And Another Thing…

@Jay

Multiculturalism clearly trumps decency.

http://www.ecplaza.net/product/162671_1056564/tower_parking_system.html

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/self-parking-garage.shtml

These are the future!

Although the second link is defined as a Hoax, the automated car storage lifts do exist!

The approach in Toronto is much more innovative!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do6pmYfNco0

@Quietzapple

Usual ignorant defence of the indefensible.

You obviouslly didn’t read the link as it is the labour government that is thinking about it.

My argument is that it is anti-democracy ,which doesn’t seem to worry you. Not that that is suprising as you appear to be a labour supporter.

Now, your proposal to remove them from labour voting areas seems sensible.
So obviously you mis-wrote.

“I’ll wait in the car while you pop to the shops….AAAARRRRGGGHHH”

Yep. I’d laugh

Most car alarms go off when they register movement……so parking vertically should be quite noisy.. not to mention the hiss of battery acid as it eats away metal and the bubble of paint stripped by brake fluid and the odd fire as petrol leaks from vertical tanks and explodes on hot exhausts…

Apart from that, it’s highly practical.

>> I see Brown has backed Blair for President. Thats good news as Blair has no chance now.

Yup, it’s more effective than sending in Katie Adie.

>> Nope, this is about opposition to Blair’s bid (or anyone’s) for the European Council Presidency. Cameron and his views left the playing field a long time ago.

Maybe, but the point of Tom’s post can be summed up by five words – “so what are Cameron’s objections?”, followed by some stuff about domestic British politics.

Iraq wasn’t even on this field; even if it were, may I remind you that Cameron supported the invasion.

>> I explicitly made the point that it was not a war ON the Muslim world so that the association would not stick.

Indeed it can. Even using the term makes it so.

>> I also did not invent the term the muslim world,

Yet you’re perpetuating its usage.

>> but when 90+% of the region belong to one religion

It should be easy enough to discern the difference between the various confessionals of Christianity, so describing all those in Muslim-majority countries as being of “one religion” does suggest you believe there is one homogenous mass thinking as one.

By far the greatest war/death in Muslim-majority countries is being carried out *by* Muslims – and then it’s primarily against civilians, who often consider themselves Muslim, rather than combatants which is the purpose of Western military action.

Deeply misguided and potentially malfeasant the invasion of Iraq may have been, it’s but one small blip in Muslim-majority countries.

>> and the people in control of the money, weapons and, inevitably, power are theocratic Muslims then I don’t see the problem with the term.

That’s not what you said.

Only available in Scotland.

They were inspired by the way the police stored the drunks on saturday nights.

Quietzapple: ‘Oh dear, Tom . .

They sound like an ad for a radio 4 rework of Bleak Expectations, don’t they?’

Is there a ‘radio 4 rework of Bleak Expectations’, Quietzapple? What’s it called?

Saw a sad little report in today’s press that poppy sellers are under strict instructions not to rattle their tins because people find it menacing. The Legion, consequently, finds the donations way down as they can’t draw attention to themselves. I, for one, intend to keep my eyes peeled and make an extra large donation.

Wonder where the local authority was when I was recently accosted by a determined eco-loon in the town centre.

Nifty concept, but as many have noted, completely stupid.
Waaay too many designers think like this; “hmmm, that’d be cool, let’s design one” as opposed to “hmmm, that could really work, let’s design one”.
What’ll happen here is a real designer will come along, take the usable elements of it and try to create a version that *is* actually practical. If it still has some merit at that point, then maybe we’ll see something like this. But I suspect the vertical-storage may be somewhat different…

Ah! But what about Smart cars, whose height is greater than their length? (er, is that actually true?)

Couldn’t you save more space by simply driving the car really hard into the wall?

Incidentally, this post brings to mind a couple of useful tips:

Ever worried about losing your keys to the car/front door?

Banish your worries for ever!

All you do is permanently attach the key to the lock via a wire/chain/bit of string. Simples! It’s especially convenient for padlocks.

In the same vein, glue the remote control onto the telly. That way you always know where to find it.

I wonder if those commenters taking this post seriously know anything of Mr Harris.

(BTW please feel free to incorporate both of my tips into your next manifesto, even if they aren’t in it already)

No arguments concerning the inefficency, animal suffering or carbon footprint of meat-eating will ever put me off*, however logical or self-evidently correct they may be. It’s just too good.

