Nanny hates fat people and...errrm...thin people.
I guess she hates everyone then.
Anyhoo, as part of Nanny's ongoing policy of hating people and what they eat, Nanny's chums in the Medical Research Council (MRC) have recently announced that chip shops shops and fast-food outlets should be barred from opening in areas of high deprivation.
In other words, poor people are too stupid to be trusted to eat what is good for them!
The MRC have stated that the high prevalence of such takeaways and restaurants in poorer areas may be one of the factors behind rising obesity, because they make unhealthy meals the easy choice for residents there.
Nanny has in fact coined a new word, in the journal "Appetite" the MRC said that fast food outlets in poor areas created an "obesogenic" environment.
Dr Sally Macintyre, from the MRC unit in Glasgow, said:
"Planners perhaps need to take into account
levels of deprivation as well as all the other factors
they consider when granting permission for new businesses."
Tam Fry, chairman of the Child Growth Foundation, said:
"We have got to subsidise fruit and vegetable shops
and we have got to limit fish and chip shops
and burger restaurants to have an impact
on the health of the most deprived communities."
How about educating people as to what is healthy, then letting them make their own decision?
Way too radical for Nanny!
So Nanny wants to deprive the deprived communities of chip shops?
ReplyDeleteIf anyone wondered which evil depriver was depriving the deprived of their social justice - now we know.
Where do you normally find chip shops or other takeaways? Near housing estates. That is because it makes basic economic sense. We all know that surely. If I ran a chip shop I would want it too make a profit, I'm sure that I wouldn't worry about people's weight as that might put me out of business.
ReplyDeleteThe types who sanction these daft ideas can afford all the healthy organic, e# free, no preservitives food they can get the gold plated pensionable patronising hands on. I dare then to spend a year living on £250 a week or less and try to aviod the temptation of nipping to the chippy every now and again when you get home from work and can't be bothered to cook. I fall into that catergory and maybe get a takeaway once a fortnight, I don't see why I should be denied that right.
Who saves money and who makes money out of this mushrooming bureaucratic idiocy?
ReplyDeleteIt just proves to me what nanny really is, “upper class” and out of touch with reality, the mind boggles, the more of our money this government throws about the more of these idiots come out with this crap, why because they have nothing else to do but dream up crazy unworkable solutions
ReplyDeleteThis so called problem will soon be solved so I don't see why Nanny's minions need do anything at all.
ReplyDeleteNanny want's us all to go green to save the planet and one of the 'solutions' involves using bio-fuels.
Many parts of the world, Mexico comes to mind, are avidly taking to this since the farmers make more money from selling a crop as fuel source material than they do as food source.
When the UK catches up I can foresee that all the existing arable land and some that isn't cultivated currently will convert to growing fuel overnight. Perhaps this is why the spokepeoples for the Soiled Association is so keen to push the benefits of red meat (though where the animals are to find their food I don't really know.)
Meanwhile Friends of the Earth(worm) will persuade the chattering politicos that importing food involves too many 'food miles' so we will be stuffed. Or rather NOT stuffed - this obesity as a disease/illness/Panic - will disappear as quickly as it appeared. Likewise the 'furore' about size zero models on the catwalk.
We will all be size zero. Amd cat woals will be a thing of the past since all cats will be running trying to find food whilst avoiding being eaten themselves as the ever hungrier human populaiton resort to obtaining some sort of sustenance by any means possible. The film 'King Rat' may be issued as a trining manual.
Alternatively we can only hope that our fellow suffers suddenly wake up to the BS that Nanny and her credulous cronies constantly pump out and finally have the nous to reclaim thier lives before it is too late and the ration books arrive in the post. (If there is still a post that is ...)
There is an item in the Daily Mail today realted to a survey from a company with a vested interest in packeged meals.
ReplyDeleteThe 'survey' may or may not be a useful source of information - difficult to tell from the way it has been reported. But the final paragraph seems to sum things up ...
"The overall daily allowance of calories is 1,600 to 2,000 for a nine to 13-year-old girl, [sic] and 1,800 to 2,200 for a nine to 13-year-old boy."
There is probably a Law being created to enforce thi srule as we speak, given the the word 'recommended' seems to be missing despite there being space enough for it in the article.
"...as part of Nanny's ongoing policy of hating people..."
ReplyDeleteNanny doesn't hate ALL people -- just those who don't do as she commands!
I am all in favour of living a healthy lifestyle, but this should be through CHOICE, after receiving the relevant facts, not by dictat. I feel that Nanny is being rather a hypocrite on this matter. Firstly, whilst she wants to bar chip shops and fast food outlets from certain areas, she is quite happy to support GM foods which may well have long term consequences for the nation's health. Secondly, the question has to be asked regarding whom we have to 'thank' for the loss of so many school sports fields to developers in recent years along with the closure of a large quantity of public swimming pools, leisure centres and other sporting facilities.
Such closures, as in the case of Daventry open air swimming pool, which closed in September, despite a record number of users last season, and was very quickly demolished early this year, frequently carried out against the wishes of local people. Is it any wonder, under these circumstances, that obesity is such a cause for concern amongst the young and also the not so young. However, instead of depriving poorer communities of their chip shops and other take aways, perhaps Nanny should ask herself to what extent her own policies have caused these problems?
Ducardo, please remember that this is not about 'class'. Everybody likes a takeaway now & then, some more than others.
ReplyDeleteNo, the problem is all about the creeping cancer of socialism. Stop the lefties and you'll halt the problems.
Meanwhile -
ReplyDeleteStudy Finds Low-Fat Diet Won't Stop Cancer or Heart Disease - New York Times
February 7, 2006 By GINA KOLATA
The largest study ever to ask whether a low-fat diet keeps women from getting
cancer or heart disease has found that the diet had no effect.
...
Well, close: more that already obese women who went on a low-fat diet showed no effect. It is still recommended that one try not to be obese in the first place, and while there is no overwhelming proof of benefit a low-fat diet is still recommended to that end. But then, the recommendation is from the people who have been "all over the map" on salt, caffeine, eggs, sugar, alcohol...