Where was that island where they had the "Prince Philip Movement" , where they had merged his own arrival on the island with a piece of ancestral mythology, in a sort of socially adaptive, self-stabilising exercise ? Presumably this won't be passed on to Charles, or perhaps yes ?
1) your god exists. He turns up and everything 2) he doesn’t demand much. In fact he gave you stuff, unasked. Compare to requests for first born etc 3) his wife had the ability to destroy whole countries. Proven - not fairy tales in old books. 4) because of Phil, there was an element of diplomatic protection for them. U.K. had an interest etc.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I think controlling weight and eventually obesity is a really tough one for a lot of people. Some people don't get fat, for a lot of reasons. Some are very self disciplined, recognising that if they don't control what the eat and drink they will put on weight. Others are more naturally blessed, such as my wife. When she isn't hungry she has no interest in food. None. For me, I can eat whenever - hungry or not. I have poor control. I don't particularly eat a bad diet but almost certainly too much.
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
Yep, it's complicated. At the base level, the solution to obesity is to eat less and/or exercise more. But there do seem to be substantial differences between what people can eat without becoming overwieght, beyond obvious differences in exercise. Some physiology, I expect, but maybe also some micro-differences in lifestyle and activity that are not easily recorded.
The eating less issue is key IMHO. Every fat person I know, especially those who complain they can’t lose weight just eat too much.
They will have giant plates or bowls of food and then express shock that they are still fat “but I’m not eating really unhealthy food” they cry without realising they are eating enough for four people in the evening so not only too much food but no time to burn it off as they are also too full to do anything but have a food coma on the sofa afterwards.
So if the gov have to do anything they need to really start hammering home portion sizes to people - when the ready meal says “serves 4” it generally means it unless you are working physically all day or exercising a lot.
Too true. As I've written here before, despite eating healthily I was for several years overweight, because I was overeating at meal times. Last year I lost a lot of weight, so that I am now a "healthy" weight and this year have sucessfully kept the weight off. Eating less was easily the main factor in losing weight.
I find the difference in how people react to smoking and obesity interesting. I’m an idiot and I smoke. I know it’s totally stupid and have given myself a point where I stop - it’s a specific moment soon where I will because of other things in my life but I know it will be when I totally stop.
When someone criticises me for smoking, as people do, I don’t have a strop or cry but agree saying “yes it’s grim and stupid and will stop”.
If however you tell someone they should eat less and lose weight as it’s bad for them then it tends to get a slightly less accepting reception.
What I find odd is when I make a comment about one aspect of *my* life, and the person I am talking thinks I am criticising their way of doing things. I see this all the time, but one good example is when I lived in London. I said I don't need to use a car living in London, my freind justified at great lengths why she used a car despite living fairly central. I certainly hadn't implied that she should not drive and I find it odd how people don't just accept the different people do things differently.
How many people go into the shops and ask for 454 grams of mince for example... most don't know that 454 grams is a pound weight. I often ask for 681 grams of mince in our butcher....
Radio 4 More or Less…..Govt Dept BEIS consultation on Imperial measures
Would you prefer to shop in: 1) Imperial Measures 2) Imperial Measures with Metric Measures 3) There is no third option….
Sigh... this is utterly stupid. Is this a JRM special?
It is indeed. The man is a walking parody. I don't know what the playground right wing version of woke is, but this is an example. Pure virtue signalling. Not a vote winner.
And, it should be said, highly unlikely to become law before the next election whereupon it will be buried never to resurface.
'I don't know what the playground right wing version of woke is'
Comatose?
Verkrampte is the Afrikaans word. We could adopt that.
It roughly means narrow minded, particularly on racial issues, but in Afrikaans is not considered a pejorative label, just descriptive.
Nothing kills an evening at a nice restaurant stone dead more effectively than seeing the effing calories of each option.
As The Trip showed and we all knew but tried to ignore, seemingly the most important ingredient for just about everything on a menu is cream and butter.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I think controlling weight and eventually obesity is a really tough one for a lot of people. Some people don't get fat, for a lot of reasons. Some are very self disciplined, recognising that if they don't control what the eat and drink they will put on weight. Others are more naturally blessed, such as my wife. When she isn't hungry she has no interest in food. None. For me, I can eat whenever - hungry or not. I have poor control. I don't particularly eat a bad diet but almost certainly too much.
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
Yep, it's complicated. At the base level, the solution to obesity is to eat less and/or exercise more. But there do seem to be substantial differences between what people can eat without becoming overwieght, beyond obvious differences in exercise. Some physiology, I expect, but maybe also some micro-differences in lifestyle and activity that are not easily recorded.
The eating less issue is key IMHO. Every fat person I know, especially those who complain they can’t lose weight just eat too much.
They will have giant plates or bowls of food and then express shock that they are still fat “but I’m not eating really unhealthy food” they cry without realising they are eating enough for four people in the evening so not only too much food but no time to burn it off as they are also too full to do anything but have a food coma on the sofa afterwards.
So if the gov have to do anything they need to really start hammering home portion sizes to people - when the ready meal says “serves 4” it generally means it unless you are working physically all day or exercising a lot.
Too true. As I've written here before, despite eating healthily I was for several years overweight, because I was overeating at meal times. Last year I lost a lot of weight, so that I am now a "healthy" weight and this year have sucessfully kept the weight off. Eating less was easily the main factor in losing weight.
I find the difference in how people react to smoking and obesity interesting. I’m an idiot and I smoke. I know it’s totally stupid and have given myself a point where I stop - it’s a specific moment soon where I will because of other things in my life but I know it will be when I totally stop.
When someone criticises me for smoking, as people do, I don’t have a strop or cry but agree saying “yes it’s grim and stupid and will stop”.
If however you tell someone they should eat less and lose weight as it’s bad for them then it tends to get a slightly less accepting reception.
Also at the risk of being controversial:
My wife usually doles out the meals and I get a slightly larger helping than my wife does. I think this is generally the case - that the male eats more than the female. Calorie recommendations seem to imply this. My wife is only 73% of my weight (or I am 137% of hers if you like). I assume the practice in our house is common country-wide?
So why in restaurants are orders served of the same quantity of food regardless of whether the diner is male or female?
Most restaurants give meal options that are bigger or smaller, and choices of sides that can be more or less calorific too.
Its absolutely possible in a lot of restaurants for one person to have eg a Mixed Grill with chips etc with about 1500 calories while someone else has a chicken salad with about 500 calories.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I think controlling weight and eventually obesity is a really tough one for a lot of people. Some people don't get fat, for a lot of reasons. Some are very self disciplined, recognising that if they don't control what the eat and drink they will put on weight. Others are more naturally blessed, such as my wife. When she isn't hungry she has no interest in food. None. For me, I can eat whenever - hungry or not. I have poor control. I don't particularly eat a bad diet but almost certainly too much.
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
Yep, it's complicated. At the base level, the solution to obesity is to eat less and/or exercise more. But there do seem to be substantial differences between what people can eat without becoming overwieght, beyond obvious differences in exercise. Some physiology, I expect, but maybe also some micro-differences in lifestyle and activity that are not easily recorded.
The eating less issue is key IMHO. Every fat person I know, especially those who complain they can’t lose weight just eat too much.
They will have giant plates or bowls of food and then express shock that they are still fat “but I’m not eating really unhealthy food” they cry without realising they are eating enough for four people in the evening so not only too much food but no time to burn it off as they are also too full to do anything but have a food coma on the sofa afterwards.
So if the gov have to do anything they need to really start hammering home portion sizes to people - when the ready meal says “serves 4” it generally means it unless you are working physically all day or exercising a lot.
Too true. As I've written here before, despite eating healthily I was for several years overweight, because I was overeating at meal times. Last year I lost a lot of weight, so that I am now a "healthy" weight and this year have sucessfully kept the weight off. Eating less was easily the main factor in losing weight.
I find the difference in how people react to smoking and obesity interesting. I’m an idiot and I smoke. I know it’s totally stupid and have given myself a point where I stop - it’s a specific moment soon where I will because of other things in my life but I know it will be when I totally stop.
When someone criticises me for smoking, as people do, I don’t have a strop or cry but agree saying “yes it’s grim and stupid and will stop”.
If however you tell someone they should eat less and lose weight as it’s bad for them then it tends to get a slightly less accepting reception.
Also at the risk of being controversial:
My wife usually doles out the meals and I get a slightly larger helping than my wife does. I think this is generally the case - that the male eats more than the female. Calorie recommendations seem to imply this. My wife is only 73% of my weight (or I am 137% of hers if you like). I assume the practice in our house is common country-wide?
So why in restaurants are orders served of the same quantity of food regardless of whether the diner is male or female?
Would your restaurant serve more to the 5ft2 bloke or the 6ft2 woman?
Maybe it’s Danny De Vito on a date with Nicole Kidman. In which case I think the Stocky rule applies.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I think controlling weight and eventually obesity is a really tough one for a lot of people. Some people don't get fat, for a lot of reasons. Some are very self disciplined, recognising that if they don't control what the eat and drink they will put on weight. Others are more naturally blessed, such as my wife. When she isn't hungry she has no interest in food. None. For me, I can eat whenever - hungry or not. I have poor control. I don't particularly eat a bad diet but almost certainly too much.
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
Yep, it's complicated. At the base level, the solution to obesity is to eat less and/or exercise more. But there do seem to be substantial differences between what people can eat without becoming overwieght, beyond obvious differences in exercise. Some physiology, I expect, but maybe also some micro-differences in lifestyle and activity that are not easily recorded.
The eating less issue is key IMHO. Every fat person I know, especially those who complain they can’t lose weight just eat too much.
They will have giant plates or bowls of food and then express shock that they are still fat “but I’m not eating really unhealthy food” they cry without realising they are eating enough for four people in the evening so not only too much food but no time to burn it off as they are also too full to do anything but have a food coma on the sofa afterwards.
So if the gov have to do anything they need to really start hammering home portion sizes to people - when the ready meal says “serves 4” it generally means it unless you are working physically all day or exercising a lot.
Too true. As I've written here before, despite eating healthily I was for several years overweight, because I was overeating at meal times. Last year I lost a lot of weight, so that I am now a "healthy" weight and this year have sucessfully kept the weight off. Eating less was easily the main factor in losing weight.
I find the difference in how people react to smoking and obesity interesting. I’m an idiot and I smoke. I know it’s totally stupid and have given myself a point where I stop - it’s a specific moment soon where I will because of other things in my life but I know it will be when I totally stop.
When someone criticises me for smoking, as people do, I don’t have a strop or cry but agree saying “yes it’s grim and stupid and will stop”.
If however you tell someone they should eat less and lose weight as it’s bad for them then it tends to get a slightly less accepting reception.
Also at the risk of being controversial:
My wife usually doles out the meals and I get a slightly larger helping than my wife does. I think this is generally the case - that the male eats more than the female. Calorie recommendations seem to imply this. My wife is only 73% of my weight (or I am 137% of hers if you like). I assume the practice in our house is common country-wide?
So why in restaurants are orders served of the same quantity of food regardless of whether the diner is male or female?
Would your restaurant serve more to the 5ft2 bloke or the 6ft2 woman?
Yes, that's the obvious objection - but this would I suggest be rare, and would a rare household consisting of a 5ft2 bloke and a 6ft2 woman still tend to serve slightly larger portions to the male?
We need polling in the Carribean realms. A lot of their governments get tempted to fire from the hip - I suspect it's not a slam dunk in Antigua or even Jamaica.
Two factors at play here, I suspect. And likewise in Canada. The main one is complacency. Canada, Oz and NZ are all successful, prosperous democracies. Why risk that with wrenching political change?
I also suspect a backlash against Woke. Everyone Anglo in Oz and NZ is constantly bashed over the head with “white guilt” and “we stole these lands”
What’s a good but quiet way of subtly rebelling against all that? By saying “yes fair enough, but we also have our own European heritage, and we’re quite proud of that, actually”
So they stick with the monarchy.
Cf the NZ referendum to change the flag and drop the Union Jack. That failed badly. It was a discreet fuck-you to liberal Wokeness
It failed but not by quite as wide a margin as I'd thought.
But, I think that works both ways.
Are you and Leon quite OK with how "woke" Charles, William and Harry are or has it not really dawned on you both yet?
Do you really think that is anything other than a public relations strategy ?