*Especially the chilli sausages of Wrights, Melbourn, Herts. And Nürnberger Rostbratwurst. The rare breed ones from Wimpole Hall, Cambs, aren’t bad either (but don’t BBQ the latter without a self-actuating fire suppression system).

>> There is absolutely no reason to believe that this man (he of the children with Irish passports) has British interests at heart.

What a disgraceful remark. Next you’ll be telling us that James Joyce wasn’t Irish.

Is this so you can build you car parks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/planning/6475826/Listed-buildings-and-scenic-spots-face-destruction-after-planning-rule-changes.html.

Labour realy are b******s.

Why do the cars have to be tilted? If you’re going to build machinery to tilt cars like that, why not use the machinery to just raise the cars 10 feet into the air, keeping them the normal way up?

Anyway, isn’t it simpler just to to denormalise and demonise drivers, and make them feel so ashamed of driving anywhere that they ritually set fire to their own cars?

Oh, oh, dear, Mr Harris…. if that is the best you can come up with, then your party is indeed consigned to the dustbin of history. I suppose you know when the attacks get personal, then you know you’ve won the battle on policy – especially when the current government’s only policy seems to be keeping the working class people in their place, to make sure you lot are kept in power.

You see, as funny as that clip may have been (for schoolboys only of course), the REAL horror show is half of the things your government has done towards the most hard-up people in this country – people who probably feel they depend on a Labour government most. Like the single parent, working full time, struggling to look after kids who may decide to do a little overtime to help his/herself out, but gain only four pence in every extra pound earned.

Let’s remember, under your government, working people have paid approximately twice as much Council Tax, and yet, what have we gained in return?

You’ve taken a huge amount from working people in both direct and indirect taxes to spend on the education system, yet, there are more young people not in education, employment or training now than there was in 1997.

Those people on the breadline, who are managing to hold down jobs, are feeling the pinch from the tax burden your government has made. As for the youngsters still being schooled right now, they don’t know about the tax burden yet, but they will soon, and shall have to deal with it for many years to come thanks to the legacy of debt your government has bestowed upon them.

So, yes, it’s Halloween: ‘Trick or treat’ guys, for the present Labour government is the real horror show tonight. Gordon Brown and the unelected Lord Mandelson may be full of tricks – that we already know – so just give us all a treat and get your government to call a damned election so that you can be shown the door and people who know what they are doing can start about the job of righting the wrongs the government that Tom Harris supports has made.

@ Sammy’s “Yeah carry on voting Labour or Labour Lite (SNP), folks, because you can see where the last fifty years of it has brought you.”
WHAT?!!!

Are you f^&*ing kidding me?
Fair enough to slag off Labour for having been at the wheel in Scotland for well over 50 years, almost 80 in some places, whilst massive poverty, social deprivation etc. have reigned supreme. I agree with you there.

BUT….the SNP are pretty far removed from Labour ideologically and in terms of popularity as well. For one thing, we’re popular! For another, the “new labour” party is at best slightly-left-but-mostly-centrist. In many ways, the Labour party under Blair (and far far far more so under Brown) have veered to the right wing. Sure, they’re not as rightwing as the Tories, and arguably the Labour party are still fairly socially liberal (until you hit security issues. CCTV anyone?), but they’re right-wing completely fiscally-speaking.
The SNP on the other hands are a left-of-centre social-democratic party; in favour of many things the Labour grass-roots would like but are diametrically opposed by Brown et al. In addition, the SNP, lest the name didnae spell it out to you, is a Nationalist party. Unlike Labour, they are also democratic.

I can say this because in spite of all the polls showing a massive majority in favour, Labour still oppose giving the people their democratic right to a referendum. They are not democratic on independence at all. I’d go so far as to say that when we get that plebiscite, and the People duly return a resounding “YES” vote, there will be those in Labour advocating ignoring it.
You could not get any further away from the SNP’s position on that matter alone. Hell, if the SNP were anything like Labour, they’d just declare independence without bothering with a referendum, much like Labour signed the Lisbon Treaty without bothering to ask the People. Very right wing that.

Lisbon Treaty. Promise. Referendum. Labour Party.

Major irony fail, Mr Harris.

But you know it’s more complicated than that Tom. Immediately after the text you quote there are these words in The Sun article: “No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum.” The issue is what Cameron can do if the Treaty has been ratified.

Source:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/eu_referendum/article273758.ece

We should never forget that it was your party that broke its word on a referendum.

