The nanny state is WRAPping its arms around you
The Telegraph is reporting that a government-funded company called WRAP will be visiting 24,500 homes as part of a scheme which may be extended to cover the whole country:
Home cooks will also be told what size portions to prepare, taught to understand “best before” dates and urged to make more use of their freezers.
The door-to-door campaign, which starts tomorrow, will be funded by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), a Government agency charged with reducing household waste.
The officials will be called “food champions”. However, they were dismissed last night as “food police” by critics who called the scheme an example of “excessive government nannying”.
The pilot scheme, which will cost £30,000 [NZ$77,000 approx.], could be extended nationwide if it is seen as a success. If all 25 million households in the UK were visited in the same way, 8,000 officials would be required at a cost of tens of millions of pounds.
The reason for this scheme is…
The project is part of WRAP’s “Love Food Hate Waste” campaign, which has so far cost £4 million. The organisation says food waste has a significant environmental impact, in terms of the carbon generated to grow, transport and package items and the cost of having to dispose of them. It has calculated that stopping food waste could reduce the annual emission of carbon dioxide by 18 million tonnes – the same effect as taking one in five cars off the roads.*
There are at least three issues here:
1) “food champions” is a misnomer and reeks of Newspeak. They’re not championing the cause of food, they’re championing the nanny state and the lie of global warming. If they’re going to give these people a fancy title they should at least give them one that’s descriptive: how about “Totalitarian Waste Information Technologist”. Then they’d be TWITs :lol: .
2) using money stolen from taxpayers to combat fictional anthropogenic climate change (global warming)
3) whilst basic domestic skills are woefully lacking these days, the state has no business telling people what size portions to eat and how to avoid wastage. It’s their money and if they want to waste it that’s their lookout. Whilst the TWITs have no enforcement role (yet), the state is applying pressure and emotional blackmail to people when it goes knocking on doors in this manner.
The Telegraph also says that
In an initial seven-week trial, eight officials will call at 24,500 homes, dishing out advice and recipes.
I’ve been crunching some numbers. If each TWIT works 50 hours per week (actual works hours, not including breaks or time travelling to the job site) and every house has someone home who speaks his language when he gets there (the odds of that happening are about gazillion to one) then the TWITs will have 6 minutes and 51 seconds available for each house. That’s 6 minutes and 51 seconds to walk to the house, introduce himself, explain his mission, and serve up his advice and recipes. The state is trying to modify the lifestyles of individuals here, and lifestyle changes cannot be effected in the space of 6 minutes and 51 seconds. In other words, it’s window dressing, a token effort.
The state should keep its nose out of peoples’ freezers and mind its own business. Also, it’s ironic that state officials who gorge themselves at the taxpayer-filled trough are telling those taxpayers what size their meal portions should be.
What do you think about this government scheme?
How would you respond if a TWIT knocked on your door?
* how are we supposed to trust the mainstream media when they publish nonsense such as this:
The organisation says food waste has a significant environmental impact, in terms of the carbon generated to grow, transport and package items and the cost of having to dispose of them.
What they’re trying to say is this:
The organisation says that food waste has a significant environmental impact as result of the carbon generated by the growing, transporting and packaging of items. Disposing of food waste is also costly and generates more carbon.
Mind you, it’s easy to write nonsense about nonsense.