I think this is an excellent policy, and a long time coming. This is done overseas with good effect. While I don’t think it’s a magic bullet, it is definitely a step in the right direction.
I think this is an excellent policy, and a long time coming. This is done overseas with good effect. While I don’t think it’s a magic bullet, it is definitely a step in the right direction.
Yeah, and they have court cases over whether a Jaffa cake is a cake or a biscuit.
They did the same in the UK many years ago. What’s your point?
Does this seem like a worthwhile use of taxpayer money?
Also, I don’t feel that was a particularly difficult point to understand, you end up spending big money on ridiculous edge cases.
So because of one edgecase that we could simply learn from, you want to throw out the whole idea?
This country has a real problem of “if the solution isn’t perfect don’t do anything at all”.
I’m going to be honest with you here, you’re coming across as a bit dense with that comment.
Obviously this is just one example, but there will doubtless be others. Is a coleslaw fruit and veg, or a processed food, for example? What if it includes dressing?
I used the Jaffa cakes thing as an example because it’s so famous, and also quite funny.
I think it is pretty clear and simple, based on what I’ve seen so far. Coleslaw is processed and mixed, thus not exempt regardless of dressing. Frozen vegi mix is exempt as simply freezing does not constitute processing according to the policy.
What about ones that contain corn? That has to be mechanically stripped from the cob. Or what about green beans? They need to be trimmed to size.
Does that not count as processing?
Neither of those cases count as processed as per Labour’s release to my understanding.
How could a reasonable person not consider that processed? In the corn example, it’s completely different from it’s original form.
It’s a cake. Goes hard when stale. Unlike biscuits that go soft
That was the outcome of the case, yes.
Well no. That’s just the situation. That’s what makes a cake and a biscuit different.
Holy non sequitur batman!
Thank you for your valuable contribution to the conversation.
I felt your unrelated argument deserved an equally flippant reply.
Do you not understand how a lawsuit over classification of food for tax purposes is relevant to a discussion on tax on food?
I understand perfectly what you implied, but since you do not argue in good faith I did not feel the need to reply in kind.
You know full well that the policy as announced by Labour has a simple definition. Processed foods that are changed from their natural form in any way other than freezing are not exempt. Your point about an issue in another country that couldn’t happen here is a non sequitur.
Why does that specific example need to be able to happen here in order for it to be relevant though? Do you not understand the concept of an example?
Why does that specific example mean that something equally as ‘bad’ will happen here. Do you not understand the concept of different implementations of policy?
It doesn’t it’s an example of what could happen
Genuinely thick, aren’t you?