I think you’re covering dangerous ground Tom, coming from a party that used the excuse of changing a word from “Constitution” to “Treaty” as an excuse to renege a a promised referendum which could quite easily have been carried out as it was in power at the time! And talking of reneging on promises, how about university fees? What happened there then?

Let’s face it, promises from politicians and political parties carry about the same weight as a “maybe” from the rest of us, and have a shelf life roughly equivalent to that of a pot of yoghurt.

Hang on….I seem to remember someone else giving a cast iron promise on a referendum….
A certain leader of your party, Tony Blair! Not only did he renege on that, he gave back all the money Maggie clawed off the EU, to further his own personal ambitions.
Blair ensured we are trapped into a Treaty we didn’t vote for & a so called democracy we have little say in. Labour have eroded human suffrage in the UK. I for one am disgusted.

Look,Tom, the Only Chameleon promises one can count on are increase in lower limit for Death Duties (IHT) and freedom to fox hunt.

For the rest? Ask Cashcroft:

http://url.ie/2r6w

or the poor of Belize who have noted his convoluted modes of business

and ask Bozo Bojo, apparently a compulsive liar

http://url.ie/2r6v

and the repository of Chameleon’s confidence while he has to sack senior staff members, one after the other.

(We await multiples, but it will come)

TOM! They don’t do truth!

“Instead, the Home Secretary acted refreshingly quickly and decisively, and he should be congratulated for displaying the smack (no pun intended) of firm leadership.”

Couldn’t agree more, Johnson rose in my estimation considerably.

Amid all the discussion, some of it posing as learned, the most significant aspect of this matter is that some kids – perhaps the more feeble minded end of the spectrum – will interpret the media takes on Nutt’s pronouncements as meaning that LSD, cannabis (inc the stronger versions) & ecstasy pose little threat to their and others’ safety.

Easy to imagine a teenage driver telling the relatives whom he has bereaved:

“I wouldn’t dream of drinking and driving, but I thought cannabis would be ok, that Prof Nutt said . . ”

And Prof Nutt behaved with criminal irresponsibility: he lives in C21th Britain, not Plato’s academy where debate was the preserve of supposedly dispassionate intellectuals.

He should have quit and conducted a lower profile campaign. His operation will only make it harder for any necessary action to be taken.

“Get Real! Smell the coffee! Have you got it yet!” Should be the usual trite cries of the right and extreme left, but . . .

“…mere democratically-elected politicians cannot be trusted to implement important policy decisions…”

Noth ey cannot – witness last 12 years.

The problem is our democratically elected politicians are not democratic, instead a self-intersted, self-serving oligarchy

Cameron made his cast iron pledge, I suspect, safe in the knowledge that he would never be able to carry it out. We all knew that once the Treaty was ratified, that would be the end of it. It saves him having to spend the first year in power embroiled in the Europe issue. Mealy mouthing platitudes such as “We will not let matters rest” kept supporters on board, and they may well stay on board because they are so desperate for power. They may even stay on board for a while after he finds he needs to realign the Conservative MEPs with Merkel and Sarkozy, if they’ll have him, in order to have any influence at all in European decisions.

His options now are to talk tough, look severe, make a speech about restoring some power to the UK, and then to lie low and hope it all blows over, or to have an “In/out” vote, which he certainly doesn’t want.

What would he do if the people said “Get out?”
What would he do if the people said “Stay in?”
Which side would he campaign for?

However, I see in today’s Observer that Lord Ashcroft, billionaire and influential big cheese who is systematically buying the Tory party, has been ferrying Little Willie Hague around the world, to meet Hilary Clinton and others. Once he gets evicted from Belize, a desperately poor country which he also appears to own, he’ll be able to move here, start paying tax and tell Dave what to do about Europe.

Not sure I agree with this statement “elected politicians being paid to exercise their political judgment on behalf of their constituents and the country.”

I thought elected politicians were paid to represent the views of their constituents.

In any case, you don’t seem to be disputing the science, so to paraphrase your argument

The science says cannabis is not very dangerous, the politics says it is.

That is the thin end of a very dangerous wedge.

The science says the UK debt is unsustainable, the politics says it is.

The science says we don’t have enough helicopters in Afghanistan, the politics says we do.

Oh dear.

Poor, p poor Chris? Wills:

I think I understand rather better than you, HMG may let local authorities reduce the numbers of polling stations in certain circumstances.

You don’t deny that Tory authorities would be very likely to use such a power to reduce polling stations in older working class districts, as seems very likely.

