Food Adverts and Child Obesity
With the news
today that a study by The University of Liverpool has
shown that children who watch adverts for food more
than double their intake of food afterwards I express
some cynicism. Apparently, after watching such
adverts obese kids ate 134 per cent more than normal,
overweight kids 101 per cent more and normal children
(whatever that may be) 84 per cent more.
As usual it sounds like an excuse and there is no mention of either personal or parental responsibility while the advertisers take full blame.
It does however give food for thought (sorry). If kids are so influenced by what they see in adverts maybe we should replace the food ads with ones for bicycles and the obesity problem will be solved overnight.
Somehow, I don't see the theory holding up!!
As usual it sounds like an excuse and there is no mention of either personal or parental responsibility while the advertisers take full blame.
It does however give food for thought (sorry). If kids are so influenced by what they see in adverts maybe we should replace the food ads with ones for bicycles and the obesity problem will be solved overnight.
Somehow, I don't see the theory holding up!!
|
Open House for Government Inspectors
While it is tempting to immediately blame the present government, for once, it cannot all be laid at their door, as several of the newer categories have come from that ever increasing interference on our lives, the dreaded EU directive. That said, there is no doubt that domestic powers are also being granted without the appropriate debate and our personal rights are diminishing daily.
The report 'Crossing The Threshold' is interesting to read and includes a hypothetical 'A Day In The Life Of A British Subject' where an illustration of the practicalities of these powers is described on an average family day. There is also of course, a full list of the 266 laws with individual descriptions.
Give it a read and sleep easier at night........not!!
Bee Warned!
I have always tried to keep an open mind but must admit to being concerned about being surrounded by what has been described as an “electronic smog”. I guess, like most, I think if it cannot be seen it can be ignored, but at the same time I have been concerned about the invisible waves passing through my body.
Now though, two things have happened which have made me more careful and both involve the humble bee. Firstly, was the report last week that bees are being disorientated by the radiation in the surrounding air so they could not find their way back to the hive and have duly perished. The second, and far more convincing to me, was a story in yesterday's Independant on Sunday. It concerned a man who moved to an old house in Bath and in doing so he inherited an attic with 30 nests of bees. He called the exterminators on two separate occasions but both times the bees returned to cause havoc in his household. It was not until last Summer when he installed a Wi-Fi internet connection that the bees left his house for good.
Forget waiting for the scientific proof. By the time the arguing is over it might be too late. That story alone convinced me to reduce the power output of the Wi-Fi connection in my home by three quarters and there has been no noticeable difference to the performance.
Thanks Bees!!
Salt in Food
The average daily consumption of salt per person in the UK is 9g. Scientists say that by cutting this to around 6g per adult (children should have much lower amounts) the chances of getting cardiovascular disease are reduced by 25 per cent over 10 to 15 years and the risk of dying from the same disease is cut by 20 per cent. Three quarters of the salt we eat is already within the food we buy. The cost of treating heart attacks, strokes and heart disease is already a huge burden on the National Health Service in the UK and predictably the government are keen, and it makes total sense, to see the 3g drop in place by 2010.
But, how will they achieve their goal when they are reluctant to legislate against the powerful food producers in this country? It is, on the face of it, a very easy problem to solve - ban the excessive amounts of salt added to the food that is for sale. The government though, would rather be seen to be doing something than actually doing it. They see the cure for obesity and it's associated diseases in the UK will be found by the soft option of banning advertising for so called junk foods. In reality, it makes no difference if adverts are no longer seen, while the products are still being sold in the supermarkets.
You only have to stand at the checkout in any big store to see the amount of these products people have in their trolleys. Are we to believe they have watched an advert the previous night and thought “I must have that”? Of course not.
As the famous phrase says “You are what you eat”. The government must take direct action to reduce the additives that are in our food to a safe level as the stakes are both life threatening and costly to treat.
BBC Journalist alive?
Seizing members of the world's press is both stupid and pointless. They act as the conduit to bring grievances from within individual countries to the whole world population. Without their reports - often at locations where they might seem reckless in their pursuit of the facts - the world will be a much more closed society and individual freedoms will be exploited and suppressed by ruthless regimes.
We look forward to his early release, but until that time, the pressure must not be allowed to fade.
