Exercise on prescription is a good initiative and I know a lot of clients with mental health problems have benefited from this, for varying reasons including social inclusion.
I understand the Government wanting to reduce the problem of obesity as obese related illnesses are costing a fortune to treat and individuals do pose some serious health risks, however what about individuals who are underweight, they are also at risk
I do not consider threats will help individuals to address obesity problems.I think the Governmen need to invest in education and support networks, they need to consider that obese individuals may have underlying psychological issues and exercise alone and reducing benefits may not be enough to address the issue.

Iceland or Aldi / Lidl.

You can pick up microwave meals for a quid. Some of them actually taste ok.

I keep a few of them in the freezer at work. Good for when working late nights.

I think the taste is monosodium glutamate rather than anything else. I must admit that on the odd occasion I have shopped in these stores we have had some good quality stuff (especially fruit and veg), but geographically ASDA is closest.

Any initiative that encourages people to lose weight should be welcomed. I was back in Hull over Christmas and the amount of porkers was shocking.

I'd agree. But this most assuredly isn't an initiative that [iencourages[/i people to lose weight, it's an initiative that threatens and bullies people into losing weight.

If it was a Labour initiative people on here would love it.

Carrot and stick.

I remember, prior to the last general election, members of the public being canvassed their opinions on various party policies. The researchers listed a number of policies and asked the public if they agreed. The researchers did not tell the public which party each policy belonged to.

The BNP fared particularly well. Needless to say, when it was revealed that people had 'liked' a BNP policy, the people withdrew their support for it.

Or, in this instance, just stick. It's just another way this government are targeting the poor who, let's face it, are not the only ones who are overweight. Are they going to tax overweight workers more heavily to fund [itheir[/i drain on NHS resources?

If they really wanted to do something about the obesity epidemic, there are far better ways than trying to render people who are already struggling (many through no fault of their own) unable to pay their bills.

Do you have a link to this study? I'd be interested to read it.

It's maybe not the policy they changed their mind on but the numpty with the swastika tattooed on his forehead banging on about 'Muslamic infidels' on Panarama.

As an overweight worker who drives a car, I already pay a subsidy in excess fuel to cart my lardy ar$e around the country

Yeah, because nobody on here ever disagreed with a single policy or action of the last Labour government.



What amuses me about this is that the people leaping to the defence of this halfwitted policy are the very same people who are first in line to moan about the 'nanny state'.

You do understand that these are the ones that have bothered to try and do something don't you? You should be encouraging these people to continue their efforts not looking down your noise at them.



It's allowed, they are exercising.

I'm not defending it, I'm kind of 'meh' on the issue, it's a non story.

Just the usual suspects of Tory bad*, Labour good, like some animal farm mantra.


*I'm not a Tory, i would like to think i can weigh up parties at the time of voting and depending on circumstance vote to how i see best.

Indeed – and yup.

Could you name these 'usual suspects', because I've never seen anyone on here agree whole-heartedly with every single Labour policy. There are those - myself included - who will say that, whilst Labour are far from perfect, things are usually better for the most vulnerable members of our society under a Labour government that a Tory one, but I literally don't know a single poster who trots out the 'Labour good, Tory bad' mantra you are suggesting they do.

It's also worth mentioning that most of those who dislike the Tory government support certain policies, gay marriage being an obvious example.

Quote ="Rock God X"Do you have a link to this study? I'd be interested to read it.'" It was some time ago. The best I can find it a link to the Wail in 2006, which carries a similar story and may or may not be the one I read originally. I seem to recall this story repeating around 2009/10. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... icies.html

Quote ="Rock God X"Do you have a link to this study? I'd be interested to read it.'" It was some time ago. The best I can find it a link to the Wail in 2006, which carries a similar story and may or may not be the one I read originally. I seem to recall this story repeating around 2009/10. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... icies.html

Quote ="The Video Ref"It was some time ago. The best I can find it a link to the Wail in 2006, which carries a similar story and may or may not be the one I read originally. I seem to recall this story repeating around 2009/10. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... icies.html'" Interesting, but also interesting to note that: [i"Large majorities dismissed two of the BNP's most hardline ideas. Some 68 per cent refused to support the stance that non-white British citizens are inherently less British than white people. And 52 per cent were opposed to encouraging immigrants and their families to leave Britain."[/i And also that: [i"The poll was carried out for Sky News..."[/i And that it wasn't the same people asked in each case, rather: [i"Around 900 people were asked if they supported policies without any mention of the BNP, while 941 were told that they were BNP commitments."[/i

Quote ="The Video Ref"It was some time ago. The best I can find it a link to the Wail in 2006, which carries a similar story and may or may not be the one I read originally. I seem to recall this story repeating around 2009/10. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... icies.html'" Interesting, but also interesting to note that: [i"Large majorities dismissed two of the BNP's most hardline ideas. Some 68 per cent refused to support the stance that non-white British citizens are inherently less British than white people. And 52 per cent were opposed to encouraging immigrants and their families to leave Britain."[/i And also that: [i"The poll was carried out for Sky News..."[/i And that it wasn't the same people asked in each case, rather: [i"Around 900 people were asked if they supported policies without any mention of the BNP, while 941 were told that they were BNP commitments."[/i

They're not doing anything, other than turning up. Going to the gym is very different from training or exercising in a gym.


Exercise doesn't make you smell. Sweat doesn't smell unless it's exposed to bacteria for a period of time.

[url=http://cdn.yougov.com/today_uk_import/YG-Archives-pol-skynews-BNP-060425.pdfLink to the survey (pdf).[/url

The thing with just asking someone a question

Do you agree with x policy is flawed though without knowing which party is behind it, it goes to the intent of the policy.

If both Labour and the BNP ask that question, the outcome is the same granted but the motive behind the BNP would be racially motivated whereas the Labour one could be coming from the angle of overstretched services or employment. The motive is everything, i'd back the policy if it was for the right reason but not if it was for the wrong one.
People who vote against good ideas purely because they are not the party they always vote for are also prevalent, never understood that thinking.

Ah ... well ... you see, it's only a "nanny state" initiative when it threatens profits or makes "me" do or stop doing something.
When it's someone else, it's fine.

HI mate, still cant do long walks, 4.5/5 miles is my limit now however i can cycle 12 miles ,strange but true, so she jogs the 12 miles with us when we get the bikes out(not that often lately though TBH)the staff at the gym are great and dont let me do too much too soon.
hope you doing better and you and yours and the dogs are well.

On the general subject – [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20914685some breakfast cereals, specifically marketed at children, have MORE than 30% sugar?[/url

WTF?

Cereals are shîte anyway, but they are, generally speaking, marketed as and considered to be a healthy breakfast. I knew it was difficult to find a cereal without added sugar and salt – there are very rare exceptions – but such figures are absolutely crazy.

I also know – because I bother to examine ingredients when buying anything that has them – that ingredients are listed in order of amount in the finished item. But more than 30% of a product – and one that's aimed at children?

That's a f**king joke. Even I wouldn't have guessed there was such vast amounts in any cereal.