I mean, if you are looking for families that directly benefitted from slavery, it would be hard to find better examples than the various Royal Families of Europe, especially the UK Royal Family.
So, I don't for one moment believe that Charles & Co seriously entertain financially compensating the peoples who enriched them.
The "wokeness" is to obscure their culpability.
The "wokeness' is to tarnish the whole population of the UK with collective guilt for slavery, when it was largely a ruling elite who benefitted.
I don't see it as tarnishing anything, more a question of opening our eyes to what happened rather than sweeping it under the carpet. Of course the main beneficiaries from any economic system will be the people at the top of the system, but actually the profits from slavery were spread fairly widely. We know from data on who was compensated when slavery was abolished (the owners not the slaves of course!) that there were plenty of widows on fairly modest incomes and the like who had a stake in it, with Scotland over represented iirc. There were plenty of overseer jobs out on the plantations. The cotton grown by slaves in the US provided jobs in British mill towns. Sugar, cotton, tobacco and other crops grown using slave labour were available to British consumers at lower cost. Government treasuries benefited and supported the growth of Britain as a major European power, which probably benefited the average person. It's always popular to blame 'the elite' for everything, on the left and the right, but the reality is that complicity starts at the top but definitely percolate downwards. Again, not a question of guilt, it's certainly not something I feel any guilt over, but a question of being honest about the historical record.
We need polling in the Carribean realms. A lot of their governments get tempted to fire from the hip - I suspect it's not a slam dunk in Antigua or even Jamaica.
Two factors at play here, I suspect. And likewise in Canada. The main one is complacency. Canada, Oz and NZ are all successful, prosperous democracies. Why risk that with wrenching political change?
I also suspect a backlash against Woke. Everyone Anglo in Oz and NZ is constantly bashed over the head with “white guilt” and “we stole these lands”
What’s a good but quiet way of subtly rebelling against all that? By saying “yes fair enough, but we also have our own European heritage, and we’re quite proud of that, actually”
So they stick with the monarchy.
Cf the NZ referendum to change the flag and drop the Union Jack. That failed badly. It was a discreet fuck-you to liberal Wokeness
It failed but not by quite as wide a margin as I'd thought.
But, I think that works both ways.
Are you and Leon quite OK with how "woke" Charles, William and Harry are or has it not really dawned on you both yet?
Do you really think that is anything other than a public relations strategy ?
I mean, if you are looking for families that directly benefitted from slavery, it would be hard to find better examples than the various Royal Families of Europe, especially the UK Royal Family.
So, I don't for one moment believe that Charles & Co seriously entertain financially compensating the peoples who enriched them.
The "wokeness" is to obscure their culpability.
The "wokeness' is to tarnish the whole population of the UK with collective guilt for slavery, when it was largely a ruling elite who benefitted.
Depends what you mean by "wokeness". Charles multicultural spiritualism and environmentalism aren't a public relations strategy - they were facets of what was circulating when he was young in 1970. It's not modern wokeness, but it's helpful.
"Save the Red Squirrel" is not "wokeness". Mumbo-jumbo about spiritualism and alternative medicine is not "wokeness".
Even ignoring aside his personal life, Charles is a very flawed figure who will do enormous damage to the monarchy.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I think controlling weight and eventually obesity is a really tough one for a lot of people. Some people don't get fat, for a lot of reasons. Some are very self disciplined, recognising that if they don't control what the eat and drink they will put on weight. Others are more naturally blessed, such as my wife. When she isn't hungry she has no interest in food. None. For me, I can eat whenever - hungry or not. I have poor control. I don't particularly eat a bad diet but almost certainly too much.
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
Yep, it's complicated. At the base level, the solution to obesity is to eat less and/or exercise more. But there do seem to be substantial differences between what people can eat without becoming overwieght, beyond obvious differences in exercise. Some physiology, I expect, but maybe also some micro-differences in lifestyle and activity that are not easily recorded.
The eating less issue is key IMHO. Every fat person I know, especially those who complain they can’t lose weight just eat too much.
They will have giant plates or bowls of food and then express shock that they are still fat “but I’m not eating really unhealthy food” they cry without realising they are eating enough for four people in the evening so not only too much food but no time to burn it off as they are also too full to do anything but have a food coma on the sofa afterwards.
So if the gov have to do anything they need to really start hammering home portion sizes to people - when the ready meal says “serves 4” it generally means it unless you are working physically all day or exercising a lot.
Too true. As I've written here before, despite eating healthily I was for several years overweight, because I was overeating at meal times. Last year I lost a lot of weight, so that I am now a "healthy" weight and this year have sucessfully kept the weight off. Eating less was easily the main factor in losing weight.
I find the difference in how people react to smoking and obesity interesting. I’m an idiot and I smoke. I know it’s totally stupid and have given myself a point where I stop - it’s a specific moment soon where I will because of other things in my life but I know it will be when I totally stop.
When someone criticises me for smoking, as people do, I don’t have a strop or cry but agree saying “yes it’s grim and stupid and will stop”.
If however you tell someone they should eat less and lose weight as it’s bad for them then it tends to get a slightly less accepting reception.
Also at the risk of being controversial:
My wife usually doles out the meals and I get a slightly larger helping than my wife does. I think this is generally the case - that the male eats more than the female. Calorie recommendations seem to imply this. My wife is only 73% of my weight (or I am 137% of hers if you like). I assume the practice in our house is common country-wide?
So why in restaurants are orders served of the same quantity of food regardless of whether the diner is male or female?
Most restaurants give meal options that are bigger or smaller, and choices of sides that can be more or less calorific too.
Its absolutely possible in a lot of restaurants for one person to have eg a Mixed Grill with chips etc with about 1500 calories while someone else has a chicken salad with about 500 calories.
Yes but that misses the point. If a 6ft2 man and a 5ft2 woman both order a mixed grill they get the same portion size.
Mr. B, to be honest, it's the nonsense of decimalisation that aggravates me more. Bring back the sensible system of 240d in a pound, with shillings, florins, crowns, and guineas to add a little extra.
We need polling in the Carribean realms. A lot of their governments get tempted to fire from the hip - I suspect it's not a slam dunk in Antigua or even Jamaica.
Two factors at play here, I suspect. And likewise in Canada. The main one is complacency. Canada, Oz and NZ are all successful, prosperous democracies. Why risk that with wrenching political change?
I also suspect a backlash against Woke. Everyone Anglo in Oz and NZ is constantly bashed over the head with “white guilt” and “we stole these lands”
What’s a good but quiet way of subtly rebelling against all that? By saying “yes fair enough, but we also have our own European heritage, and we’re quite proud of that, actually”
So they stick with the monarchy.
Cf the NZ referendum to change the flag and drop the Union Jack. That failed badly. It was a discreet fuck-you to liberal Wokeness
It failed but not by quite as wide a margin as I'd thought.
But, I think that works both ways.
Are you and Leon quite OK with how "woke" Charles, William and Harry are or has it not really dawned on you both yet?
Do you really think that is anything other than a public relations strategy ?
I mean, if you are looking for families that directly benefitted from slavery, it would be hard to find better examples than the various Royal Families of Europe, especially the UK Royal Family.
So, I don't for one moment believe that Charles & Co seriously entertain financially compensating the peoples who enriched them.
The "wokeness" is to obscure their culpability.
The "wokeness' is to tarnish the whole population of the UK with collective guilt for slavery, when it was largely a ruling elite who benefitted.
Depends what you mean by "wokeness". Charles multicultural spiritualism and environmentalism aren't a public relations strategy - they were facets of what was circulating when he was young in 1970. It's not modern wokeness, but it's helpful.
"Save the Red Squirrel" is not "wokeness". Mumbo-jumbo about spiritualism and alternative medicine is not "wokeness".
Even ignoring aside his personal life, Charles is a very flawed figure who will do enormous damage to the monarchy.
But it's progressive, not reactionary. I support it.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I think controlling weight and eventually obesity is a really tough one for a lot of people. Some people don't get fat, for a lot of reasons. Some are very self disciplined, recognising that if they don't control what the eat and drink they will put on weight. Others are more naturally blessed, such as my wife. When she isn't hungry she has no interest in food. None. For me, I can eat whenever - hungry or not. I have poor control. I don't particularly eat a bad diet but almost certainly too much.
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
Yep, it's complicated. At the base level, the solution to obesity is to eat less and/or exercise more. But there do seem to be substantial differences between what people can eat without becoming overwieght, beyond obvious differences in exercise. Some physiology, I expect, but maybe also some micro-differences in lifestyle and activity that are not easily recorded.
The eating less issue is key IMHO. Every fat person I know, especially those who complain they can’t lose weight just eat too much.
They will have giant plates or bowls of food and then express shock that they are still fat “but I’m not eating really unhealthy food” they cry without realising they are eating enough for four people in the evening so not only too much food but no time to burn it off as they are also too full to do anything but have a food coma on the sofa afterwards.
So if the gov have to do anything they need to really start hammering home portion sizes to people - when the ready meal says “serves 4” it generally means it unless you are working physically all day or exercising a lot.
Too true. As I've written here before, despite eating healthily I was for several years overweight, because I was overeating at meal times. Last year I lost a lot of weight, so that I am now a "healthy" weight and this year have sucessfully kept the weight off. Eating less was easily the main factor in losing weight.
I find the difference in how people react to smoking and obesity interesting. I’m an idiot and I smoke. I know it’s totally stupid and have given myself a point where I stop - it’s a specific moment soon where I will because of other things in my life but I know it will be when I totally stop.
When someone criticises me for smoking, as people do, I don’t have a strop or cry but agree saying “yes it’s grim and stupid and will stop”.
If however you tell someone they should eat less and lose weight as it’s bad for them then it tends to get a slightly less accepting reception.
Also at the risk of being controversial:
My wife usually doles out the meals and I get a slightly larger helping than my wife does. I think this is generally the case - that the male eats more than the female. Calorie recommendations seem to imply this. My wife is only 73% of my weight (or I am 137% of hers if you like). I assume the practice in our house is common country-wide?
So why in restaurants are orders served of the same quantity of food regardless of whether the diner is male or female?
Most restaurants give meal options that are bigger or smaller, and choices of sides that can be more or less calorific too.
Its absolutely possible in a lot of restaurants for one person to have eg a Mixed Grill with chips etc with about 1500 calories while someone else has a chicken salad with about 500 calories.
Yes but that misses the point. If a 6ft2 man and a 5ft2 woman both order a mixed grill they get the same portion size.
Nobody compels them to both order a mixed grill though.
The kitchen staff aren't and shouldn't be judging clients and figuring out how big each portion should be. You can look at the menu and choose a bigger or smaller option depending upon your own preferences.
How many people go into the shops and ask for 454 grams of mince for example... most don't know that 454 grams is a pound weight. I often ask for 681 grams of mince in our butcher....
I would ask for half a kilo...
That's only 227 grams...
Half a kilo is 500 grams ...
I don't ask for any weight, since I don't go to a butcher, I just grab whatever appropriate sized pack exists on the shelf at the supermarket. .
Yes, a lot of the "debate" around weight for shopping ignores the reality that we mainly buy goods by the packet, tin, box or bottle, without much regard for the technicalities of what the producer has written on the label, which is generally not a round number of kilograms or litres.
There is the old joke about the 16-year-old screwing up his courage to buy his first condoms. "Small, medium or large?" asked the chemist. He came out with a box of 50.
Part of the problem with "anti-obesity" measures is that not everybody agrees what causes obesity or what "healthy" foods actually are.
On a simplistic level, sure, everyone agrees calories in versus calories out but then when you start to think about policies on foods 'high in fat' etc - actually there's a lot of evidence that foods high in fat can be quite healthy.
For a very long time foods high in fat have been stigmatised and still today in the supermarkets you see 'low fat' advertised as if its healthier, but if you check the nutritional information on a lot of 'low fat' alternatives, the fat has been replaced with sugar instead.
Is it healthier to eat 'low fat' but high sugar food, or lower sugar but higher fat foods? Speak to different people and you'll get different answers.
At an underlying level you are correct, but there is a huge danger that this kind of comment quickly turns into the argument/excuse "if the experts can't agree, i'll just carry on regardless". This approach has been very sucessfully employed by the anti global warning camp, and has long dogged nutritional advice.
There is a lot of concensus by those who work in this area, and the know that detail is a lot more nuanced than "fat=bad". Differences in opinions are quite small, but these tend to get amplified by media reporting and the food industry.