Bank Withdrawal
How great it
was to read this morning of the Norfolk businessman
who has successfully reclaimed - and been repaid -
almost thirty six thousand pounds from the National
Westminster Bank for
what he
considered to be illegal charges made to his account
for being overdrawn. Like most of us at one time or
another, he had suffered cashflow problems while
waiting for his customer's cheques to clear their
account into his. As we know, there is a delay of
some three days between the two procedures
completing, during which the banks benefit from the
interest gained on the amount. Each time he was
overdrawn during this period, he was charged a thirty
five pound fee by the bank, which on some months
amounted to three thousand pounds per month. He
finally had enough of what he considered to be gross
overcharging and using advice gained from the website
of the Consumer Action Group
he sent
one of their standard letters off to the bank in
January of this year which was subsequently
ignored. So, he then started a legal action using
the government's Money Claim Online Service
and a case
conference had been scheduled for May 11th.
Last Friday, a cheque for the full amount arrived with a letter from the bank's solicitors, denying they had been guilty of overcharging but were settling in full, because the costs of a court case would be more than the amount claimed
Campaigners however, say that if the banks did turn up to face a court hearing they would be forced to admit the true cost of a bounced cheque was more like two pounds than the thirty they have been charging their customers. Most of the main banks have recently taken to refunding similar claims, some relating to charges dating back several years, rather than having to admit their real costs in court.
Surprised? No of course not. For years the banks have been treating customers like they were lucky to be able to deposit funds at their facility rather than the other way round. The charges have been both unjust and unreasonable.
It is always good to see a bully getting a black eye!!
Another useful resource is Money Saving Expert
Last Friday, a cheque for the full amount arrived with a letter from the bank's solicitors, denying they had been guilty of overcharging but were settling in full, because the costs of a court case would be more than the amount claimed
Campaigners however, say that if the banks did turn up to face a court hearing they would be forced to admit the true cost of a bounced cheque was more like two pounds than the thirty they have been charging their customers. Most of the main banks have recently taken to refunding similar claims, some relating to charges dating back several years, rather than having to admit their real costs in court.
Surprised? No of course not. For years the banks have been treating customers like they were lucky to be able to deposit funds at their facility rather than the other way round. The charges have been both unjust and unreasonable.
It is always good to see a bully getting a black eye!!
Another useful resource is Money Saving Expert
Guns Rule OK?
I was shocked to hear one such argument put forward by a pro gun lobbyist interviewed on the BBC news last evening. He stated the belief that if the students had all been armed, the gunman would not have been able to carry out the crime to the extent he did. While I might be tempted to concede that the gunman might have been shot earlier, how many others would have been caught in the crossfire? It is a ridiculous argument and one that does not hold up to logical examination.
As a European, I find it almost inconceivable that an individual can buy weapons so easily and use them so often, as the citizens of the US. It is possible for one individual to own literally scores of weapons and ammunition without any stringent check into the person's background or need. They are not only weapons confined to personal protection but many are classed as military assault weapons and have devastating firepower. Why would anyone need these unless they have something seriously wrong with their outlook on life?
We all know the tired old argument put forward about the individual's right to bear arms, but surely there must also be a right to be able to study and plan for the future, in what is normally a quiet University, without the possibility of being killed.
If you are in any doubt about that premise then I suggest you ask the families of the victims!!
(It is reported that around 30,000 people die from gunshot wounds in the United States every year and there are more guns in private hands than in any other country)
Plastic Surprise!
No politician is ever going to be brave enough to tell us to reduce the population, so instead, we get our local councils sending us another plastic bin to allow us to take part in a fortnightly collection: one week for re-cyclable rubbish and the next for household. It is a one size fits all solution to the problem they have been given of meeting their re-cycling targets.
I have always been conscious of the need to try to re-cycle and to that end I visit my local centre often but I was shocked the other day when I took a boot load of plastic bottles which I had been diligently collecting only to find they did not have the means to process them. The nearest centre that could handle the task was 40 miles away.
Given that a huge number of families now drink bottled water and get their milk in plastic containers, it seems strange that rather than trying to re-cycle these items, the council were still going to put them in the landfill. I could have re-cycled asbestos, wood, car batteries, tv's or almost anything else but plastic. How ironic it now seems, that the new bin being sent by the council is made of that material.
