Nanny Knows Best

Nanny Knows Best
Dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the people of Britain.

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Nanny Bans Celebrities

Nanny Bans CelebritiesNanny has decided to ban celebrities; what a bloody good idea!

Unfortunately her ban only extends to those celebs who endorse, what Nanny describes as, "junk food".

Nanny's chums in the Department of Health have issued an advisory document that says:

"Role models for children should not be used to endorse or personally to promote products (high in fat, salt or sugar) or promotional offers to children."

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the role of parents to decide what children should eat?

The state should have no part to play in dictating, in a consumer society, who can buy what food product.

Nanny's dictat may end campaigns such as the Walkers crisps advertisements starring Gary Lineker, and David Beckham's £1M a year appearances for Pepsi (no loss there then).

The ban also extends to cartoon celebrities such as The Incredibles, who are used to promote Golden Nuggets cereal, and Spiderman who for reasons best known to himself eats Penguin biscuits rather than flies.

The proposals affect TV and cinema adverts, as well as internet campaigns and product packaging aimed at children under 12.

Needless to say Nanny does not think that her proposals go far enough. Health campaigners want a total ban on advertising "junk foods" to children. They believe voluntary codes will leave "wriggle room" for manufacturers, who will still be allowed to use celebrities to promote "healthy" foods and balanced diets.

Nanny classifies some brands of sliced white bread (which we all know to be the work of the devil!) and chicken tikka masala as "healthier choices".

Interestingly, because Nanny cannot issue a law that covers all potential loopholes, non celebrities that have been created especially for the promotion of "junk food" will not be banned.

In other words, Ronald McDonald and Tony the Tiger live to fight another day.

If only Nanny could kill off that irritating clown, then she might have maintained some credibility!

5 comments:

  1. Right, I'm a non-celebrity so at £1 million a go I will gladly take over from Beckham and promote any junk they want me to even though I cannot drink the foul stuff. In fact I see a massive loophole in Nannys plan which will enable us all to get very rich pushing burgers and fizzy drinks. Who's up for Jaffa cakes ?

    On a more serious note, who can remember all those government sponsored adverts prompting us to eat more butter, buy British Beef etc then thirty years later we are being told "Butter will kill you!" and as for a nice steak, don't even think it with all that cholesterol. Double standards ? Hmmm!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Grant5:00 PM

    Endless opportunity in this one but I do wonder if maybe there is something a little selfserving in this one.

    For example. If the Fat Bar Steward gets laid off in the next round of changes, might he offer himself up for the job of advertising Crisps or fizzy drinks (or maybe just that expensively bottled tap water stuff which is probably a little healthier, but only just) on the basis that he is eligible as he is recognisable but hardly a celebrity. At least, not a celebrity in the sense that he represents something worth celebrating.

    Tony could do the same - perhaps with Cherie in tow - advertising some sort of gloopy concoction that Leo might find attractive.

    In their case we could add to the non-celebrity status the argument that they are hardly good children's role models either ...

    ReplyDelete
  3. John Rimmer11:14 PM

    Can you actually imagine the government proclaiming publicly that such and such a product is "junk food" and therefore harmful to children? Work for life for the lawyers, I'd imagine. Better just to make vague, self-righteous proclamations, after all Tone and his merry band are more interested in sounding as though they're doing something than actually doing something that might offend their business friends.

    ReplyDelete
  4. pauline2:50 AM

    Nanny sadly won't ban ALL celebrities, otherwise there won't be anyone for Nanny and Cherie and their numerous hangers on to scrounge freebie exotic holidays from will there?

    ReplyDelete
  5. John, you state "Tone and his merry band are more interested in sounding as though they're doing something than actually doing something that might offend their business friends".

    As an accountant acting for many small businesses, I can tell you that Uncle Tone (AKA Nanny) is no friend of the small businessman - far from it. Once these have all been airbrushed out of the UK, throttled and suffocated by his endless red tape, his army of mindless bureaucrats and their petty rules, where will he go to get his Sunday paper from? And incidentally, his oppo, Brown, fares no better!!

    No, banning celebs from advertising "junk food" is just another tactic which the great unwashed in this country can't seem to spot - making everyione else accountable for the behaviour of a few - thus making it look as if Tone is runnng an effective Government. Witness the present spectacle of drunken kids on the street, who are (supposedly) there because of irresponsible publicans. No, they are there 'cos they drank too much and made themselves sick. A few nights drying out in a police cell, then a haul off to court followed by a heavy fine might make them realise that fact, not opening up pubs for longer!!! But then, Tone and his mates seem unable to spot that one.

    ReplyDelete