't know what E471 is, you could look it up. You'll get a description in all chemical details with all possible health concerns. If you buy milk on a farm you don't know whether it contains DDT, lead, animal hormones, dioxine or something else. People don't know what their food actually contains. Many still think that lemonade is made from lemons and who actually knows that one of the main ingredients of yoghurt is wood shavings? And you what? That lemonade is made from bacteria secretion is probably good. You get an artifical substance that way that is free of whatever unwanted things are in real lemons. You simply can't hold real lemons up to the same quality standards as bacteria secretion.
That many people would still prefer real lemons is just a sign how ignorant they are. Just like my grandmother. We once brought her to confess that she wouldn't eat soup containing NaCl and H2O!
Reverend Joe
06-03-2006, 22:51
Sigh. Yes, I am clearly a fascist, so clearly in fact that swatstika on my head doesn't do my filthy fascist ways justice.
Zorba, if you are going to make statements like you did in this post, I would prefere for you to read my statements first, likewise with you DA, you both should probably expect more from yourselves.
However, I will be willing to give you both a chance to redeem yourselves and not look like such arse clenching idiots and copy my second post again, here we go.
How many times should I say that I believe the decision was wrong for people to actually see that I have said it, never mind. I guess some people see what they want to see.
:wall: Clearly humour goes unappreciated back here.
Fine. I'm going to get drunk and spam the Frontroom, where people aren't so damn serious all the time. Geez.
Allow me to reiterate:
NEVER, EVER TAKE ME SERIOUSLY, OR BELIEVE ANYTHING I SAY.
EVER.
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-04-2006, 02:13
Socialism is all about freedom.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Ah, Zorba. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
scooter_the_shooter
06-05-2006, 01:13
Sigh. Yes, I am clearly a fascist, so clearly in fact that swatstika on my head doesn't do my filthy fascist ways justice.
Finally he admits it! j/k
This arose because of the litigious nature of modern Britain. One of the problems associated with the rise in this trend is that you don't sue the person with the most blame when things go wrong, you sue the person with the most money. If Mrs Richard's cake had given everyone in the Day Centre food poisoning, no matter how careless she was in preparing it, she would not get sued. Age Concern would. That's why shop cakes are allowed. They aren't safer, or less likely to give people food poisoning but if a shop cake poisons everyone then the shop gets sued. Age Concern's policy is not about keeping people safe; it's about making sure the charity doesn't lose money that it would rather spend on its actual charitable purpose.
That is it exactly. Nothing political at all.
Papewaio
06-05-2006, 02:21
I think I will make it my personal responsibility to look after YOU. Hurry up and finish school, so I can tell you where to work. Give me all of your money and I will keep you alive after all expenses have been paid to "The state" (me). :laugh4:
Wouldn't that make you the wife with full thumbprint authourity? :laugh4:
Reverend Joe
06-05-2006, 02:38
:laugh4:
Ah, Zorba. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
Uh... no. Socialism is really all about freedom. It is at the extreme end of the "liberal/totalitarian" spectrum, at the liberal end, the other end being communism. Look it up. I am not lying to you.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.