Getting good advice accross to everyone is not easy, partly because some are only prepared to listen to very simple guidelines, and others want much more detail.
The approach we take with our children is that the more multicoloured the meal, the better.
Not fail safe but pretty decent as a measure. Beige food is the killer.
Hmm, A blue slush puppy, green pistacio ice cream, pink blancmange and a multicoloured stick of rock. Very healthy meal.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I think controlling weight and eventually obesity is a really tough one for a lot of people. Some people don't get fat, for a lot of reasons. Some are very self disciplined, recognising that if they don't control what the eat and drink they will put on weight. Others are more naturally blessed, such as my wife. When she isn't hungry she has no interest in food. None. For me, I can eat whenever - hungry or not. I have poor control. I don't particularly eat a bad diet but almost certainly too much.
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
Yep, it's complicated. At the base level, the solution to obesity is to eat less and/or exercise more. But there do seem to be substantial differences between what people can eat without becoming overwieght, beyond obvious differences in exercise. Some physiology, I expect, but maybe also some micro-differences in lifestyle and activity that are not easily recorded.
The eating less issue is key IMHO. Every fat person I know, especially those who complain they can’t lose weight just eat too much.
They will have giant plates or bowls of food and then express shock that they are still fat “but I’m not eating really unhealthy food” they cry without realising they are eating enough for four people in the evening so not only too much food but no time to burn it off as they are also too full to do anything but have a food coma on the sofa afterwards.
So if the gov have to do anything they need to really start hammering home portion sizes to people - when the ready meal says “serves 4” it generally means it unless you are working physically all day or exercising a lot.
Too true. As I've written here before, despite eating healthily I was for several years overweight, because I was overeating at meal times. Last year I lost a lot of weight, so that I am now a "healthy" weight and this year have sucessfully kept the weight off. Eating less was easily the main factor in losing weight.
I find the difference in how people react to smoking and obesity interesting. I’m an idiot and I smoke. I know it’s totally stupid and have given myself a point where I stop - it’s a specific moment soon where I will because of other things in my life but I know it will be when I totally stop.
When someone criticises me for smoking, as people do, I don’t have a strop or cry but agree saying “yes it’s grim and stupid and will stop”.
If however you tell someone they should eat less and lose weight as it’s bad for them then it tends to get a slightly less accepting reception.
Also at the risk of being controversial:
My wife usually doles out the meals and I get a slightly larger helping than my wife does. I think this is generally the case - that the male eats more than the female. Calorie recommendations seem to imply this. My wife is only 73% of my weight (or I am 137% of hers if you like). I assume the practice in our house is common country-wide?
So why in restaurants are orders served of the same quantity of food regardless of whether the diner is male or female?
Would your restaurant serve more to the 5ft2 bloke or the 6ft2 woman?
Yes, that's the obvious objection - but this would I suggest be rare, and would a rare household consisting of a 5ft2 bloke and a 6ft2 woman still tend to serve slightly larger portions to the male?
Restaurants are not just serving couples. Work colleagues, friends or a small grandad with his much taller granddaughter perhaps.
A few restaurants offer the same meals in starter/main or small/regular portions nowadays. I think that is sensible and should reduce food waste but is as far as a restaurant can go in tailoring meal sizes without getting it wrong and causing offence.
How many people go into the shops and ask for 454 grams of mince for example... most don't know that 454 grams is a pound weight. I often ask for 681 grams of mince in our butcher....
I would ask for half a kilo...
That's only 227 grams...
Half a kilo is 500 grams ...
I don't ask for any weight, since I don't go to a butcher, I just grab whatever appropriate sized pack exists on the shelf at the supermarket. .
Our local butcher provides far superior meat to the supermarkets (including Waitrose and Morrisons locally). I recommend using the butcher if you can (time usually the issue).
Part of the problem with "anti-obesity" measures is that not everybody agrees what causes obesity or what "healthy" foods actually are.
On a simplistic level, sure, everyone agrees calories in versus calories out but then when you start to think about policies on foods 'high in fat' etc - actually there's a lot of evidence that foods high in fat can be quite healthy.
For a very long time foods high in fat have been stigmatised and still today in the supermarkets you see 'low fat' advertised as if its healthier, but if you check the nutritional information on a lot of 'low fat' alternatives, the fat has been replaced with sugar instead.
Is it healthier to eat 'low fat' but high sugar food, or lower sugar but higher fat foods? Speak to different people and you'll get different answers.
At an underlying level you are correct, but there is a huge danger that this kind of comment quickly turns into the argument/excuse "if the experts can't agree, i'll just carry on regardless". This approach has been very sucessfully employed by the anti global warning camp, and has long dogged nutritional advice.
There is a lot of concensus by those who work in this area, and the know that detail is a lot more nuanced than "fat=bad". Differences in opinions are quite small, but these tend to get amplified by media reporting and the food industry.
Getting good advice accross to everyone is not easy, partly because some are only prepared to listen to very simple guidelines, and others want much more detail.
The approach we take with our children is that the more multicoloured the meal, the better.
Not fail safe but pretty decent as a measure. Beige food is the killer.
That's really not good advice if you're foraging mushrooms...
Radio 4 More or Less…..Govt Dept BEIS consultation on Imperial measures
Would you prefer to shop in: 1) Imperial Measures 2) Imperial Measures with Metric Measures 3) There is no third option….
Sigh... this is utterly stupid. Is this a JRM special?
Yes. I still dont get the attachment. Sure, I give my weight in imperial but I cannot summon up a patriotic boner at the prospect of buying a pound of sausages.
One thing that bothered me hugely when in hospital for 5 weeks was the NHS trying to balance every meal, rather than allowing balance over a longer period of time. Chips one day is not an issue. Not every meal needs to be exactly tailored to deliver the golden ratio of carbs, fats, sugars etc. I'd actually suggest for patients, erring on the slightly more comfort food might help. It would have helped me!
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I think controlling weight and eventually obesity is a really tough one for a lot of people. Some people don't get fat, for a lot of reasons. Some are very self disciplined, recognising that if they don't control what the eat and drink they will put on weight. Others are more naturally blessed, such as my wife. When she isn't hungry she has no interest in food. None. For me, I can eat whenever - hungry or not. I have poor control. I don't particularly eat a bad diet but almost certainly too much.
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
Yep, it's complicated. At the base level, the solution to obesity is to eat less and/or exercise more. But there do seem to be substantial differences between what people can eat without becoming overwieght, beyond obvious differences in exercise. Some physiology, I expect, but maybe also some micro-differences in lifestyle and activity that are not easily recorded.
The eating less issue is key IMHO. Every fat person I know, especially those who complain they can’t lose weight just eat too much.
They will have giant plates or bowls of food and then express shock that they are still fat “but I’m not eating really unhealthy food” they cry without realising they are eating enough for four people in the evening so not only too much food but no time to burn it off as they are also too full to do anything but have a food coma on the sofa afterwards.
So if the gov have to do anything they need to really start hammering home portion sizes to people - when the ready meal says “serves 4” it generally means it unless you are working physically all day or exercising a lot.
Too true. As I've written here before, despite eating healthily I was for several years overweight, because I was overeating at meal times. Last year I lost a lot of weight, so that I am now a "healthy" weight and this year have sucessfully kept the weight off. Eating less was easily the main factor in losing weight.
I find the difference in how people react to smoking and obesity interesting. I’m an idiot and I smoke. I know it’s totally stupid and have given myself a point where I stop - it’s a specific moment soon where I will because of other things in my life but I know it will be when I totally stop.
When someone criticises me for smoking, as people do, I don’t have a strop or cry but agree saying “yes it’s grim and stupid and will stop”.
If however you tell someone they should eat less and lose weight as it’s bad for them then it tends to get a slightly less accepting reception.
Also at the risk of being controversial:
My wife usually doles out the meals and I get a slightly larger helping than my wife does. I think this is generally the case - that the male eats more than the female. Calorie recommendations seem to imply this. My wife is only 73% of my weight (or I am 137% of hers if you like). I assume the practice in our house is common country-wide?
So why in restaurants are orders served of the same quantity of food regardless of whether the diner is male or female?
Would your restaurant serve more to the 5ft2 bloke or the 6ft2 woman?
Yes, that's the obvious objection - but this would I suggest be rare, and would a rare household consisting of a 5ft2 bloke and a 6ft2 woman still tend to serve slightly larger portions to the male?
Restaurants are not just serving couples. Work colleagues, friends or a small grandad with his much taller granddaughter perhaps.
A few restaurants offer the same meals in starter/main or small/regular portions nowadays. I think that is sensible and should reduce food waste but is as far as a restaurant can go in tailoring meal sizes without getting it wrong and causing offence.
The small fish and chips some shops do is the perfect amount for me on the way back from a hill walk or on a night out. The regular size is just stupidly big.
How many people go into the shops and ask for 454 grams of mince for example... most don't know that 454 grams is a pound weight. I often ask for 681 grams of mince in our butcher....
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I think controlling weight and eventually obesity is a really tough one for a lot of people. Some people don't get fat, for a lot of reasons. Some are very self disciplined, recognising that if they don't control what the eat and drink they will put on weight. Others are more naturally blessed, such as my wife. When she isn't hungry she has no interest in food. None. For me, I can eat whenever - hungry or not. I have poor control. I don't particularly eat a bad diet but almost certainly too much.
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
Yep, it's complicated. At the base level, the solution to obesity is to eat less and/or exercise more. But there do seem to be substantial differences between what people can eat without becoming overwieght, beyond obvious differences in exercise. Some physiology, I expect, but maybe also some micro-differences in lifestyle and activity that are not easily recorded.
The eating less issue is key IMHO. Every fat person I know, especially those who complain they can’t lose weight just eat too much.
They will have giant plates or bowls of food and then express shock that they are still fat “but I’m not eating really unhealthy food” they cry without realising they are eating enough for four people in the evening so not only too much food but no time to burn it off as they are also too full to do anything but have a food coma on the sofa afterwards.
So if the gov have to do anything they need to really start hammering home portion sizes to people - when the ready meal says “serves 4” it generally means it unless you are working physically all day or exercising a lot.
Too true. As I've written here before, despite eating healthily I was for several years overweight, because I was overeating at meal times. Last year I lost a lot of weight, so that I am now a "healthy" weight and this year have sucessfully kept the weight off. Eating less was easily the main factor in losing weight.
I find the difference in how people react to smoking and obesity interesting. I’m an idiot and I smoke. I know it’s totally stupid and have given myself a point where I stop - it’s a specific moment soon where I will because of other things in my life but I know it will be when I totally stop.
When someone criticises me for smoking, as people do, I don’t have a strop or cry but agree saying “yes it’s grim and stupid and will stop”.
If however you tell someone they should eat less and lose weight as it’s bad for them then it tends to get a slightly less accepting reception.
Also at the risk of being controversial:
My wife usually doles out the meals and I get a slightly larger helping than my wife does. I think this is generally the case - that the male eats more than the female. Calorie recommendations seem to imply this. My wife is only 73% of my weight (or I am 137% of hers if you like). I assume the practice in our house is common country-wide?
So why in restaurants are orders served of the same quantity of food regardless of whether the diner is male or female?
Most restaurants give meal options that are bigger or smaller, and choices of sides that can be more or less calorific too.
Its absolutely possible in a lot of restaurants for one person to have eg a Mixed Grill with chips etc with about 1500 calories while someone else has a chicken salad with about 500 calories.
Yes but that misses the point. If a 6ft2 man and a 5ft2 woman both order a mixed grill they get the same portion size.
Nobody compels them to both order a mixed grill though.
The kitchen staff aren't and shouldn't be judging clients and figuring out how big each portion should be. You can look at the menu and choose a bigger or smaller option depending upon your own preferences.
I'm not really suggesting that they should; merely pointing out a small curiosity as I see it, when behaviour at home is not replicated when out of the home.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I think controlling weight and eventually obesity is a really tough one for a lot of people. Some people don't get fat, for a lot of reasons. Some are very self disciplined, recognising that if they don't control what the eat and drink they will put on weight. Others are more naturally blessed, such as my wife. When she isn't hungry she has no interest in food. None. For me, I can eat whenever - hungry or not. I have poor control. I don't particularly eat a bad diet but almost certainly too much.