One can only wonder at how much pollution was produced in the manufacture of the millions of bins being distributed throughout the UK!
He scored an own goal!
I must
confess to feeling some sympathy for the beleaguered
Defence secretary Des Browne. While I give him full
credit for standing up and taking full responsibility
for the misjudged decision to
allow
the 15 Navy captives to sell their stories to the
media, he made the fatal mistake of saying “the buck
stops here”. By doing so, he has, predictably,
allowed himself to be used as the complete fall guy
for the whole sorry episode.
If, as Tony Blair claimed yesterday, he (TB) had successfully brought the sailors home (in reality he didn't and had no idea they would be released until it was announced by the Iranian President as a gesture of goodwill) then it seems unlikely that the occupants of either No 10 or No 11 Downing Street would have been unaware of the decision being made at the MoD.
What seems more likely, is that after suffering the humiliation of witnessing the televised pictures of the 'captives' shown on Iranian TV, the UK government spin doctors saw a golden opportunity to 'hit back' at the Iranians and score a goal against them. This would have the added benefit of gaining backing for the anti Iranian stance being taken by both the UK and US governments.
Sadly, it backfired and a scapegoat had to be found.
Poor old Des Browne!!
If, as Tony Blair claimed yesterday, he (TB) had successfully brought the sailors home (in reality he didn't and had no idea they would be released until it was announced by the Iranian President as a gesture of goodwill) then it seems unlikely that the occupants of either No 10 or No 11 Downing Street would have been unaware of the decision being made at the MoD.
What seems more likely, is that after suffering the humiliation of witnessing the televised pictures of the 'captives' shown on Iranian TV, the UK government spin doctors saw a golden opportunity to 'hit back' at the Iranians and score a goal against them. This would have the added benefit of gaining backing for the anti Iranian stance being taken by both the UK and US governments.
Sadly, it backfired and a scapegoat had to be found.
Poor old Des Browne!!
Blame Tennis!
After
the government's rapid U-turn which placed a ban on
our forces personnel from selling their stories to
the media, it was less than surprising to find that
Ministers were yesterday playing 'blame tennis' over
who was responsible for the original decision. No-one
would come forward to comment to the media and press
officers were allegedly either refusing, or unable,
to answer questions directly.
What should be remembered is that the team playing for Number Ten are past champions at 'spinning' the ball and directing it to any part of the court they decide.
My bet is it will land at the feet of the MoD
Any takers?
What should be remembered is that the team playing for Number Ten are past champions at 'spinning' the ball and directing it to any part of the court they decide.
My bet is it will land at the feet of the MoD
Any takers?
Hostage to a Fortune
Instead of being spellbinding television with tales of hardship and physical threats meted out to the navy personnel, it was instead, a damp squib of a story which even the highly respected Mr McDonald seemed almost amused to be presiding over. For in reality, there was nothing to tell. Most Britons who have been on a cheap package holiday would come back with tales that were more frightening than those of Miss Turney and her colleagues. Perhaps that is why to date only two of the 'hostages have 'sold out' to the press.
The Navy is hardly suffering the same hardship in the Gulf as it's sister forces. It has the soft option of patrolling the disputed waters between Iraq and Iran, gathering intelligence and attempting to stop smuggling of prohibited goods into Iran. It is not under serious threat from attack, as the skies are controlled by the allies and neither Iran nor Iraq are known as a great naval threat. So perhaps it is for this reason that the personnel on HMS Cornwall have got complacent and allowed two of their patrol boats to be 'escorted' into Iran - you could hardly call it kidnapped as by her own admission Faye Turney stated the initial contact with the Iranians seemed friendly. It seems the HMS Cornwall personnel - for whatever reason - had let their guard down and allowed an opportunistic Iranian patrol to seize the initiative.
From there, as we all know, it snowballed and the navy captives became a pawn in a much bigger battle for the hearts and minds of the respective home countries. Tony Blair insisted the patrols had most definitely been in Iraqi waters at the time they were apprehended and the Ministry of Defence issued a map showing the exact location of the patrols against the red border line. As usual though, they were being 'economical with the truth' and it came to light - as it always does - there is no agreed border between Iraq and Iran.