Why do you feel the need to endlessly dissemble?

Has Bozo Bojo put you under his spell?

http://url.ie/2r6v

You seem to of missed the point. If you ask for scientific advice you can’t argue with the feedback. Nutt was merely stating fact – any government that can sack scientific advisors for that are clearly trying to deceive us. The truth is the government has already decided the facts, and Professor Nutt’s reasoned arguments are uncomfortable listening for the Brown regime.

Completely disgusted by this behaviour – Alan Johnson must go now! The country will hold you accountable for not heeding scientific advice in May.

Bridie McWilliwarmer:

It would be too complimentary to those to whom my remark referred to suggest that they compared to the Radio 4s “Bleak Expectations”

If Radio 4 rework it, possibly after privatisation, then the comparison would be valid. Perhaps with Johnson B and others in role.

I hope this clarifies the matter for you and your anxieties are suitably allayed.

Ian – Agreed about the information on food packets. That’s what I meant by “informed choices”. Government has a role in making sure consumers aren’t deceived, but not in deciding on our behalf whether we want to go ahead and eat a whole Arctic Roll straight out of the wrapper (delicious, by the way).

Tom, are you sure you are in the correct party?

I posted on this yesterday. Most of it sweary words.

“I don’t believe Labour has anything to fear from allowing people to make free and informed choices about how they want to live; more to the point, viewing our fellow citizens as part of a problem that can only be solved by government intervention seems a peculiarly undemocratic and self-destructive form of politics.”

Too bad your party didn’t subscribe to that notion for the last thirteen years.

It’s not about curbing the amount that people eat – you can’t do that.

But if someone goes into a restaurant or a supermarket and buys two portions of food they will at least know that they are eating two portions.

That way they will also know why they are fat and what they can do about it. Eat one portion instead of two.

It’s all very well to say that people should already know that but they don’t. For a start there are no standard portion sizes. You do not usually get the calorie content of the whole meal – and unless you are in Weightwatchers or something like that most people do not know what the calorific content of the food they eat means anyway – and you usually do not know what goes into the food you don’t make yourself, how much salt, saturated fat, sugar and so on.

Maybe I have a completely different perspective to you but I actually think I should have the right to that information. It won’t stop any retailer or restauranter selling heart attacks on a plate but people will know that is what they are eating.

The FSA has already developed a voluntary calorie labelling scheme for the catering industry so it’s not like they are starting from scratch.

Tom,

I agree – to an extent. Particularly when you say you are a tad overweight – but that it is your “responsibility, no-one else’s.”

That is fair. But it is the consequences of what you say that you are not considering. Probably not in your case (given that you are, in your own words, only a “tad” overweight) but in others, where obesity has reached obscene levels. Because when health starts deteriorating and money needs spent, it is the NHS that has to pick up the slack.

So yes, absolutely, it is an individual responsibility. But that responsibility but be tempered with the fact that the consequences of a poor diet can cost a lot more people than yourself.

I’d have thought a good lefty like you would have thought of that – communal good and all that!

Give him a little credit, Obo, for not touting the party line here. ‘More joy in heaven…’ and all that.

Besides, we can always bookmark this post and keep an eye on his voting record in ‘theyworkforyou.com’ in future. Can’t we?

Thank heavens I don’t live in the Scottish Socialist Republic.

Why can’t people be obese if they want to? Why do they have to be slim and healthy?

I would understand your concerns if the only food available was laced with lard and sugar, but it isn’t. There is plenty of information out there on alternatives. If people don’t give a toss then that is their choice. Between lessons in school and the plethora of cookery programmes that are on the telly, no one can be ignorant of the alternatives or the consequences.

If you really want to improve peoples health via the nanny state, then outlaw smoking, drinking and make one hour of exercise per day compulsary and performed under supervision. See what that does to your polling…

Tom, thank you for the courtesy of publishing my comment and replying to me.

However, I must point out that nothing in your reply relates to your history of standing up to the government nannying us about our health, our drinking, our smoking or eating. The fact that you stood up to a three line whip about something else is admirable but entirely irrelevant.

Ob – the second link there was to the division on whether we should ban cigarette advertising displays in newsagents, in which I voted against the government. Doesn’t that count as a smoking issue?

I’m unconvinced that choices of sensibly sized portions shouldn’t be mandatory.

True if the only local fish and chip shop insists on vast and expensive portions as standard they may suffer long term as sane potential customers eat alternatives.