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
Yep, it's complicated. At the base level, the solution to obesity is to eat less and/or exercise more. But there do seem to be substantial differences between what people can eat without becoming overwieght, beyond obvious differences in exercise. Some physiology, I expect, but maybe also some micro-differences in lifestyle and activity that are not easily recorded.
The eating less issue is key IMHO. Every fat person I know, especially those who complain they can’t lose weight just eat too much.
They will have giant plates or bowls of food and then express shock that they are still fat “but I’m not eating really unhealthy food” they cry without realising they are eating enough for four people in the evening so not only too much food but no time to burn it off as they are also too full to do anything but have a food coma on the sofa afterwards.
So if the gov have to do anything they need to really start hammering home portion sizes to people - when the ready meal says “serves 4” it generally means it unless you are working physically all day or exercising a lot.
Too true. As I've written here before, despite eating healthily I was for several years overweight, because I was overeating at meal times. Last year I lost a lot of weight, so that I am now a "healthy" weight and this year have sucessfully kept the weight off. Eating less was easily the main factor in losing weight.
I find the difference in how people react to smoking and obesity interesting. I’m an idiot and I smoke. I know it’s totally stupid and have given myself a point where I stop - it’s a specific moment soon where I will because of other things in my life but I know it will be when I totally stop.
When someone criticises me for smoking, as people do, I don’t have a strop or cry but agree saying “yes it’s grim and stupid and will stop”.
If however you tell someone they should eat less and lose weight as it’s bad for them then it tends to get a slightly less accepting reception.
You can of course stop smoking entirely. It will be hard for a few weeks no doubt. You will probably succeed after that if you never have another cigarette. If you have just the odd one though, you may soon find you are back smoking regularly.
Nothing kills an evening at a nice restaurant stone dead more effectively than seeing the effing calories of each option.
As The Trip showed and we all knew but tried to ignore, seemingly the most important ingredient for just about everything on a menu is cream and butter.
Totally agree. Another stunning success from our 'red-tape slashing' government.
The solution is to avoid chains - restaurants with fewer than 250 employees are exempt.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I think controlling weight and eventually obesity is a really tough one for a lot of people. Some people don't get fat, for a lot of reasons. Some are very self disciplined, recognising that if they don't control what the eat and drink they will put on weight. Others are more naturally blessed, such as my wife. When she isn't hungry she has no interest in food. None. For me, I can eat whenever - hungry or not. I have poor control. I don't particularly eat a bad diet but almost certainly too much.
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
Yep, it's complicated. At the base level, the solution to obesity is to eat less and/or exercise more. But there do seem to be substantial differences between what people can eat without becoming overwieght, beyond obvious differences in exercise. Some physiology, I expect, but maybe also some micro-differences in lifestyle and activity that are not easily recorded.
The eating less issue is key IMHO. Every fat person I know, especially those who complain they can’t lose weight just eat too much.
They will have giant plates or bowls of food and then express shock that they are still fat “but I’m not eating really unhealthy food” they cry without realising they are eating enough for four people in the evening so not only too much food but no time to burn it off as they are also too full to do anything but have a food coma on the sofa afterwards.
So if the gov have to do anything they need to really start hammering home portion sizes to people - when the ready meal says “serves 4” it generally means it unless you are working physically all day or exercising a lot.
Too true. As I've written here before, despite eating healthily I was for several years overweight, because I was overeating at meal times. Last year I lost a lot of weight, so that I am now a "healthy" weight and this year have sucessfully kept the weight off. Eating less was easily the main factor in losing weight.
I find the difference in how people react to smoking and obesity interesting. I’m an idiot and I smoke. I know it’s totally stupid and have given myself a point where I stop - it’s a specific moment soon where I will because of other things in my life but I know it will be when I totally stop.
When someone criticises me for smoking, as people do, I don’t have a strop or cry but agree saying “yes it’s grim and stupid and will stop”.
If however you tell someone they should eat less and lose weight as it’s bad for them then it tends to get a slightly less accepting reception.
You can of course stop smoking entirely. It will be hard for a few weeks no doubt. You will probably succeed after that if you never have another cigarette. If you have just the odd one though, you may soon find you are back smoking regularly.
You cannot stop eating entirely and remain alive.
Exactly!
Its the same as with alcohol. Most people can drink alcohol in moderation, or even sometimes to excess, and be perfectly responsible about it. Some people can't and become alcoholics.
A recovering alcoholic needs to never drink again. Having 'just one' or 'just a few' isn't an option as that then leads to them going off the wagon.
But people who overeat food can't cut out food entirely. Its not an option, unlike tobacco or alcohol.
Mr. B, to be honest, it's the nonsense of decimalisation that aggravates me more. Bring back the sensible system of 240d in a pound, with shillings, florins, crowns, and guineas to add a little extra.
Thrupenny bits are surely the best coin.
Nah, the old 6d silver coins that my gran used to slip into her cluttie dumpling were the best. Just the right size to choke your average small child.
Nothing kills an evening at a nice restaurant stone dead more effectively than seeing the effing calories of each option.
As The Trip showed and we all knew but tried to ignore, seemingly the most important ingredient for just about everything on a menu is cream and butter.
Totally agree. Another stunning success from our 'red-tape slashing' government.
How many people go into the shops and ask for 454 grams of mince for example... most don't know that 454 grams is a pound weight. I often ask for 681 grams of mince in our butcher....
Part of the problem with "anti-obesity" measures is that not everybody agrees what causes obesity or what "healthy" foods actually are.
On a simplistic level, sure, everyone agrees calories in versus calories out but then when you start to think about policies on foods 'high in fat' etc - actually there's a lot of evidence that foods high in fat can be quite healthy.
For a very long time foods high in fat have been stigmatised and still today in the supermarkets you see 'low fat' advertised as if its healthier, but if you check the nutritional information on a lot of 'low fat' alternatives, the fat has been replaced with sugar instead.
Is it healthier to eat 'low fat' but high sugar food, or lower sugar but higher fat foods? Speak to different people and you'll get different answers.
At an underlying level you are correct, but there is a huge danger that this kind of comment quickly turns into the argument/excuse "if the experts can't agree, i'll just carry on regardless". This approach has been very sucessfully employed by the anti global warning camp, and has long dogged nutritional advice.
There is a lot of concensus by those who work in this area, and the know that detail is a lot more nuanced than "fat=bad". Differences in opinions are quite small, but these tend to get amplified by media reporting and the food industry.
Getting good advice accross to everyone is not easy, partly because some are only prepared to listen to very simple guidelines, and others want much more detail.
The approach we take with our children is that the more multicoloured the meal, the better.
Not fail safe but pretty decent as a measure. Beige food is the killer.
That's really not good advice if you're foraging mushrooms...
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I think controlling weight and eventually obesity is a really tough one for a lot of people. Some people don't get fat, for a lot of reasons. Some are very self disciplined, recognising that if they don't control what the eat and drink they will put on weight. Others are more naturally blessed, such as my wife. When she isn't hungry she has no interest in food. None. For me, I can eat whenever - hungry or not. I have poor control. I don't particularly eat a bad diet but almost certainly too much.
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
Avoiding ultra-processed food is quite an effective weight loss strategy.
Not one popular with food manufacturers of course. Their profit is in selling processing and convenience.
It 'feels' like the right thing to do, and it's something Mrs P and I try to do, but why do you think it's an effective weight loss strategy? Is it proven?
Yes, this recent piece from Imperial covers it well:
While measuring childhood obesity does have methodological problems, it certainly is a real problem, as for example type2 diabetes appearing in childhood which was previously extremely rare.
Nothing kills an evening at a nice restaurant stone dead more effectively than seeing the effing calories of each option.
As The Trip showed and we all knew but tried to ignore, seemingly the most important ingredient for just about everything on a menu is cream and butter.
Totally agree. Another stunning success from our 'red-tape slashing' government.
The solution is to avoid chains - restaurants with fewer than 250 employees are exempt.
Isn't there talk of the exemption for small restaurants ending though? I'd oppose that.
Absolutely chains can and should be able to list their information, but small restaurants should be exempt. Where we are now is a good compromise, but I would oppose extending it further which I believe some want.
Nothing kills an evening at a nice restaurant stone dead more effectively than seeing the effing calories of each option.
As The Trip showed and we all knew but tried to ignore, seemingly the most important ingredient for just about everything on a menu is cream and butter.
Totally agree. Another stunning success from our 'red-tape slashing' government.
The solution is to avoid chains - restaurants with fewer than 250 employees are exempt.
Do not agree. We have an obesity crisis and any sensitivities you might have round how much you are eating should be met head on.
It's a reminder that eating out is a treat, and doing it too often will have serious repercussions for your health.
We need polling in the Carribean realms. A lot of their governments get tempted to fire from the hip - I suspect it's not a slam dunk in Antigua or even Jamaica.
Two factors at play here, I suspect. And likewise in Canada. The main one is complacency. Canada, Oz and NZ are all successful, prosperous democracies. Why risk that with wrenching political change?
I also suspect a backlash against Woke. Everyone Anglo in Oz and NZ is constantly bashed over the head with “white guilt” and “we stole these lands”
What’s a good but quiet way of subtly rebelling against all that? By saying “yes fair enough, but we also have our own European heritage, and we’re quite proud of that, actually”
So they stick with the monarchy.
Cf the NZ referendum to change the flag and drop the Union Jack. That failed badly. It was a discreet fuck-you to liberal Wokeness
It failed but not by quite as wide a margin as I'd thought.
But, I think that works both ways.
Are you and Leon quite OK with how "woke" Charles, William and Harry are or has it not really dawned on you both yet?
Do you really think that is anything other than a public relations strategy ?
I mean, if you are looking for families that directly benefitted from slavery, it would be hard to find better examples than the various Royal Families of Europe, especially the UK Royal Family.
So, I don't for one moment believe that Charles & Co seriously entertain financially compensating the peoples who enriched them.
The "wokeness" is to obscure their culpability.
The "wokeness' is to tarnish the whole population of the UK with collective guilt for slavery, when it was largely a ruling elite who benefitted.
I don't see it as tarnishing anything, more a question of opening our eyes to what happened rather than sweeping it under the carpet. Of course the main beneficiaries from any economic system will be the people at the top of the system, but actually the profits from slavery were spread fairly widely. We know from data on who was compensated when slavery was abolished (the owners not the slaves of course!) that there were plenty of widows on fairly modest incomes and the like who had a stake in it, with Scotland over represented iirc. There were plenty of overseer jobs out on the plantations. The cotton grown by slaves in the US provided jobs in British mill towns. Sugar, cotton, tobacco and other crops grown using slave labour were available to British consumers at lower cost. Government treasuries benefited and supported the growth of Britain as a major European power, which probably benefited the average person. It's always popular to blame 'the elite' for everything, on the left and the right, but the reality is that complicity starts at the top but definitely percolate downwards. Again, not a question of guilt, it's certainly not something I feel any guilt over, but a question of being honest about the historical record.
I think that this is a gross misrepresentation of what life was like for the working poor during the Industrial Revolution.
My own ancestors at this time were working in slate mines in pitiful conditions. There is abundant contemporary documentary evidence of the state of the Welsh-speaking miners in North Wales.
In fact, the owner of the slate mines was the same person who owned plantations in the West Indies. The wealth of the Penrhyn family derives both from exploitation of slaves and exploitation of Welsh slate miners.
There were families that benefitted enormously from slavery, and they should pay compensation (in the form say of educational scholarships for the descendants in the Caribbean).
Mr. B, to be honest, it's the nonsense of decimalisation that aggravates me more. Bring back the sensible system of 240d in a pound, with shillings, florins, crowns, and guineas to add a little extra.
I like how people are arguing that individuals should take responsibility for their own diet, and to achieve this the government should no longer require companies to show what is in the foods they are eating. How the hell are you supposed to take responsibility without the necessary information?
How many people go into the shops and ask for 454 grams of mince for example... most don't know that 454 grams is a pound weight. I often ask for 681 grams of mince in our butcher....
Why on earth would you ask for 454 or 681g. This isn't precision stuff. What's wrong with 500 or 700g. The butcher is going to round it anyway.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I think controlling weight and eventually obesity is a really tough one for a lot of people. Some people don't get fat, for a lot of reasons. Some are very self disciplined, recognising that if they don't control what the eat and drink they will put on weight. Others are more naturally blessed, such as my wife. When she isn't hungry she has no interest in food. None. For me, I can eat whenever - hungry or not. I have poor control. I don't particularly eat a bad diet but almost certainly too much.
