Are you kidding me? Do people really seriously need to be told eat less and exercise more??
Have you looked out of your window lately? There's a lot of very fat people about. This is going to cost the NHS billions in the long term. The government think it's worth throwing some money at the problem.
I'm overweight but I don't blame the government, the advertising industry or my parents. It's entirely my own fault because I prefer beer, pizza and sitting down to water, salad and running.
I'm overweight but I don't blame the government, the advertising industry or my parents. It's entirely my own fault because I prefer beer, pizza and sitting down to water, salad and running.
This then goes back to the OPs point, you don't need to be told - so why?
Eating habits start at birth and are the responsibility of parents.
Correct, If lots of people are too stupid,lazy and weak willed to realise that big business wants to sell you ever increasing amounts of expensive sugary and fatty stuff in order to increase their profits then that's your fault.
Capitalism works, but it doesn't mind making you fat and lazy IF you let it - ultimately you have a choice.
Correct, If lots of people are too stupid,lazy and weak willed to realise that big business wants to sell you ever increasing amounts of expensive sugary and fatty stuff in order to increase their profits then that's your fault. Capitalism works, but it doesn't mind making you fat and lazy IF you let it - ultimately you have a choice.
But it does treat you as factory/office fodder.
The Establishment will want to ensure the people aren't too unfit to work for them - but won't want to eat into the profits of that Establishment too much by introducing a lot of health-inducing legislation.
May's started well - it's going to be a bumpy ride, folks.>:(
The Establishment will want to ensure the people aren't too unfit to work for them - but won't want to eat into the profits of that Establishment too much by introducing a lot of health-inducing legislation.
May's started well - it's going to be a bumpy ride, folks.>:(
Nobody is forced to buy sugary stuff, everyone has a choice.
They don't sell it to only poor people, they'll sell it anyone who's lazy and weak willed.
Nobody is forced to buy sugary stuff, everyone has a choice. They don't sell it to only poor people, they'll sell it anyone who's lazy and weak willed.
You and I consume sugary stuff.
Are you lazy and weak willed?
The point I was making was that governments like May's mustn't upset vested interests too much - hence her watering down of the obesity measures,
Eating habits start at birth and are the responsibility of parents.
So the government should do nothing, let people become obese, unable to work, claim benefits and cost the NHS billions.
About what I'd expect from a shortsighted Tory mouthpiece.
Guess you are against the spending of money on the Olympics.
Here's another interpretation, sweets are removed from checkouts, so people don't buy them on a whim. Result is lower sugar intake, less obesity etc etc.
Part of a governments job is to improve things. With your attitude we would still have slavery and serfdom, women would be chattels, most people would be illiterate and die in their 30s
Correct, If lots of people are too stupid,lazy and weak willed to realise that big business wants to sell you ever increasing amounts of expensive sugary and fatty stuff in order to increase their profits then that's your fault.
Capitalism works, but it doesn't mind making you fat and lazy IF you let it - ultimately you have a choice.
This then means your philosophy is - 'their stupid, lazy and weak - f... 'Em' - is that correct?
This then means your philosophy is - 'their stupid, lazy and weak - f... 'Em' - is that correct?
They wouldn't be the only person with such a philosophy. It seems that different strengths of that opinion are becoming more and more common as time passes.
So the government should do nothing, let people become obese, unable to work, claim benefits and cost the NHS billions.
About what I'd expect from a shortsighted Tory mouthpiece.
Guess you are against the spending of money on the Olympics.
Here's another interpretation, sweets are removed from checkouts, so people don't buy them on a whim. Result is lower sugar intake, less obesity etc etc.
Part of a governments job is to improve things. With your attitude we would still have slavery and serfdom, women would be chattels, most people would be illiterate and die in their 30s
Wow! In the words of S Club 7 - "Reach for the Sky"
I'm glad the governemnts not going all controlling nanny state and maybe it needs to do less. It's personal responsibility for diet and fitness that people have to take for themselves not rely on the state to do it. Okay less sugar levels in foods is good but at the end of the day people need to start being responsible for what they eat and how much exercise they take.so far I'm impressed by the prime ministers common sense policies on things like this.
