From The Metro:
The drinks industry should have to prove its sponsorship of sporting events does not boost consumption, researchers say. The government should stop sponsorship until the industry proves there is no link between advertising on football shirts and competitions, for example, and alcohol misuse.
"It should not be left to the public to demonstrate sponsorship is harmful but, rather, it should be up to the alcohol industry to show that the practice is harmless," said the joint Australian-British paper.
Another one bites the dust
1 hour ago
11 comments:
"It should not be left to the public to demonstrate sponsorship is harmful "
I don't recall the public agitating against alcohol sponsorship so I'm guessing that "the public" is a euphemism for assorted puritans/ fake charities/ bossy academics.
This must be a new definition of the term "researchers" to apply to people who refuse to do the research saying the onus is on their opponents.
Another example of doublespeak in politics.
Why not "it should be up to the researchers to show that the practice is harmful"
Real researchers, that is.
And then if they succeed, we ignore them anyway. Free choice and all that.
The advertising works - I recently lost my septum because I watched an Everton match a while back..
Ross, Nick, exactly. I have never heard a football fan complaining about his team's sponsors.
Is there any evidence to suggest that a club's supporters will prefer to drink the beer brewed by the club's sponsors? Nope. By analogy, is there any evidence to suggest that Arsenal fans prefer to fly Emirates or that Blackburn Rovers fans insist on using Crown Paints rather than Dulux? Nope, I thought not.
NC, such honesty is sadly lacking in all politicians and researchers, left and right wing alike.
BTS, don't you lose your septum by taking cocaine? I don't get it.
They're sponsored by Chang..
This is becoming a standard tactic with the bansturbators. It's the 'Who needs evidence?' attack.
Thereby making it encumbent on their opposition to come up with it instead.
It is borne out by the hysterical panic over 'safety', and the vain pursuit of eliminating every risk known to man.
It's also a tactic the Tories should instinctively wish to stamp out, but I believe the consensus is that they won't.
BTS: Chang? I don't get it, either.
DP, do you have any evidence to support your assertions? ;)
Nope. Because I said it, it is now to be considered as gospel. :-)
Am I the only one here who's able to score in London or something..?
It's slang: "Chang - meaning 'Charlie Chang' which in turn is a long form of Charlie, slang for cocaine."
I think it's a coked up reference to the old Charlie Chan movies. Although I'm guessing here..
As is well known Big Alco did bugger all when they started with the same tactics on smokers, it will be fun to watch them defending their own interests.
Post a Comment