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
Yep, it's complicated. At the base level, the solution to obesity is to eat less and/or exercise more. But there do seem to be substantial differences between what people can eat without becoming overwieght, beyond obvious differences in exercise. Some physiology, I expect, but maybe also some micro-differences in lifestyle and activity that are not easily recorded.
The eating less issue is key IMHO. Every fat person I know, especially those who complain they can’t lose weight just eat too much.
They will have giant plates or bowls of food and then express shock that they are still fat “but I’m not eating really unhealthy food” they cry without realising they are eating enough for four people in the evening so not only too much food but no time to burn it off as they are also too full to do anything but have a food coma on the sofa afterwards.
So if the gov have to do anything they need to really start hammering home portion sizes to people - when the ready meal says “serves 4” it generally means it unless you are working physically all day or exercising a lot.
Too true. As I've written here before, despite eating healthily I was for several years overweight, because I was overeating at meal times. Last year I lost a lot of weight, so that I am now a "healthy" weight and this year have sucessfully kept the weight off. Eating less was easily the main factor in losing weight.
I find the difference in how people react to smoking and obesity interesting. I’m an idiot and I smoke. I know it’s totally stupid and have given myself a point where I stop - it’s a specific moment soon where I will because of other things in my life but I know it will be when I totally stop.
When someone criticises me for smoking, as people do, I don’t have a strop or cry but agree saying “yes it’s grim and stupid and will stop”.
If however you tell someone they should eat less and lose weight as it’s bad for them then it tends to get a slightly less accepting reception.
Also at the risk of being controversial:
My wife usually doles out the meals and I get a slightly larger helping than my wife does. I think this is generally the case - that the male eats more than the female. Calorie recommendations seem to imply this. My wife is only 73% of my weight (or I am 137% of hers if you like). I assume the practice in our house is common country-wide?
So why in restaurants are orders served of the same quantity of food regardless of whether the diner is male or female?
Most restaurants give meal options that are bigger or smaller, and choices of sides that can be more or less calorific too.
Its absolutely possible in a lot of restaurants for one person to have eg a Mixed Grill with chips etc with about 1500 calories while someone else has a chicken salad with about 500 calories.
Yes but that misses the point. If a 6ft2 man and a 5ft2 woman both order a mixed grill they get the same portion size.
Easily solved: Mrs P. eats what she can and gives me the rest.
New Hampshire Primary 2022 note that most town that have reported have little left to count HOWEVER many towns have yet to report any results
Republican for US Senate
Updated 24m ago 82% REPORTED Donald Bolduc 46,343 37.0% Chuck Morse 45,073 36.0% Kevin Smith 14,703 11.7% Total reported 125,337
Too close to call but MAGA-maniac still leading over NH GOP establishment pick; incumbent US Sen. Maggie Hassan renominated easily in Dem primary
Republican for US House District 1
Updated 30m ago 89% REPORTED Karoline Leavitt 23,813 34.6% Matt Mowers 17,389 25.3% Gail Huff Brown 12,090 17.6% Total reported 68,748
In battle of former Trump administration officials, Leavitt out-MAGA's Mower, will face incumbent Chris Pappas, unopposed in Dem primary, in this highly marginal district.
Nothing kills an evening at a nice restaurant stone dead more effectively than seeing the effing calories of each option.
As The Trip showed and we all knew but tried to ignore, seemingly the most important ingredient for just about everything on a menu is cream and butter.
Totally agree. Another stunning success from our 'red-tape slashing' government.
The solution is to avoid chains - restaurants with fewer than 250 employees are exempt.
Do not agree. We have an obesity crisis and any sensitivities you might have round how much you are eating should be met head on.
It's a reminder that eating out is a treat, and doing it too often will have serious repercussions for your health.
#savetheNHS
It is also quite informative. I tend not to bother with it or evne notice really - eating out is a treat, not very frequent and not going to make much difference to overall calorie intake (and Im happy with my weight, so no particular incentive). But I remember my mother in law, who was on a 'wedding waistline challenge'* being surprised to see that the salad she thought she should probably have was approximately as calorific as the sea bass she wanted to have, so she had what she wanted instead.
*she did this for each of three of her offsprings' weddings over three years, with some success, but generally short lived. Then got an exercise bike that she uses every morning, which has been much more effective at long term weight control, with added fitness benefits.
I like how people are arguing that individuals should take responsibility for their own diet, and to achieve this the government should no longer require companies to show what is in the foods they are eating. How the hell are you supposed to take responsibility without the necessary information?
Quite. It's always a (good) shock at the pub to see how much crap they are chucking into their meals.
It's affected what I order and I hope, in turn, will influence what recipes they use.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I think controlling weight and eventually obesity is a really tough one for a lot of people. Some people don't get fat, for a lot of reasons. Some are very self disciplined, recognising that if they don't control what the eat and drink they will put on weight. Others are more naturally blessed, such as my wife. When she isn't hungry she has no interest in food. None. For me, I can eat whenever - hungry or not. I have poor control. I don't particularly eat a bad diet but almost certainly too much.
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
Yep, it's complicated. At the base level, the solution to obesity is to eat less and/or exercise more. But there do seem to be substantial differences between what people can eat without becoming overwieght, beyond obvious differences in exercise. Some physiology, I expect, but maybe also some micro-differences in lifestyle and activity that are not easily recorded.
The eating less issue is key IMHO. Every fat person I know, especially those who complain they can’t lose weight just eat too much.
They will have giant plates or bowls of food and then express shock that they are still fat “but I’m not eating really unhealthy food” they cry without realising they are eating enough for four people in the evening so not only too much food but no time to burn it off as they are also too full to do anything but have a food coma on the sofa afterwards.
So if the gov have to do anything they need to really start hammering home portion sizes to people - when the ready meal says “serves 4” it generally means it unless you are working physically all day or exercising a lot.
Too true. As I've written here before, despite eating healthily I was for several years overweight, because I was overeating at meal times. Last year I lost a lot of weight, so that I am now a "healthy" weight and this year have sucessfully kept the weight off. Eating less was easily the main factor in losing weight.
I find the difference in how people react to smoking and obesity interesting. I’m an idiot and I smoke. I know it’s totally stupid and have given myself a point where I stop - it’s a specific moment soon where I will because of other things in my life but I know it will be when I totally stop.
When someone criticises me for smoking, as people do, I don’t have a strop or cry but agree saying “yes it’s grim and stupid and will stop”.
If however you tell someone they should eat less and lose weight as it’s bad for them then it tends to get a slightly less accepting reception.
You can of course stop smoking entirely. It will be hard for a few weeks no doubt. You will probably succeed after that if you never have another cigarette. If you have just the odd one though, you may soon find you are back smoking regularly.
You cannot stop eating entirely and remain alive.
To be pedantic, as is required, you will certainly succeed in stopping smoking if you never have another cigarette.
We need polling in the Carribean realms. A lot of their governments get tempted to fire from the hip - I suspect it's not a slam dunk in Antigua or even Jamaica.
Two factors at play here, I suspect. And likewise in Canada. The main one is complacency. Canada, Oz and NZ are all successful, prosperous democracies. Why risk that with wrenching political change?
I also suspect a backlash against Woke. Everyone Anglo in Oz and NZ is constantly bashed over the head with “white guilt” and “we stole these lands”
What’s a good but quiet way of subtly rebelling against all that? By saying “yes fair enough, but we also have our own European heritage, and we’re quite proud of that, actually”
So they stick with the monarchy.
Cf the NZ referendum to change the flag and drop the Union Jack. That failed badly. It was a discreet fuck-you to liberal Wokeness
It failed but not by quite as wide a margin as I'd thought.
But, I think that works both ways.
Are you and Leon quite OK with how "woke" Charles, William and Harry are or has it not really dawned on you both yet?
Do you really think that is anything other than a public relations strategy ?
I mean, if you are looking for families that directly benefitted from slavery, it would be hard to find better examples than the various Royal Families of Europe, especially the UK Royal Family.
So, I don't for one moment believe that Charles & Co seriously entertain financially compensating the peoples who enriched them.
The "wokeness" is to obscure their culpability.
The "wokeness' is to tarnish the whole population of the UK with collective guilt for slavery, when it was largely a ruling elite who benefitted.
1 in 5 jobs in the UK was slavery based, and the whole population was the market for Caribbean sugar
How many people go into the shops and ask for 454 grams of mince for example... most don't know that 454 grams is a pound weight. I often ask for 681 grams of mince in our butcher....
I'm fully metric (49 years old) and I always ask in grams e.g. 700 grams of stewing steak etc
I'm 39 and pretty much fully imperial. I can use metric, but I wouldn't use it as the first option.
I'm guessing that's due to differences in where you and I were brought up and what the people around us use.
Here's another thought - the entire faff around weights and measures tells me some people have far too much time and far too little to occupy it.
New Hampshire Primary 2022 note that most town that have reported have little left to count HOWEVER many towns have yet to report any results
Republican for US Senate
Updated 24m ago 82% REPORTED Donald Bolduc 46,343 37.0% Chuck Morse 45,073 36.0% Kevin Smith 14,703 11.7% Total reported 125,337
Too close to call but MAGA-maniac still leading over NH GOP establishment pick; incumbent US Sen. Maggie Hassan renominated easily in Dem primary
Republican for US House District 1
Updated 30m ago 89% REPORTED Karoline Leavitt 23,813 34.6% Matt Mowers 17,389 25.3% Gail Huff Brown 12,090 17.6% Total reported 68,748
In battle of former Trump administration officials, Leavitt out-MAGA's Mower, will face incumbent Chris Pappas, unopposed in Dem primary, in this highly marginal district.
Part of the problem with "anti-obesity" measures is that not everybody agrees what causes obesity or what "healthy" foods actually are.
On a simplistic level, sure, everyone agrees calories in versus calories out but then when you start to think about policies on foods 'high in fat' etc - actually there's a lot of evidence that foods high in fat can be quite healthy.
For a very long time foods high in fat have been stigmatised and still today in the supermarkets you see 'low fat' advertised as if its healthier, but if you check the nutritional information on a lot of 'low fat' alternatives, the fat has been replaced with sugar instead.
Is it healthier to eat 'low fat' but high sugar food, or lower sugar but higher fat foods? Speak to different people and you'll get different answers.
Sure, but there is not much debate about whether drinking a litre of Coke a day is good for you. And of course, extremely similar drinks can be re-formulated with far less sugar.
That's absolutely true, though a lot of overweight people will drink "Diet" drinks, while a lot of skinny people can drink full sugar Coke.
Different people with different hormones absolutely can react to food differently. And hormones also affect people's appetites etc too, so some people that get accused of being 'greedy' are genuinely feeling hungry when they eat, while others who find they don't struggle with weight don't find themselves hungry as often.
Changing which foods you eat can affect your hormones too, which makes the whole thing much more complicated than the simplistic answers some put forwards.
The healthy people who drink full sugar Coke, generally don't drink a lot of it, so are not impacted much by the per unit tax. The overweight people often drink a lot of soft drinks whether diet or full sugar, so the tax has relatively more impact.
Of course its not perfect, diet drinks are definitely much worse than water anyway so the substitute is not always great either, but it is a clear small bit of progress.
It takes a strange mind to see the UK now, in the midst of a cost of living crisis, a proxy war, coming out of the misery of Covid, with intergenerational unfairness at record levels, and think what we really should focus on is reducing taxes on the most sugary version of Coca Cola.
Ummm we might be talking cross purposes, I absolutely am not suggesting reversing the sugar tax on Coca Cola. In fact as someone who was brought up in the 80s to drink sugar-free soft drinks for dental reasons before it became popular for anti-obesity reasons, I am selfishly quite happy that more sugar-free alternatives are available now than in the past.
I was just making a comment about how complex the whole issue of obesity is. Simple answers don't tend to work for people and just saying "cut fatty foods" etc doesn't necessarily work, nor does simply saying "eat less" that tends to mean people get hungry and then snack on sugar or carb-heavy snacks between meals.
For me as someone who has always struggled with my weight, when I deliberately make an effort to eat more nutritious food, then I am not as hungry between meals and snack less, and control my weight better. Putting more veg on the plate and fewer carbs makes a big difference, more than simply saying "eat less" or "eat fewer fats".