So the government should do nothing, let people become obese, unable to work, claim benefits and cost the NHS billions.
They have a role in providing information but if I want to eat a pork pie rather than a banana then that's down to me
I'm sceptical about a fat and/or sugar tax as I'm not convinced it would make much difference unless it was set at ridiculously high levels. It might raise some extra money which would be mostly taken out of the pockets of those who can least afford it.
The measures announced are to do with child obesity which it seems the level of has reduced since it peaked in the early 2000s. If the government really believes there is a problem with the sugar content of drinks and foods then the targets should be mandatory rather than voluntary. Exercise at school is a relatively easy thing to increase.
Ultimately however it is the role of parents and it seems not enough is being done to in effect shame them and those complaining about the measures could start with that.
I'm glad the governemnts not going all controlling nanny state and maybe it needs to do less. It's personal responsibility for diet and fitness that people have to take for themselves not rely on the state to do it. Okay less sugar levels in foods is good but at the end of the day people need to start being responsible for what they eat and how much exercise they take.so far I'm impressed by the prime ministers common sense policies on things like this.
Myopic you mean, in giving in to vested interests.
Her overblown speech outside no. 10 on her taking up office is unravelling already.
Still, at least she didn't quote St. Francis...............
I'm glad the governemnts not going all controlling nanny state and maybe it needs to do less. It's personal responsibility for diet and fitness that people have to take for themselves not rely on the state to do it. Okay less sugar levels in foods is good but at the end of the day people need to start being responsible for what they eat and how much exercise they take.so far I'm impressed by the prime ministers common sense policies on things like this.
Yes, my first reaction to this news is why is the the governments problem?
After all, its not like smoking, because smoking not only kills the smokers, but also impacts people around them as well.
But then, of course, this is costing us all heaps because of the added burden on the NHS to treat these "lazy, stupid and weak" people (not my words!)
So spending money to help people improve their overall health levels (if it works) is not only good for the obese, but a good investment, if it can reduce the overall NHS bill for the rest of us (the active, intelligent and strong ones).
The point I was making was that governments like May's mustn't upset vested interests too much - hence her watering down of the obesity measures,
Yep, I consume sugary stuff and I drink. However I know I have to exercise to offset it.
I do that because it enables me to eat and drink more or less what I want without burdening the state. That's not weak willed, that's the basic understanding that everything has an outcome/cost/price/effect.
They should do somethng about teh price of healthy food - I have to shop online as I;'m housebound and can't prefer food cause of problems with my hands so need to buy pre-packaged stuff on a budget, and things I've noticed recently are things like a pre-packaged fruti containing a few slices of apples and a few grapes are £1, pre-packaged salad (ie a few salad leaves) are £1-£1-50, salad bowl with lettuce, tomatoes, cucumber £2, small pack of sliiced chicken £2, yet at the same time 2 jam fresh cream donoughts could be got for 57p, 4 mars bars for £1 and a six pack of crisps 85p which are probably more filling, so more tempting especially if you're on a budget, even if nowhere near as healthy.
And don't get me started on the prices of health equipment and the fact that unless you can pay thousands it's weight limited so the ones who really need it, can't afford it. Obesity might be a drain on the NHS and bad for peoples health but its kerching for some companies.
So the government should do nothing, let people become obese, unable to work, claim benefits and cost the NHS billions.
About what I'd expect from a shortsighted Tory mouthpiece.
Guess you are against the spending of money on the Olympics.
Here's another interpretation, sweets are removed from checkouts, so people don't buy them on a whim. Result is lower sugar intake, less obesity etc etc.
Part of a governments job is to improve things. With your attitude we would still have slavery and serfdom, women would be chattels, most people would be illiterate and die in their 30s
It is up to every one of us to chose what to eat, if we are parents we have a responsibilty to our children. It all rests with us and has nothing to do with whatever government is in power.
I hear obese people saying that they can only afford processed food and they are fools. It is possible to eat well for far less than the cost of ready meals. All you have to do is shop for ingredients and cook them.
It's time that taking personal responsibility made a comeback.