But obeisity is such a massive problem that it requires unusual treatment, just as smoking has.

People who really want to overeat can, but many do not want to be overcharged and waste food. Let the greedy order two or three portions if they must.

If not a ban, perhaps a sign – like the V for veggie – on the appropriate part of the menu, to indicate a large fatty sized portion?

While I am unkind enough to suggest a model for such a symbol I shall reserve it for another time.

An “unacceptable” intrusion. Well it should be unacceptable, but experience suggests that it will be accepted.

People who do not wear seat belts in cars or motorcyclists who do not wear crash helmets risk only their own lives. The justification for making these compulsory (from those who feel it needs justifying, rather than that they automatically know best what is good for others) is that injured motorists and motorcyclists place a burden on the taxpayer.

If this argument is valid for road users (and it may not be, there must be offsetting costs on pensions and and end of life medical and geriatric care from those who would otherwise kill themselves when young), then surely it is also valid for those who risk their own health by eating too much.

The same is true of the various measures to restrict smoking and drinking.

When you stand back from it, the state telling you that you must wear a particular kind of hat, or must restrict your own movement with a bit of webbing “for your own good” is an appalling intrusion into the most elementary level of personal liberty, yet the overwhelming majority meekly comply.

In the (dis)United Kingdom, no one stands up to nanny for very long. Expect smaller portions in the near future.

Quiet a lot of people would welcome calorie counts for dishes sold in restaurants, but accuracy obviously a problem.

HMG might legislate to protect restaurants which make a good shot at giving such information from legal action by anyone who finds unwonted inaccuracies.

Endorsement of calorie counting as the principal factor in weight gains and losses is overdue. Experiments show that – surprise! surprise! – the conservation of mass/energy applies to the human organism!

@ Hawkeye

“Scottish socialist republic”

If only! An equal, internationalist, independent Scottish republic sounds VERY good to me! One in which the citizens chose to vote for an ambitious, democratic socialist/social democratic government sounds even better!

It’s coming yet for a’ that!

@ Hawkeye

“Scottish socialist republic”

If only! An equal, internationalist, independent Scottish republic sounds VERY good to me! One in which the citizens chose to vote for an ambitious, democratic socialist/social democratic government sounds even better!

It’s coming yet for a’ that!

This is a perfect example of people ranting about something they have not actually read or understood.

The Scottish Government is not proposing to control what people eat or ‘ban’ any foods. The report specifically says that “There need be no obstacle to marketing high-calorie meals, but consumers need to be
informed.”

To argue that there is plenty of information out there on alternatives – if people don’t give a toss then that is their choice is simply not true.

There are many parents out there who are buying their kids breakfast cereals and other products which are marketed as being healthy but which are quite the opposite. It’s unrealistic to expect them to become expert nutritionists overnight, which is what you have to be to make any sense of a lot of the gobbledeegook printed on food packaging.

The FSA is already running a voluntary calorie labelling scheme for the catering industry which is being used by people like Burger King. There is no reason why that can’t be rolled out to other food chains and, with the right support, to smaller retailers and caterers as well.

Tom, me and the wife often buy a big portion of chips, a fish cake, and battered code on a Tuesday on the way home from work (not that its relevant) and divvi up the chips when we get home.

Would we be allowed to buy big portions if we could prove that they were to be shared, otherwise this is just another tax on the poor.

Otherwise it’s Dominoes 2 for 1 everytime.

Battered Code.. Christ, if that isnt Freudian.

“If only! An equal, internationalist, independent Scottish republic sounds VERY good to me!”

I hope you enjoy it. I’m off abroad so it won’t bother me because I’m not coming back.

@QZ. Congrats. Two posts, NO “Chameleons”

Keep up the good work!

Must there be a law/rule for everything? Have we so lost sight of “personal responsibility” that we need to legislate about this kind of stuff? WHat’s wrong with simple education?

The problem is there is no immediate penalty for over-eating and the attitude to it goes hand in hand with that to things like personal debt. Enjoy today, but pay tomorrow – except expect to be let off tomorrow really.

Fixing stuff like this isn’t about more legislation – its about changing the culture & is a classic example of “The more government does for people, the less they do for themselves”

Yes, smokers & drinkers pay taxes

Would you believe there is a petition on the No 10 website calling for a ban on the sale of crisps and sweets to under-16s? BTW for once I am not blaming this lunacy on any political party. I think it’s merely a private attempt at deranged übernannying, perhaps from a someone born before the eminently sensible ban on lead paints. It might even be satricial, we can hope so anyway.