This is true. Great to get into veggies and only a fool mocks them or sees them as a kind of irrelevant, boring filler element in a meal.
But most "sugar-free" drinks contain carcinogenic artificial sweeteners such as aspartame and ace-K.
It can be good when slimming to reflect on what you're actually getting out of munching stuff between meals. E.g. if it's the strong taste, there are foods with a strong taste that contain very few calories - such as radishes. On average a radish contains less than 2 calories. If it's the "hit" from a sugary drink, maybe try low-calorie coconut drinks, or iced lemon water. Of course if it has got to be an iced bun every half-hour, well...then the person may not be about to have much success in losing weight.
Nothing kills an evening at a nice restaurant stone dead more effectively than seeing the effing calories of each option.
As The Trip showed and we all knew but tried to ignore, seemingly the most important ingredient for just about everything on a menu is cream and butter.
Totally agree. Another stunning success from our 'red-tape slashing' government.
The solution is to avoid chains - restaurants with fewer than 250 employees are exempt.
Do not agree. We have an obesity crisis and any sensitivities you might have round how much you are eating should be met head on.
It's a reminder that eating out is a treat, and doing it too often will have serious repercussions for your health.
#savetheNHS
It is also quite informative. I tend not to bother with it or evne notice really - eating out is a treat, not very frequent and not going to make much difference to overall calorie intake (and Im happy with my weight, so no particular incentive). But I remember my mother in law, who was on a 'wedding waistline challenge'* being surprised to see that the salad she thought she should probably have was approximately as calorific as the sea bass she wanted to have, so she had what she wanted instead.
*she did this for each of three of her offsprings' weddings over three years, with some success, but generally short lived. Then got an exercise bike that she uses every morning, which has been much more effective at long term weight control, with added fitness benefits.
"The King's top aide, his principal private secretary Sir Clive Alderton, said in the letter to staff that the change in role for the former Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall meant that Clarence House would be "closed down".
He said the former Prince of Wales's personal interests and former activities would no longer be carried out.
"It is therefore expected that the need for the posts principally based at Clarence House whose work supports these areas, will no longer be needed.""
Goodness me, all these activities must be vitally important if a decision can simply be taken to terminate them all immediately, without even bothering to consider passing any of them on to anyone else.
What a perfect way to sum up the pointlessness of the whole thing.
Fundamentally you had 3 Households (buck house, Clarence House and KP). You now only need 2. So, for example, the finance function is no longer needed at Clarence House
I though the new Prince of Wales would move into Clarence House. And then there was talk that the King would stay there and Buckingham Palace would cease to be a Royal residence and he would just keep an office there.
That’s what I’ve read but you need to distinguish between Clarence House as a residence and “Clarence House” as shorthand for “the former Prince of Wales’ administrative office” which is what is no longer needed.
Clearly functions like the Duchy of Cornwall can just be handed over but others will be consolidated.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I think controlling weight and eventually obesity is a really tough one for a lot of people. Some people don't get fat, for a lot of reasons. Some are very self disciplined, recognising that if they don't control what the eat and drink they will put on weight. Others are more naturally blessed, such as my wife. When she isn't hungry she has no interest in food. None. For me, I can eat whenever - hungry or not. I have poor control. I don't particularly eat a bad diet but almost certainly too much.
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
Yep, it's complicated. At the base level, the solution to obesity is to eat less and/or exercise more. But there do seem to be substantial differences between what people can eat without becoming overwieght, beyond obvious differences in exercise. Some physiology, I expect, but maybe also some micro-differences in lifestyle and activity that are not easily recorded.
The eating less issue is key IMHO. Every fat person I know, especially those who complain they can’t lose weight just eat too much.
They will have giant plates or bowls of food and then express shock that they are still fat “but I’m not eating really unhealthy food” they cry without realising they are eating enough for four people in the evening so not only too much food but no time to burn it off as they are also too full to do anything but have a food coma on the sofa afterwards.
So if the gov have to do anything they need to really start hammering home portion sizes to people - when the ready meal says “serves 4” it generally means it unless you are working physically all day or exercising a lot.
Too true. As I've written here before, despite eating healthily I was for several years overweight, because I was overeating at meal times. Last year I lost a lot of weight, so that I am now a "healthy" weight and this year have sucessfully kept the weight off. Eating less was easily the main factor in losing weight.
I find the difference in how people react to smoking and obesity interesting. I’m an idiot and I smoke. I know it’s totally stupid and have given myself a point where I stop - it’s a specific moment soon where I will because of other things in my life but I know it will be when I totally stop.
When someone criticises me for smoking, as people do, I don’t have a strop or cry but agree saying “yes it’s grim and stupid and will stop”.
If however you tell someone they should eat less and lose weight as it’s bad for them then it tends to get a slightly less accepting reception.
You can of course stop smoking entirely. It will be hard for a few weeks no doubt. You will probably succeed after that if you never have another cigarette. If you have just the odd one though, you may soon find you are back smoking regularly.
You cannot stop eating entirely and remain alive.
To be pedantic, as is required, you will certainly succeed in stopping smoking if you never have another cigarette.
If you are being pedantic about it then, statistically, continuing to smoke will also lead to a cessation in smoking activity but earlier than otherwise...
We need polling in the Carribean realms. A lot of their governments get tempted to fire from the hip - I suspect it's not a slam dunk in Antigua or even Jamaica.
Two factors at play here, I suspect. And likewise in Canada. The main one is complacency. Canada, Oz and NZ are all successful, prosperous democracies. Why risk that with wrenching political change?
I also suspect a backlash against Woke. Everyone Anglo in Oz and NZ is constantly bashed over the head with “white guilt” and “we stole these lands”
What’s a good but quiet way of subtly rebelling against all that? By saying “yes fair enough, but we also have our own European heritage, and we’re quite proud of that, actually”
So they stick with the monarchy.
Cf the NZ referendum to change the flag and drop the Union Jack. That failed badly. It was a discreet fuck-you to liberal Wokeness
It failed but not by quite as wide a margin as I'd thought.
But, I think that works both ways.
Are you and Leon quite OK with how "woke" Charles, William and Harry are or has it not really dawned on you both yet?
Do you really think that is anything other than a public relations strategy ?
I mean, if you are looking for families that directly benefitted from slavery, it would be hard to find better examples than the various Royal Families of Europe, especially the UK Royal Family.
So, I don't for one moment believe that Charles & Co seriously entertain financially compensating the peoples who enriched them.
The "wokeness" is to obscure their culpability.
The "wokeness' is to tarnish the whole population of the UK with collective guilt for slavery, when it was largely a ruling elite who benefitted.
I don't see it as tarnishing anything, more a question of opening our eyes to what happened rather than sweeping it under the carpet. Of course the main beneficiaries from any economic system will be the people at the top of the system, but actually the profits from slavery were spread fairly widely. We know from data on who was compensated when slavery was abolished (the owners not the slaves of course!) that there were plenty of widows on fairly modest incomes and the like who had a stake in it, with Scotland over represented iirc. There were plenty of overseer jobs out on the plantations. The cotton grown by slaves in the US provided jobs in British mill towns. Sugar, cotton, tobacco and other crops grown using slave labour were available to British consumers at lower cost. Government treasuries benefited and supported the growth of Britain as a major European power, which probably benefited the average person. It's always popular to blame 'the elite' for everything, on the left and the right, but the reality is that complicity starts at the top but definitely percolate downwards. Again, not a question of guilt, it's certainly not something I feel any guilt over, but a question of being honest about the historical record.
I think that this is a gross misrepresentation of what life was like for the working poor during the Industrial Revolution.
My own ancestors at this time were working in slate mines in pitiful conditions. There is abundant contemporary documentary evidence of the state of the Welsh-speaking miners in North Wales.
In fact, the owner of the slate mines was the same person who owned plantations in the West Indies. The wealth of the Penrhyn family derives both from exploitation of slaves and exploitation of Welsh slate miners.
There were families that benefitted enormously from slavery, and they should pay compensation (in the form say of educational scholarships for the descendants in the Caribbean).
The Royal Family is one such family.
Yes sure, the very poorest in the UK at the time (a lot of people) probably didn't see a huge amount of benefit but I guess the question should be - if slaves had been paid a wage for producing things like cotton, sugar and tobacco that the poor in the UK consumed, would the poor in the UK have had to pay more for them and be worse off? It seems plausible to me that the answer to this question might be yes. On the other hand, yes obviously the main beneficiaries were the slave owners and merchants, who as you note frequently owned capital on both sides of the Atlantic. I'm kind of lukewarm on the idea or reparations - I see the moral case for them but I think the logistics are hard given the passage of time, and the amount of exploitation at the time was so widespread and not limited to slavery that it opens all kinds of questions. Do descendents of exploited miners and mill workers 'deserve' reparations in some sense? Probably, yes. I think it would be better to work towards a world where opportunities are spread more widely, ingrained privilege is reduced and there is dignity and a fair wage for everyone's work. I think that understanding better all the ways that exploitative forms of capitalism blighted lives in the past can help us to build a better society today. A proper reckoning on slavery is part of that process, but only one part. And we should be wary of how divide and rule is still used to oppress working class people. I see slavery as the worst case of capitalist exploitation but not really a special case. It's right that it should be a notable area of debate but it shouldn't be the sole focus.
How many people go into the shops and ask for 454 grams of mince for example... most don't know that 454 grams is a pound weight. I often ask for 681 grams of mince in our butcher....
I would ask for half a kilo...
That's only 227 grams...
Half a kilo is 500 grams ...
I don't ask for any weight, since I don't go to a butcher, I just grab whatever appropriate sized pack exists on the shelf at the supermarket. .
Yes, a lot of the "debate" around weight for shopping ignores the reality that we mainly buy goods by the packet, tin, box or bottle, without much regard for the technicalities of what the producer has written on the label, which is generally not a round number of kilograms or litres.
There is the old joke about the 16-year-old screwing up his courage to buy his first condoms. "Small, medium or large?" asked the chemist. He came out with a box of 50.
Yes, the idea it's such a big deal it's worth government time and money to mandate it is strange.
Four leaders of Pacific Commonwealth nations will join the Australian prime minister at the Queen’s state funeral.
Anthony Albanese told a press conference shortly before midday (3am BST) on Wednesday that the respective leaders of the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Samoa and Papua New Guinea have accepted Australia’s offer of help with transportation to London…..
Wednesday also saw New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern departing for the UK for the Queen’s funeral with a delegation of compatriots “from different walks of life”, including the Maori king, Kiingi Tuheitia, former governor-general Dame Silvia Cartwright, Victoria Cross for New Zealand recipient Bill Apiata and former secretary-general of the Commonwealth Sir Don McKinnon.
"The King's top aide, his principal private secretary Sir Clive Alderton, said in the letter to staff that the change in role for the former Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall meant that Clarence House would be "closed down".
He said the former Prince of Wales's personal interests and former activities would no longer be carried out.
"It is therefore expected that the need for the posts principally based at Clarence House whose work supports these areas, will no longer be needed.""
Goodness me, all these activities must be vitally important if a decision can simply be taken to terminate them all immediately, without even bothering to consider passing any of them on to anyone else.
What a perfect way to sum up the pointlessness of the whole thing.
Fundamentally you had 3 Households (buck house, Clarence House and KP). You now only need 2. So, for example, the finance function is no longer needed at Clarence House
I though the new Prince of Wales would move into Clarence House. And then there was talk that the King would stay there and Buckingham Palace would cease to be a Royal residence and he would just keep an office there.
That’s what I’ve read but you need to distinguish between Clarence House as a residence and “Clarence House” as shorthand for “the former Prince of Wales’ administrative office” which is what is no longer needed.
Clearly functions like the Duchy of Cornwall can just be handed over but others will be consolidated.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I think controlling weight and eventually obesity is a really tough one for a lot of people. Some people don't get fat, for a lot of reasons. Some are very self disciplined, recognising that if they don't control what the eat and drink they will put on weight. Others are more naturally blessed, such as my wife. When she isn't hungry she has no interest in food. None. For me, I can eat whenever - hungry or not. I have poor control. I don't particularly eat a bad diet but almost certainly too much.
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
Yep, it's complicated. At the base level, the solution to obesity is to eat less and/or exercise more. But there do seem to be substantial differences between what people can eat without becoming overwieght, beyond obvious differences in exercise. Some physiology, I expect, but maybe also some micro-differences in lifestyle and activity that are not easily recorded.