Comments
Have you looked out of your window lately? There's a lot of very fat people about. This is going to cost the NHS billions in the long term. The government think it's worth throwing some money at the problem.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
They spend a lot of money researching consumer psychological responses and position these items at points where they can maximise revenue.
Unfortunately that impacts on the nations health and the tax payer picks up the tab further down the line.
Which makes any decision to shelve this hard worked on and admirable strategy quite appalling.
This then goes back to the OPs point, you don't need to be told - so why?
A sure sign of modern times. Where no one takes responsibility for their own actions(or in-actions) and it's always someone elses fault.
Because of habits which are notoriously difficult to break.
Removing temptation is one way to modify those habits.
Eating habits start at birth and are the responsibility of parents.
Correct, If lots of people are too stupid,lazy and weak willed to realise that big business wants to sell you ever increasing amounts of expensive sugary and fatty stuff in order to increase their profits then that's your fault.
Capitalism works, but it doesn't mind making you fat and lazy IF you let it - ultimately you have a choice.
But it does treat you as factory/office fodder.
The Establishment will want to ensure the people aren't too unfit to work for them - but won't want to eat into the profits of that Establishment too much by introducing a lot of health-inducing legislation.
May's started well - it's going to be a bumpy ride, folks.>:(
Nobody is forced to buy sugary stuff, everyone has a choice.
They don't sell it to only poor people, they'll sell it anyone who's lazy and weak willed.
You and I consume sugary stuff.
Are you lazy and weak willed?
The point I was making was that governments like May's mustn't upset vested interests too much - hence her watering down of the obesity measures,
So the government should do nothing, let people become obese, unable to work, claim benefits and cost the NHS billions.
About what I'd expect from a shortsighted Tory mouthpiece.
Guess you are against the spending of money on the Olympics.
Here's another interpretation, sweets are removed from checkouts, so people don't buy them on a whim. Result is lower sugar intake, less obesity etc etc.
Part of a governments job is to improve things. With your attitude we would still have slavery and serfdom, women would be chattels, most people would be illiterate and die in their 30s
This then means your philosophy is - 'their stupid, lazy and weak - f... 'Em' - is that correct?
They wouldn't be the only person with such a philosophy. It seems that different strengths of that opinion are becoming more and more common as time passes.
Wow! In the words of S Club 7 - "Reach for the Sky"
They have a role in providing information but if I want to eat a pork pie rather than a banana then that's down to me
I'm sceptical about a fat and/or sugar tax as I'm not convinced it would make much difference unless it was set at ridiculously high levels. It might raise some extra money which would be mostly taken out of the pockets of those who can least afford it.
Ultimately however it is the role of parents and it seems not enough is being done to in effect shame them and those complaining about the measures could start with that.
Myopic you mean, in giving in to vested interests.
Her overblown speech outside no. 10 on her taking up office is unravelling already.
Still, at least she didn't quote St. Francis...............
Yes, my first reaction to this news is why is the the governments problem?
After all, its not like smoking, because smoking not only kills the smokers, but also impacts people around them as well.
But then, of course, this is costing us all heaps because of the added burden on the NHS to treat these "lazy, stupid and weak" people (not my words!)
So spending money to help people improve their overall health levels (if it works) is not only good for the obese, but a good investment, if it can reduce the overall NHS bill for the rest of us (the active, intelligent and strong ones).
Yep, I consume sugary stuff and I drink. However I know I have to exercise to offset it.
I do that because it enables me to eat and drink more or less what I want without burdening the state. That's not weak willed, that's the basic understanding that everything has an outcome/cost/price/effect.
And don't get me started on the prices of health equipment and the fact that unless you can pay thousands it's weight limited so the ones who really need it, can't afford it. Obesity might be a drain on the NHS and bad for peoples health but its kerching for some companies.
It is up to every one of us to chose what to eat, if we are parents we have a responsibilty to our children. It all rests with us and has nothing to do with whatever government is in power.
I hear obese people saying that they can only afford processed food and they are fools. It is possible to eat well for far less than the cost of ready meals. All you have to do is shop for ingredients and cook them.
It's time that taking personal responsibility made a comeback.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3746785/Viewers-fury-22st-mother-says-isn-t-blame-11-year-old-daughter-s-obesity.html