(Incidentally, as is a health-police post and Mr Harris represents a Glasgow constituency, I was going to attempt a lame and predicable comment revolving around deep fried Mars Bars. As it happens, I was partly put off by a report on a magistrate’s blog that inclusion of the word ‘Scottish’ in an otherwise unrepeatable oath led to a man being charged with a Racially Aggravated Section 5 Public Order Act offence.

Presumably the Scots are similarly forbidden from publicly hyphenating ‘English’ with anything unkind. Future England-Scotland matches may well be played to silence. Now this can be blamed on Tom’s lot: banned words. Jees, that’s not so much nannying as sinister).

Final thought. In my bumpkin-land village, Tuesday is fish & chip van day: better make the most of it while it’s still legal.

Can’t decide whether to laugh or cry. This post is surely some ingenius satire.

Like killing your parents and falling at the mercy of the court on the grounds of being an orphan.

This in conjunction with your recent post mentioning your mother’s love of Labour got me to thinking, you seem to have inherited your party but developed your beliefs.

But of course being Scottish and not a socialist means you wouldn’t have your job anymore. Stick to living the lie instead.

Where is the evidence that there is an obesity epidemic ?
——————
Everywhere you look.

The food industry is a massive global enterprise which is determined to have us all eating big Macs and the like, wherever we are in the world.

And more and more people are consuming their products – laden with fats, sugars, salts, and all sorts of other ingredients which are designed to make them more-ish, because then, d’oh, we purchase more of their products.

I am certainly not a fan of the nanny state, but I am also quite convinced that a lot of people feed themselves, and more importantly their children, a load of calorific rubbish without realising it. The manufacturers market it as healthy produce.

I don’t know the ins and outs of the SNP’s proposals, but I believe that accurate labelling is essential, as is encouraging the food industry, including restraunts and fast food outlets, to accept some responsibility for the damage that their products can do if taken ill advisedly.

BTW I believe that governments can make a real difference to the health of their citizens if the will is there – look at Finland.

Was that wrong?

@Taxed to death Tuesday 23 February 2010 at 2:21 pm

Must there be a law/rule for everything? Have we so lost sight of “personal responsibility” that we need to legislate about this kind of stuff? WHat’s wrong with simple education?

Quite so. Oddly. Mrs. Thatcher’s much derided speech on “no such thing as society” is in fact a speech on the fact that personal responsibility is at the core of everything that builds a healthy society*. This seems to have collapsed in the past twelve years, and it also seems to me that Labour have, wittingly or otherwise, connived in this.

*google it and read the WHOLE speech. She notes that we must first take responsibility for ourselves, our family, then our neighbours, and then out from there. Society, she points out, is a CONCEPTUAL aggregation of this, a notion, whereas you, your family and your neighbours are real. If we do not look after these, then “society” is FUBAR. As it seems to be now.

I’ve never voted Tory in my life, and marched against Thatcher as a student when she was Education Minister. But she is spot-on with what she says in this speech. The state CANNOT look after you – and that is why Brown is so utterly misguided, in his bloated statism – only YOU can look after you.

@Quietzapple Tuesday 23 February 2010 at 6:25 pm

People may smoke and stuff themselves with all the polysaturated calorie laden foods they like at home, but I approve discouraging them from doing it in public where they set lousy examples.
//
In other words, you believe people are too stupid to make up their own minds about things?

Observer is right, we are in an obesity epidemic. However, the proposal to tackle it by reducing portions in the Ubiquitous Chip is hardly the way forward; a pleasing idea, but a silly one. And who will prise the venison pies from the hand of Fat Eck?

The key thing is to encourage kids to eat better, and that’s a monster of an issue to tackle in Scotland. In Portree, the kids get free apples and most of them end up in the bins – a shocking sight, for all sorts of reasons.

In Great Western Rd the kids swarm out of Hllhead into the chippies, stuff themselves and chuck the packaging on the ground. Of course, it’s all related. If children don’t have respect for themselves and their families and their environment then that’s what you get; fat kids who don’t give a toss. Changing that is going to be a huge problem.

I would remove all health warnings from everything including cigs. I have my sticky labels ready to put over the warning on drinks bottles.

The government could produce ( if they must) a leflet with it all in, available for collection for those that are interested.