The eating less issue is key IMHO. Every fat person I know, especially those who complain they can’t lose weight just eat too much.
They will have giant plates or bowls of food and then express shock that they are still fat “but I’m not eating really unhealthy food” they cry without realising they are eating enough for four people in the evening so not only too much food but no time to burn it off as they are also too full to do anything but have a food coma on the sofa afterwards.
So if the gov have to do anything they need to really start hammering home portion sizes to people - when the ready meal says “serves 4” it generally means it unless you are working physically all day or exercising a lot.
Too true. As I've written here before, despite eating healthily I was for several years overweight, because I was overeating at meal times. Last year I lost a lot of weight, so that I am now a "healthy" weight and this year have sucessfully kept the weight off. Eating less was easily the main factor in losing weight.
I find the difference in how people react to smoking and obesity interesting. I’m an idiot and I smoke. I know it’s totally stupid and have given myself a point where I stop - it’s a specific moment soon where I will because of other things in my life but I know it will be when I totally stop.
When someone criticises me for smoking, as people do, I don’t have a strop or cry but agree saying “yes it’s grim and stupid and will stop”.
If however you tell someone they should eat less and lose weight as it’s bad for them then it tends to get a slightly less accepting reception.
You can of course stop smoking entirely. It will be hard for a few weeks no doubt. You will probably succeed after that if you never have another cigarette. If you have just the odd one though, you may soon find you are back smoking regularly.
You cannot stop eating entirely and remain alive.
To be pedantic, as is required, you will certainly succeed in stopping smoking if you never have another cigarette.
If you are being pedantic about it then, statistically, continuing to smoke will also lead to a cessation in smoking activity but earlier than otherwise...
Man to doctor: 'Now I've got a terminal illness, can I stop worrying about smoking myself to death?'
We need polling in the Carribean realms. A lot of their governments get tempted to fire from the hip - I suspect it's not a slam dunk in Antigua or even Jamaica.
Two factors at play here, I suspect. And likewise in Canada. The main one is complacency. Canada, Oz and NZ are all successful, prosperous democracies. Why risk that with wrenching political change?
I also suspect a backlash against Woke. Everyone Anglo in Oz and NZ is constantly bashed over the head with “white guilt” and “we stole these lands”
What’s a good but quiet way of subtly rebelling against all that? By saying “yes fair enough, but we also have our own European heritage, and we’re quite proud of that, actually”
So they stick with the monarchy.
Cf the NZ referendum to change the flag and drop the Union Jack. That failed badly. It was a discreet fuck-you to liberal Wokeness
It failed but not by quite as wide a margin as I'd thought.
But, I think that works both ways.
Are you and Leon quite OK with how "woke" Charles, William and Harry are or has it not really dawned on you both yet?
Do you really think that is anything other than a public relations strategy ?
I mean, if you are looking for families that directly benefitted from slavery, it would be hard to find better examples than the various Royal Families of Europe, especially the UK Royal Family.
So, I don't for one moment believe that Charles & Co seriously entertain financially compensating the peoples who enriched them.
The "wokeness" is to obscure their culpability.
The "wokeness' is to tarnish the whole population of the UK with collective guilt for slavery, when it was largely a ruling elite who benefitted.
I don't give much of a a toss about the Royals or about "wokery". What interests me is how monarchy-fanantics who are also obsessively anti-woke (CR & Leon) manage to square the circle in their heads. Charles, William and Harry are all pretty "woke" in as much as I understand the term. The Daily Mail is going to be in the same quandary I suspect.
I can't remember who suggested it yesterday but I've decided to leave a digital message of condolence from my family and donate to some of The Queen's charities instead of buying flowers and adding them to the pile.
I can't remember who suggested it yesterday but I've decided to leave a digital message of condolence from my family and donate to some of The Queen's charities instead of buying flowers and adding them to the pile.
Mr. B, to be honest, it's the nonsense of decimalisation that aggravates me more. Bring back the sensible system of 240d in a pound, with shillings, florins, crowns, and guineas to add a little extra.
I can't remember who suggested it yesterday but I've decided to leave a digital message of condolence from my family and donate to some of The Queen's charities instead of buying flowers and adding them to the pile.
Mr. B, to be honest, it's the nonsense of decimalisation that aggravates me more. Bring back the sensible system of 240d in a pound, with shillings, florins, crowns, and guineas to add a little extra.
How many people go into the shops and ask for 454 grams of mince for example... most don't know that 454 grams is a pound weight. I often ask for 681 grams of mince in our butcher....
I'm fully metric (49 years old) and I always ask in grams e.g. 700 grams of stewing steak etc
I am also fully metric (67 yrs old) with one exception, people's height. I don't know why I can't get my head around that one. I will measure anything of similar length in metres, but can only mentally visualise peoples height in feet and inches. Peoples weight in kg is the norm for me. Even imperial stuff you have to deal with (miles and pints) I can let go of easily (happy to order a drink in 25, 33, 50 cl and 1L or measure trips in km).
I can't remember who suggested it yesterday but I've decided to leave a digital message of condolence from my family and donate to some of The Queen's charities instead of buying flowers and adding them to the pile.
Seems an utterly human reaction at a very emotional and stressful time.
Mum dead? Bully a servant. Absolutely natural.
Then do it again 2 days later. No pattern here.
Yeah, it's not as if he didn't have anything to do over those two days, is it? (/sarcasm mode)
I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't getting a lot of sleep, either.
"He's just tired" is an excellent explanation for temper tantrums in the under 3s, sure.
"temper tantrum" ?
I guess you've never had a two-year old kid to know what a real temper tantrum's like.
He's lost his mum. There's lots of things that need doing, many of them in the media's firey light. His job's changing. He'll be grieving. So yes, I do forgive him being a little ill-tempered on occasion.
Now, if this continues over the next few months, I'd agree it's bad. But why not cut him a little slack over the next couple of weeks?
Incidentally, earlier in the year I took the little 'un to see the grave of a dear old friend of mine, dead for several decades. I hadn't been to see her since before Covid. On the way back home down the A1 I was crying and hitting the steering wheel. He thought I was angry; I had to explain that grief can sometimes look like anger, but feel very different.
How many people go into the shops and ask for 454 grams of mince for example... most don't know that 454 grams is a pound weight. I often ask for 681 grams of mince in our butcher....
I'm fully metric (49 years old) and I always ask in grams e.g. 700 grams of stewing steak etc
I am also fully metric (67 yrs old) with one exception, people's height. I don't know why I can't get my head around that one. I will measure anything of similar length in metres, but can only mentally visualise peoples height in feet and inches. Peoples weight in kg is the norm for me. Even imperial stuff you have to deal with (miles and pints) I can let go of easily (happy to order a drink in 25, 33, 50 cl and 1L or measure trips in km).
That was the last thing for me too, but I do know my height in cm now (and also know the imperial). I've no idea offhand of my weight in stone or pounds, but know it's ~80kg
I've only ever measured my children in cm. To work out their heights in imperial I'd have to convert in my head from cm now.
How many people go into the shops and ask for 454 grams of mince for example... most don't know that 454 grams is a pound weight. I often ask for 681 grams of mince in our butcher....
I'm fully metric (49 years old) and I always ask in grams e.g. 700 grams of stewing steak etc
I am also fully metric (67 yrs old) with one exception, people's height. I don't know why I can't get my head around that one. I will measure anything of similar length in metres, but can only mentally visualise peoples height in feet and inches. Peoples weight in kg is the norm for me. Even imperial stuff you have to deal with (miles and pints) I can let go of easily (happy to order a drink in 25, 33, 50 cl and 1L or measure trips in km).
We need polling in the Carribean realms. A lot of their governments get tempted to fire from the hip - I suspect it's not a slam dunk in Antigua or even Jamaica.
Two factors at play here, I suspect. And likewise in Canada. The main one is complacency. Canada, Oz and NZ are all successful, prosperous democracies. Why risk that with wrenching political change?
I also suspect a backlash against Woke. Everyone Anglo in Oz and NZ is constantly bashed over the head with “white guilt” and “we stole these lands”
What’s a good but quiet way of subtly rebelling against all that? By saying “yes fair enough, but we also have our own European heritage, and we’re quite proud of that, actually”
So they stick with the monarchy.
Cf the NZ referendum to change the flag and drop the Union Jack. That failed badly. It was a discreet fuck-you to liberal Wokeness
It failed but not by quite as wide a margin as I'd thought.
But, I think that works both ways.
Are you and Leon quite OK with how "woke" Charles, William and Harry are or has it not really dawned on you both yet?
Do you really think that is anything other than a public relations strategy ?
I mean, if you are looking for families that directly benefitted from slavery, it would be hard to find better examples than the various Royal Families of Europe, especially the UK Royal Family.
So, I don't for one moment believe that Charles & Co seriously entertain financially compensating the peoples who enriched them.
The "wokeness" is to obscure their culpability.
The "wokeness' is to tarnish the whole population of the UK with collective guilt for slavery, when it was largely a ruling elite who benefitted.
I don't see it as tarnishing anything, more a question of opening our eyes to what happened rather than sweeping it under the carpet. Of course the main beneficiaries from any economic system will be the people at the top of the system, but actually the profits from slavery were spread fairly widely. We know from data on who was compensated when slavery was abolished (the owners not the slaves of course!) that there were plenty of widows on fairly modest incomes and the like who had a stake in it, with Scotland over represented iirc. There were plenty of overseer jobs out on the plantations. The cotton grown by slaves in the US provided jobs in British mill towns. Sugar, cotton, tobacco and other crops grown using slave labour were available to British consumers at lower cost. Government treasuries benefited and supported the growth of Britain as a major European power, which probably benefited the average person. It's always popular to blame 'the elite' for everything, on the left and the right, but the reality is that complicity starts at the top but definitely percolate downwards. Again, not a question of guilt, it's certainly not something I feel any guilt over, but a question of being honest about the historical record.
I agree that we need to be honest about the historical record. But, this means facing up to the prevalance of 'slavery' and 'colonialism' in the entirety of human history and, in particular, outside of Europe and North America. But the trouble is that there is an idea being perpetrated that this is only about white people. It is essentially a deceptive and convenient narrative invented by socialists/communists as a way of making people doubt the wisdom of capitalism and liberal democracy. But in fact it was capitalism and liberal democracy that abolished slavery and eventually, in the case of Britain, colonialism - and facilitated the creation of post colonial independent nation states. So the entire process should be viewed in this context.
People don't like this idea because it is a lot easier to explain complex phenomena through simple stories of heroes and villains. It seems to me like this type of simplified moral analysis of complicated historical questions has infested large parts of academia (if not actual history departments); and has a big impact on the education system. It played a large part in the phenomena of statue toppling in 2020 and the concept of 'decolonisation' being rolled out through many public and private institutions.
If you want to feel better about being British, just go and look at what China is up to in Xinjiang and what the Russians are trying to do/have done in Ukraine.
Last time i tried to measure my weight in Imperial i got in so much trouble. Apparently it DOESN'T mean you can get the Governor General to wake Jacinda Ardern up and get out her scales.
Reuters @Reuters Exclusive: Vladimir Putin's chief envoy on Ukraine told the Russian leader as the war began that he had struck a provisional deal with Kyiv that would satisfy Russia's demand that Ukraine stay out of NATO, but Putin rejected it and pressed ahead
Reuters @Reuters Exclusive: Vladimir Putin's chief envoy on Ukraine told the Russian leader as the war began that he had struck a provisional deal with Kyiv that would satisfy Russia's demand that Ukraine stay out of NATO, but Putin rejected it and pressed ahead
Because it was never about NATO (the war has, very predictably, led to NATO expansion, and even if the war had been won would mean more NATO on Russian borders). Almost feel bad for an envoy on such a pointless task, I wonder if he knew.
Sucks for all those folks clinging to 'I guess Russia was in the wrong, maybe, but NATO expansion is scary and its understandable'.
How many people go into the shops and ask for 454 grams of mince for example... most don't know that 454 grams is a pound weight. I often ask for 681 grams of mince in our butcher....
I'm fully metric (49 years old) and I always ask in grams e.g. 700 grams of stewing steak etc
I am also fully metric (67 yrs old) with one exception, people's height. I don't know why I can't get my head around that one. I will measure anything of similar length in metres, but can only mentally visualise peoples height in feet and inches. Peoples weight in kg is the norm for me. Even imperial stuff you have to deal with (miles and pints) I can let go of easily (happy to order a drink in 25, 33, 50 cl and 1L or measure trips in km).
