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.

Saturday, December 16, 2006

Nanny's Ministry of Fat

Nanny's Ministry of FatAs we approach the season of overindulgence and excess, Nanny is making sure that we will all suffer in the New Year for our over exuberance.

A team of Nanny's chums, a group of public health professionals, have put together a fat report published in the British Medical Journal that recommends, amongst other things, that clothes made in larger sizes should carry warning signs and a tag with an obesity helpline number.

What utter misguided prats!

The report was put together by a group of well intentioned but misguided "space cadets", masquerading as professionals and human beings, who clearly have not visited the planet earth for some years now. The eminent list of authors includes; Laurence Gruer, director of public health science at NHS Health Scotland, Sir George Alberti, Nanny's national director for emergency care, Glasgow University professors Naveed Sattar and Mike Lean (a somewhat ironic name, given the subject matter, don't you think?).

The report goes on to say that sweets and snacks should not be allowed near checkouts, new roads should not be built unless they include cycle lanes and fat food likely to make people fat should be taxed.

The message is simple, quote:

"pull yourself together, eat less and exercise more."

That is perfectly sensible advice. Unfortunately, the learned doctors et al haven't grasped the fundamental human condition that human beings don't like being treated like children.

They claim that fat people need help, advice and sympathy to overcome their addiction to food. I would suggest that not all fat people (what is fat by the way?) are addicted to food. Some people eat more than others because they actually do enjoy food, rather than because they are in some way "addicted" to it.

By the way folks, despite the incessant nagging of Nanny, we all need to eat in order to live!

Food is not evil!

The report identifies an action list of things that Nanny should do, these include:
  • All clothes sold with a waist of more than 40in for men and 37in for boys, women's garments with a waist of more than 35in or size 16 or above, and more than 31in for girls will have an obesity helpline number printed on them.

    Farking hell!

    Why don't they just ban clothes over these sizes, and force "fat" people to fit into smaller sizes?

  • Banning sweets and fatty snacks at or near shop tills and at children's eye level.

  • Taxing processed foods that are high in sugar or saturated fat.

  • Establishing a dedicated central agency responsible for all aspects of obesity. Which eminent minister would you put in charge of the Ministry of Fat then?
Their intentions may be good, but their suggestions have ensured that they will be ridiculed (as I have just done). That's the trouble with Nanny, she loves to tell us how to live our lives yet she is totally disconnected from the real world and is incapable of "communing" with it on a sensible level.


  1. Anonymous11:43 AM

    The answer is simple, make health costs proportional to your health. e.g. use a health insurance model. The the costs of being unhealthy are passed on to the individual and they can make their own choices. That would cure smoking and obesity problems at a stroke. Unfortunately the leftie brigadewouldnt have any of that so we are left with the state telling you what to do

  2. Anonymous1:03 PM

    According to Nanny's trolls my BMI of 31 puts me very much in her "fat" category. However I'm a cold-water swimmer and my body fat is part of my adaptation to the cold. Just goes to show how Nanny's simplistic pigeonholing doesn't work in the real world.

    In fact on 14th December I swam for about an hour in the Irish Sea in just my skimpy Speedos, in water around 10degC. Not exactly something that could be undertaken by an unfit couch potato?


  3. Nanny really is quite a pushy old hag, when you get down to it.

    Number One: It's none of the state's business whether you're "fat" or not. Assume, for the sake of argument, that being fat leads to earlier death. Well, in any society that has a state-sponsored pension system (in other words, in all Western societies) those who die early save their country untold pension costs. The society has no business dictating to you how to live, in what is probably a pointless effort to force you to maximize your lifespan. Lots of people are really not dreaming about the joys of being an 86 year old Alzheimer's patient, crapping into a diaper.

    Number Two: The above premise, that being fat leads to earlier death, is far from being proven. Within the past year, the US did the most comprehensive study yet on this issue, the results of which were rather shocking to many starvation freaks. The correlation between being overweight and being ill wasn't nearly so clear as most people thought. It turns out, statistically, you're better off being 10% overweight rather than 10% underweight. Chew on that, along with yout celery stick.

    As Pete points out - and there is plenty of research to back this up - "overweight" people who eat healthily and exercise regularly may be just as fit and experience the same longevity as those at the target BMI. Some people actually do have a genetic predisposition to greater weight. Their longevities depend on what they do with that, and may be entirely different from those who are overweight because they spend every evening sitting on the sofa guzzling beer and gorging themselves on processed crap.

    Consider this analogy. Some people are predisposed to develop grey hair at an earlier age than others. They are a different category of people from those who develop grey hair early due to a high-stress life. Undoubtedly, people with grey hair are more likely to die (because they are usually older)than are others, but only a moron would conclude that grey hair, in and of itself, contributes to mortality.

    Nanny needs to spend a little time reviewing the relevant research.

  4. Anonymous8:28 PM

    black sea said:

    "Nanny needs to spend a little time reviewing the relevant research. "

    I'm sure she has, aided an abetted by her little helpers who are so praciticed at distorting the truth.

    (example - WWF who today, to accompany a money raising scheme associated with their publicity 'documentary on ITV1 released a press release about 2 groups of polar nears in the arctis with population that have marginally declined, they claim, over the last 2 decades. Ah! Polar bears, Christmas, snow, and a penguin parody from tinsel town targetted at frightening and indoctrinating young children. Nice people, nice timing. However as I read it elsewhere a couple of weeks ago, out of 13 polar bear groups stufied, 2 seemed to be in marginal decline whilst 11 were doing rather well! Nothing like selective truth is there?)

    Nanny is adept at selective truth. And who she selects to provide that truth. I wonder if selective reports are the new 'cash' in Nu Labour land.

    I note that, despite some very un-British sounding names (at least for people of an age typical of medical professorships) they are mostly from Scotland. Not exactly renown for its healthy eating habits, Scotland, as I recall.

    I wonder how many of them know Mr. "I know nothing about loans for peerages" Gordon Brown?

    So, when with the Scottish Assembly ban haggis?