I would urge all smokers to use the cigarette case and put your cigs in them and bypass the warnings.

It’s too late now for a Damascan conversion.

Huh. Tom has already pointed out that he’s been against nannyism all along. This is a fairly mainstream view among Labour supporters.

http://www.sirc.org/obesity/obesity_and_the_facts.shtml

There is already a balance between healthy options and junk food. The market sees to that in the main.If the state regulates it takes away responsibility and exacerbates the situation. Accurate information yes, further regulation/bans no.

Sergeant Plodder – you have hit the nail on the head there.

No there weren’t so many obese or overweight people around in the 1950s.

What the Scottish Government report argues is that it is the changes that have occurred since the 1950s in lifestyle, working patterns, modes of transport, the way food is cooked, marketed and promoted and so on that are behind the increase in obesity, as much as the decisions taken by individuals. Specifically it says that:

“Overweight and obesity cannot be tackled by just relying on individuals to change their behaviour as the factors that contribute to gaining weight have been interwoven into the very fabric of our lifestyles to such an extent that weight gain is almost inevitable in today’s society. The evidence also suggests that the provision of health information, although important, is not sufficient and that to make the changes necessary we have to reshape our living environment from one that promotes weight gain to one that supports healthy choices.”

People can agree or disagree that government has any responsibility to do anything about the obesity epidemic but they can’t argue that it doesn’t exist.

What I find interesting is that nobody would suggest the government should not intervene to change environmental factors if they contributed to an epidemic of cholera or leprosy or bubonic plague. But when it is the environmental impact on behaviour that causes ill health and premature death people seem to feel that the government should keep out. It’s an interesting line to draw.

Why are the people who refer to the Nanny State always the people who had nannies?

Back to the original question: one may make recommendations to restaurants about how much they put upon plates but any decision upon a standard portion size ignores the vast variation upon the calorie needs of individual human beings.
When I was a kid my best friend could and did eat as much as he liked and was still the skinniest kid around. My elder son likes pizzas and will happily eat a “family size” pizza but when he started university I could pick him up one-handed.
It is up to the individual to recognise their dietary needs – why should anyone expect a restaurant to know how many calories each person in Glasgow requires?

@Stewart Cowan

I asked Tom to stand up to this sexual education bill, and also take the opportunity to stop those in religious orders from telling people how to run their lives. If this bill becomes law we effectively have the ability for people to be segregated along religious beliefs lines

The UK, whilst being multicultural, still has its head of state as leader of the faith.

That being said, I do believe that “education” is necessary, and as such the sexual information should be available so that people can make their own choices rather than be rail roaded by others.

I do not need politicians and their council subordinates to tell me how to live my life with their holier than thou hypocrisy

Obeisity is a disease, and so epidemic is a reasonable word for its massive rate of occurence in the west:

disease |diˈzēz|
noun
a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, esp. one that produces specific signs or symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury : bacterial meningitis is a rare disease | a possible cause of heart disease.

• figurative a particular quality, habit, or disposition regarded as adversely affecting a person or group of people : departmental administration has often led to the dread disease of departmentalitis.
ORIGIN Middle English (in the sense [lack of ease; inconvenience] ): from Old French desaise ‘lack of ease,’ from des- (expressing reversal) + aise ‘ease.’

NB bacterial meningitus is given as an example of “a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, esp. one that produces specific signs or symptom” etc.

The effects of people on the environment and vice verca have been widely accepted for a very long time.

Likewise Jesus’ teaching that “Ye are all members one of another.”

In economics people refer to neighbourhood effects, in sociology to shared culture.

Extraordinarily fat people and public gluttony are rotten examples to our young not least and addressing such as problems should be part of any level of government’s approach to its administration of our affairs.

John77 – it is not about the restaurant deciding how many calories a person eats. That is down to the person themselves. But it is reasonable to expect the restaurant – or shop – to indicate how many calories are in the food they are selling.

John 77 – I am sorry you feel slurred, and I am sorry you didn’t have a nanny: would you like me to tuck you up? I can assure you that Iain McLeod was a high-ranking Tory who loved his nanny very much.

I trust the Oxford English Dictionary as a reliable source. If it is good enough for Countdown, it’s good enough for me.

Sod that

The fastest way to cut down on obesity is to release live tigers into Scottish shopping centres.

Slight correction to Stronghold Barricades comment that “The UK, whilst being multicultural, still has its head of state as leader of the faith.”