Food tastes worse in metric. Fact.
Drinking has benefits. Go metric and you can truthfully deny having a pint and say you only had about a half.
Seems an utterly human reaction at a very emotional and stressful time.
Mum dead? Bully a servant. Absolutely natural.
Then do it again 2 days later. No pattern here.
Yeah, it's not as if he didn't have anything to do over those two days, is it? (/sarcasm mode)
I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't getting a lot of sleep, either.
"He's just tired" is an excellent explanation for temper tantrums in the under 3s, sure.
"temper tantrum" ?
I guess you've never had a two-year old kid to know what a real temper tantrum's like.
He's lost his mum. There's lots of things that need doing, many of them in the media's firey light. His job's changing. He'll be grieving. So yes, I do forgive him being a little ill-tempered on occasion.
Now, if this continues over the next few months, I'd agree it's bad. But why not cut him a little slack over the next couple of weeks?
Incidentally, earlier in the year I took the little 'un to see the grave of a dear old friend of mine, dead for several decades. I hadn't been to see her since before Covid. On the way back home down the A1 I was crying and hitting the steering wheel. He thought I was angry; I had to explain that grief can sometimes look like anger, but feel very different.
On the contrary, I have about the average number of little uns to my name.
Reuters @Reuters Exclusive: Vladimir Putin's chief envoy on Ukraine told the Russian leader as the war began that he had struck a provisional deal with Kyiv that would satisfy Russia's demand that Ukraine stay out of NATO, but Putin rejected it and pressed ahead
Because it was never about NATO (the war has, very predictably, led to NATO expansion, and even if the war had been won would mean more NATO on Russian borders). Almost feel bad for an envoy on such a pointless task, I wonder if he knew.
Sucks for all those folks clinging to 'I guess Russia was in the wrong, maybe, but NATO expansion is scary and its understandable'.
And in practice now UKR is all but in NATO defacto, if not demure.
Reuters @Reuters Exclusive: Vladimir Putin's chief envoy on Ukraine told the Russian leader as the war began that he had struck a provisional deal with Kyiv that would satisfy Russia's demand that Ukraine stay out of NATO, but Putin rejected it and pressed ahead
Because it was never about NATO (the war has, very predictably, led to NATO expansion, and even if the war had been won would mean more NATO on Russian borders). Almost feel bad for an envoy on such a pointless task, I wonder if he knew.
Sucks for all those folks clinging to 'I guess Russia was in the wrong, maybe, but NATO expansion is scary and its understandable'.
I thought it was also significant in that it showed a Ukrainian willingness to compromise for peace that was not reciprocated, and would help to explain why they would be less willing to compromise with Russia now, or in the future.
Reuters @Reuters Exclusive: Vladimir Putin's chief envoy on Ukraine told the Russian leader as the war began that he had struck a provisional deal with Kyiv that would satisfy Russia's demand that Ukraine stay out of NATO, but Putin rejected it and pressed ahead
Because it was never about NATO (the war has, very predictably, led to NATO expansion, and even if the war had been won would mean more NATO on Russian borders). Almost feel bad for an envoy on such a pointless task, I wonder if he knew.
Sucks for all those folks clinging to 'I guess Russia was in the wrong, maybe, but NATO expansion is scary and its understandable'.
I thought it was also significant in that it showed a Ukrainian willingness to compromise for peace that was not reciprocated, and would help to explain why they would be less willing to compromise with Russia now, or in the future.
Indeed. Once Ukraine has liberated Crimea and Donbas and the war ends, then Ukraine should immediately join NATO if they so desire.
Comments
The place - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanna_(island)
I always thought it a rather rational religion
1) your god exists. He turns up and everything
2) he doesn’t demand much. In fact he gave you stuff, unasked. Compare to requests for first born etc
3) his wife had the ability to destroy whole countries. Proven - not fairy tales in old books.
4) because of Phil, there was an element of diplomatic protection for them. U.K. had an interest etc.
It roughly means narrow minded, particularly on racial issues, but in Afrikaans is not considered a pejorative label, just descriptive.
As The Trip showed and we all knew but tried to ignore, seemingly the most important ingredient for just about everything on a menu is cream and butter.
Its absolutely possible in a lot of restaurants for one person to have eg a Mixed Grill with chips etc with about 1500 calories while someone else has a chicken salad with about 500 calories.
It's always popular to blame 'the elite' for everything, on the left and the right, but the reality is that complicity starts at the top but definitely percolate downwards.
Again, not a question of guilt, it's certainly not something I feel any guilt over, but a question of being honest about the historical record.
Even ignoring aside his personal life, Charles is a very flawed figure who will do enormous damage to the monarchy.
The kitchen staff aren't and shouldn't be judging clients and figuring out how big each portion should be. You can look at the menu and choose a bigger or smaller option depending upon your own preferences.
There is the old joke about the 16-year-old screwing up his courage to buy his first condoms. "Small, medium or large?" asked the chemist. He came out with a box of 50.
A few restaurants offer the same meals in starter/main or small/regular portions nowadays. I think that is sensible and should reduce food waste but is as far as a restaurant can go in tailoring meal sizes without getting it wrong and causing offence.
You cannot stop eating entirely and remain alive.
The solution is to avoid chains - restaurants with fewer than 250 employees are exempt.
Its the same as with alcohol. Most people can drink alcohol in moderation, or even sometimes to excess, and be perfectly responsible about it. Some people can't and become alcoholics.
A recovering alcoholic needs to never drink again. Having 'just one' or 'just a few' isn't an option as that then leads to them going off the wagon.
But people who overeat food can't cut out food entirely. Its not an option, unlike tobacco or alcohol.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/223573/urgent-action-needed-reduce-harm-ultra-processed/
While measuring childhood obesity does have methodological problems, it certainly is a real problem, as for example type2 diabetes appearing in childhood which was previously extremely rare.
Absolutely chains can and should be able to list their information, but small restaurants should be exempt. Where we are now is a good compromise, but I would oppose extending it further which I believe some want.
It's a reminder that eating out is a treat, and doing it too often will have serious repercussions for your health.
#savetheNHS
My own ancestors at this time were working in slate mines in pitiful conditions. There is abundant contemporary documentary evidence of the state of the Welsh-speaking miners in North Wales.
In fact, the owner of the slate mines was the same person who owned plantations in the West Indies. The wealth of the Penrhyn family derives both from exploitation of slaves and exploitation of Welsh slate miners.
There were families that benefitted enormously from slavery, and they should pay compensation (in the form say of educational scholarships for the descendants in the Caribbean).
The Royal Family is one such family.
Though I fancy the sestertius.
Oh dear, what a shame.
At least they're avoiding the volatility of fiat currencies ...
No idea why I have a weight problem.
*she did this for each of three of her offsprings' weddings over three years, with some success, but generally short lived. Then got an exercise bike that she uses every morning, which has been much more effective at long term weight control, with added fitness benefits.
This movement is mainly down to Con voters moving from 'don't know' back to Con:
Last week, 2019 Con voters split:
Con: 50%
Lab: 9%
Don't know/would not vote/refuse: 29%
This week:
Con: 59% (+9)
Lab: 9% (-)
Don't know / would not vote / refuse: 23% (-6)
https://twitter.com/JMagosh/status/1569979818229260288
Most of Ukraine's {current*} gas deposits are located in Poltava and Kharkiv oblasts. The latter has almost been liberated in Ukraine's recent offensive.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1569979012889432064
*unexploited reserves are elsewhere:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2019/02/28/as-russia-closes-in-on-crimeas-energy-resources-what-is-next-for-ukraine/
It's affected what I order and I hope, in turn, will influence what recipes they use.
I'm guessing that's due to differences in where you and I were brought up and what the people around us use.
Here's another thought - the entire faff around weights and measures tells me some people have far too much time and far too little to occupy it.
But most "sugar-free" drinks contain carcinogenic artificial sweeteners such as aspartame and ace-K.
It can be good when slimming to reflect on what you're actually getting out of munching stuff between meals. E.g. if it's the strong taste, there are foods with a strong taste that contain very few calories - such as radishes. On average a radish contains less than 2 calories. If it's the "hit" from a sugary drink, maybe try low-calorie coconut drinks, or iced lemon water. Of course if it has got to be an iced bun every half-hour, well...then the person may not be about to have much success in losing weight.
#pedanthoistbyownpetard
Clearly functions like the Duchy of Cornwall can just be handed over but others will be consolidated.
https://mobile.twitter.com/JulianRoepcke/status/1569983403537362948
I'm kind of lukewarm on the idea or reparations - I see the moral case for them but I think the logistics are hard given the passage of time, and the amount of exploitation at the time was so widespread and not limited to slavery that it opens all kinds of questions. Do descendents of exploited miners and mill workers 'deserve' reparations in some sense? Probably, yes. I think it would be better to work towards a world where opportunities are spread more widely, ingrained privilege is reduced and there is dignity and a fair wage for everyone's work. I think that understanding better all the ways that exploitative forms of capitalism blighted lives in the past can help us to build a better society today. A proper reckoning on slavery is part of that process, but only one part.
And we should be wary of how divide and rule is still used to oppress working class people. I see slavery as the worst case of capitalist exploitation but not really a special case. It's right that it should be a notable area of debate but it shouldn't be the sole focus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimoog
The similar sounding milli-Moog would be a quantum of uselessness so enormous that it's truly hard to envisage.
Not exactly much better.
Anthony Albanese told a press conference shortly before midday (3am BST) on Wednesday that the respective leaders of the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Samoa and Papua New Guinea have accepted Australia’s offer of help with transportation to London…..
Wednesday also saw New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern departing for the UK for the Queen’s funeral with a delegation of compatriots “from different walks of life”, including the Maori king, Kiingi Tuheitia, former governor-general Dame Silvia Cartwright, Victoria Cross for New Zealand recipient Bill Apiata and former secretary-general of the Commonwealth Sir Don McKinnon.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/queen-funeral-pacific-island-leaders-australia-anthony-albanese-london-b1025492.html
For Andrew to get anywhere near “reigning” you’d go through Charles, William, William’s kids, Harry and Harry’s kids before Andrew.
I think that’s unlikely
Dr: 'You can, sir.'
(A Giga-Mogg being roughly equivalent to that of a hamster.)
Must be a very emotionally stunted hamster.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_businessmen_mystery_deaths
This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources...
I guess you've never had a two-year old kid to know what a real temper tantrum's like.
He's lost his mum. There's lots of things that need doing, many of them in the media's firey light. His job's changing. He'll be grieving. So yes, I do forgive him being a little ill-tempered on occasion.
Now, if this continues over the next few months, I'd agree it's bad. But why not cut him a little slack over the next couple of weeks?
Incidentally, earlier in the year I took the little 'un to see the grave of a dear old friend of mine, dead for several decades. I hadn't been to see her since before Covid. On the way back home down the A1 I was crying and hitting the steering wheel. He thought I was angry; I had to explain that grief can sometimes look like anger, but feel very different.
I've only ever measured my children in cm. To work out their heights in imperial I'd have to convert in my head from cm now.
People don't like this idea because it is a lot easier to explain complex phenomena through simple stories of heroes and villains. It seems to me like this type of simplified moral analysis of complicated historical questions has infested large parts of academia (if not actual history departments); and has a big impact on the education system. It played a large part in the phenomena of statue toppling in 2020 and the concept of 'decolonisation' being rolled out through many public and private institutions.
If you want to feel better about being British, just go and look at what China is up to in Xinjiang and what the Russians are trying to do/have done in Ukraine.
Oh, wait, it was reagents wasn't it?
Reuters
@Reuters
Exclusive: Vladimir Putin's chief envoy on Ukraine told the Russian leader as the war began that he had struck a provisional deal with Kyiv that would satisfy Russia's demand that Ukraine stay out of NATO, but Putin rejected it and pressed ahead
https://mobile.twitter.com/Reuters/status/1569965542693376000
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/exclusive-war-began-putin-rejected-ukraine-peace-deal-recommended-by-his-aide-2022-09-14/
Sucks for all those folks clinging to 'I guess Russia was in the wrong, maybe, but NATO expansion is scary and its understandable'.
They have earnt that right.