So back to the main point; why were the 15 naval personnel given permission to sell their stories? Well, it is obvious that the Iranians had scored a great PR goal against the West. They exposed a weakness in the military might of western forces at a time when Iran is facing increasing rumblings from the US over development of its nuclear capacity. In short they gave us all a mischievous black eye and then gave us a 'gift' by releasing the 'captives'
So what better way for the British government to regain lost ground, than for the 'captives' to tell their stories of hardship at Iranian hands to the waiting world. After all, the media would lap it up as it was an easy story for the hacks who could then be home early for Easter. Unfortunately, no-one had banked on the lack of 'hardship' to be told and the fact only two of the captives took up the offer. There were no bruises to be displayed and only perceived threats to be talked of. They say a picture tells a thousand words and unfortunately the pictures the Iranians took - of a laughing, smiling, compliant group of people - had already taken root as the true state of events.
Faye Turney has allowed herself to be used as a pawn firstly by the Iranians, and then by her own government's spin machine. She has shown a lack of judgement which will not be glossed over by sharing some of her spoils with the crew of her ship. While those military personnel who face real danger on the front line in both Iraq and Afghanistan live in everyday fear of dying, she is now able to enjoy her fortune.
It is a bad day for the reputation of the once great British Navy. Once again they have managed to lose two craft!
Who would bet against Ms.Turney leaving the service and increasing her potential by being voluntarily incarcerated in the Big Brother house by this time next year?
It's all true....
Dear Alcohol,
First & foremost, let me tell you that I'm a huge fan of yours. As my friend, you always seem to be there when needed. The perfect post-work cocktail, a beer at the game, and you're even around in the holidays, hidden inside chocolates as you warm us when we're stuck in the midst of endless family gatherings. However, lately I've been wondering about your intentions. While I want to believe that you have my best interests at heart, I feel that your influence has led to some unwise consequences:
1. Phone calls: While I agree with you that communication is important, I question the suggestion that any conversation of substance or necessity takes place after 2 a.m. Why would you make me call anyone in the middle of the night, especially, an ex-boyfriends/girlfriends when I know for a fact they do not want to hear from me during the day, let alone all hours of the night?
2. Eating: Now, you know I love a good meal, but why do you suggest that I eat a kebab, a butter chicken curry along with a sausage with cheese, onion and mustard (washed down with WINE & topped off with a Kit Kat after a few sweet chilli and sour cream red rock chips)? I'm an eclectic eater, but I think you went too far this time.
3. Clumsiness: Unless you're subtly trying to tell me that I need to do more yoga to improve my balance, I see NO need to hammer the issue home by causing me to fall down. It's completely unnecessary, and the black & blue marks that appear on my body mysteriously the next day are beyond me. Similarly, it should never take me more than 45 seconds to get the front door key into the lock.
4. Furthermore: The hangovers have GOT to stop. This is getting ridiculous. I know a little penance for our previous evening's debauchery may be in order, but the 3pm hangover immobility is completely unacceptable. My entire day is shot. I ask that, if the proper precautions are taken (water, vitamin B, bread products, aspirin) prior to going to sleep/passing out face down on the kitchen floor with a bag of popcorn, the hangover should be minimal & in no way interfere with my daily activities.
Alcohol, I have enjoyed our friendship for some years now & would like to ensure that we remain on good terms. You've been the invoker of great stories, the provocation for much laughter, and the needed companion when I just don't know what to do with the extra money in my pockets. In order to continue this friendship, I ask that you carefully review my grievances above & address them immediately. I will look for an answer no later than Thursday 3pm (pre-happy hour) on your possible solutions & hopefully we can continue this fruitful partnership.
Thank you,
Your biggest fan
P.S. THINGS THAT ARE DIFFICULT TO SAY WHEN DRUNK:
1. Innovative
2. Preliminary
3. Proliferation
4. Cinnamon
THINGS THAT ARE VERY DIFFICULT TO SAY WHEN DRUNK:
1. Specificity
2. British Constitution
3. Passive-aggressive disorder
THINGS THAT ARE DOWNRIGHT IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY WHEN DRUNK:
1. Thanks, but I don't want to have sex.
2. Nope, no more beer for me.
3. Sorry, but you're not really my type.
4. Good evening, officer. Isn't it lovely out tonight?
5. Oh, I couldn't. No one wants to hear me sing.