That is not actually so as the Queen is not the leader or head of the Church of Scotland. Not sure about the position in Wales or Northern Ireland.

Stronghold Barricades,

What you are saying is that parents do not have the right to have their children educated according to their own standards, but should let them succumb to state indoctrination which you, as a libertarian, are supposedly keen to end.

Can you see the problem?

The sex ‘education’ you want to be compulsory has really worked well hasn’t it? No wonder decent schools don’t want any part of it.

But, as usual, it all boils down to homosexuality, doesn’t it? That’s what it is always about. Well, millions of parents don’t want it thrust down their children’s throats at school.

Has it occurred that you can take ‘diversity’ too far?

Oh dear, unfortunate phrasing from Stewart Cowan and what sex education has to do with obesity I don’t know.

Although sex is said to burn off more calories than jogging. Guess there’s hope for us all.

My view re sex education at least as relevant to the blog as the views above of others.

(Tom, if your site’s software thinks this is spam it may be malfunctioning?)

QZ said “Obesity is a disease, and so epidemic is a reasonable word for its massive rate of occurence in the west”

Obesity is not a “disease” it is a condition brought about by an imbalance in the simple equation that calories out should equal or exceed calories in. It is therefore self inflicted.

You can not “catch” obesity through no fault of your own. Now, there are those who have PWS & compulsively over-eat, but still, the route cause of their obesity is the amount of food they consume, not the PWS which is the trigger for the consumption.

If you gain weight you need to eat fewer calories and/or exercise more to get rid of it.

Indeed, I myself have proved this theory only last week by eating a huge amount – but also managing to lose 3-4 lbs because I spent the week up a mountain doing some serious skiing for 6-7 hours a day.

(and for those that think skiing isn’t exercise, you ain’t doin’ it properly! )

Despite the extremely high calorific intake, I still managed to lose weight.

So unless the obese have found a way to circumvent the laws of physics that say that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, – only changed into energy – E=MC2 & all that , the solution to their problem is readily available to them.

What they lack is motivation and will power. Sadly, I expect some of them are waiting for this government to pass a law to cure their problems

Agreed obesity is not itself a disease. It is a condition which contributes to disease.

It is of epidemic proportions. In 2008, 26.8% of adults in Scotland were obese and 65.1% were overweight; for children the corresponding rates were 15.1% and 31.7%..

If you take the point of view of most people posting on here this is an outcome of decisions made by individuals and nothing for anyone to worry about. As AJ says “There is already a balance between healthy options and junk food. The market sees to that in the main.”

The drawback with that is that, the market having decided that loads more people are going to become dangerously fat, everyone else will see more of their tax going to treat that.

@Indy
Noun
•S: (n) epidemic (a widespread outbreak of an infectious disease; many people are infected at the same time)
Adjective
•S: (adj) epidemic ((especially of medicine) of disease or anything resembling a disease; attacking or affecting many individuals in a community or a population simultaneously) “an epidemic outbreak of influenza”

How does people eating too much equate with the definition of the word epidemic.

More people are fat because they eat too much and exercise too little.

The treatment is instilling some sense into people.

The occasional binge does little harm.

@Qits
Extraordinarily fat people and public gluttony are rotten examples to our young not least and addressing such as problems should be part of any level of government’s approach to its administration of our affairs.

What else in in your list of things you don’t like and want to have banned?

It’s simple, if people eat too much they get fat.
Too much means more than they burn.

By mis-using and redefining words you and your ilk are crafting a myth.

Calling it an epidemic or disease implies, even if you demure from it, that it is a medical condition and so treatable and not the fault of the fatty.

I’m overweight, it’s my fault.
Don’t try and blame society, the environment, advertisers etc.

In fact, most advertising is anti-fatty.

Chris Wills

epidemic noun (PROBLEM)
/ˌep.ɪˈdem.ɪk/ n
[C usually singular] a particular problem that seriously affects many people at the same time.

An epidemic disease has those qualities but a condition or problem does not have to be a disease to be epidemic.

Any quality or state can reach epidemic proportions if it affects many people at the same time.

Poverty for example can be said to have reached epidemic proportions in certain parts of the world. That does not make poverty a disease – however, poverty is a major contributary factor to disease and ill health, in the same way that obesity is.

The issue with obesity is that it is not simply an issue for individuals – it is something that is happening at a population level.

[...] Left which calls for boycotts? Why must that, rather than argument, be our gut reaction? That and banning stuff, [...]