Where is democracy in Britain heading?

[Owain_Glyndwr]

Very recently, Jack Straw was making a speech on the war in Iraq, adding whatever reasons he could to make Iraq not seem that much of a disaster. During this speech, an octogenerian said out loud "Rubbish". He was thrown out by the "bouncers". An 80-year old man thrown out onto the streets because he wanted to express his political opinion in a manner that hardly seems uncivilised.

Today, Education Secretary Ruth Kelly announced a ban on "junk food" and soon vending machines in schools. As a teenager, this has more relevance with me than with most people on the forum, but I'll mention it anyway.

Foods likely to be banned include: Burgers and sausages from 'meat slurry' and 'mechanically recovered meat'. Sweets including chewing gum, liquorice, mints, fruit pastilles, toffees and marsh mallows.
Chocolates and chocolate biscuits. Snacks such as crisps, tortilla chips, salted nuts, onion rings and rice crackers

This doesn't affect me much (I'm outta school a year after the ban is in effect, and if I want "junk food" I can pop into town at lunchtime and buy my own), but this is an over the top limit on freedom. Yes, the youth need to tackle obesity, but banning the food that they primarily consume is not going to help. Try filling a vending machine with nuts and "healthy" bars, and see if they sell at all. Pupils in school that aren't allowed to leave school premises during lunchtime are more likely to go without during school, and buy some junk when they get to the corner shop, or maybe some cigarettes instead. You simply cant give high value decent food to every pupil, and you probably wont be able to sell high value food to pupils either (health food is seen as a taboo almost, it will be avoided by kids no matter what). Clearly, this ban isn't going to help solve obesity, sorry for the naive, but forcing health food as an only option upon kids isn't going to make them like it any more than they already do. Yes, the ban is hoping to give kids decent meat products, which kids do buy, but is it cost-effective? I dont see any increase in sales depending on what kind of meat it is, we pupils buy what we buy, and buy it everyday no matter what it is or what it looks like.

But that isn't mentioning the real issue for me in this recent ban. The youth aren't allowed to choose what they eat anymore. This may not seem a biggy for you 20+ year olds (the majority of the forum), not so much as things like ID cards, phone tapping and the like do, but things like that are only a problem if you've done something wrong. Here, what we can do is being limited, and it does not seem to have a good reason. My health should remain my issue (and I'm not obese or have a sugar tooth by the way). I should be allowed to eat whatever I want.

The problem is, though I strongly doubt we're going to end up with some 1984 state most hippies say we're heading to, we are losing freedom without reason, and I dont know how far the government are going to take this. As I mentioned at the start, people are even being denied perfectly fine political opinions. How many more days am I going to wake up to to find out I've got less freedom and less choice than the day before, when we live in a democracy? More importantly, why are we letting the government get away with this?

[imb39]

In the State Sector, the Government has a duty to provide a decent healthy options should anyone want to eat. Many families now eat processed foods at home and for many children then only time they might get a nourishing meal is at school.

I have absolutely no problems with this - no doubt I would have grumbled when I was at school (the tuck shop was always popular...) but now there is such concern over the state of the country's health the government has to act in someway. I don't understand why you think that the schools only have to provide what you want... No, their first priority is to provide something that is healthy and appealing. Appealing, however, will be tricky when so many are used to a diet of 'junk food' (in truth no food is junk - it only becomes a problem when eaten in excess) and even the thought of eating a healthier alternative is not an option.

Freedom is a valuable thing - but it is a poisoned chalice. Freedom also requires that people exercise (!) discipline in some form. In Britain, that just simply isn't happening - what is the government to do? They can't force people to exercise, they can't force people to eat healthily, but they can influence people. This school meals initiative helps in this respect (maybe not at first, but eventually it will help). There is even talk of adding a tax to foods with excessive salt, etc. This would work in a similar way to cigarettes - does anybody seriously think that the tax policy on ciggies is wrong? - I'm not sure whether taxing some foods is a viable option...

Also advertising needs to be shaken up. Already that is being addressed with limitations enforced at certain times (straight after school, for example), again that will help, eventually.

Now you mention that an 'octagenarian' was thrown out. So what? Now anyone who reads my posts will know I don't agree with the governement when it comes to Iraq but it was their meeting - they set the rules. In a similar way that the elderly lady was jailed recently. All of that hullaballoo over the fact that she went to prison. If it was an 18 year old guy - would anyone even bat an eyelid - even if his arguments were the same? No.

[JP226]

Owain, are you for or against a smoking ban? It's the same realm.

[Erik]

Owain, are you for or against a smoking ban? It's the same realm.

Smoking is banned because it's harmfull to non-smokers.
It isn't banned in the open air, is it?

IMO it should be up to the schools what they want to sell their students.
Why do governments think they have to get involved in every little detail?
Is it because they can't handle the major issues?

I also don't understand why they want to ban "Burgers and sausages from 'meat slurry' and 'mechanically recovered meat'"
Mechanically recovered meat is exactly the same as "normal" meat, it's not less healthy.

[imb39]

Having just seen the way he was ejected - it was rather badly handled. I still think that it is only because of his age that it appears too heavy handed.

[Tom Paine]

imb3: Banning healthy food is different from providing the option of healthy food. The government's job is not to limit our freedom , but to obey our wishes, and limitting our freedom is not what we want. Banning junk food will serve no-one's purposes.

[JAN]

Starting with the thread title 'Where is democracy in Britain heading?' there isn't a democracy in Britain. If there was a democracy in Britain, Blair's government would not be in power as only around a quarter of the voting population voted for it.

Loosing personal freedoms is more of a feature of Labour goverments than Conservative governments, not that I'm an advocate of either or any particular party. The fact is while Labour is in power you loose personal freedoms because of their centralised 'nanny state' approach. Trouble is when the Conservatives are in power few of these lost freedoms are restored because of their 'retaining the status quo' approach.

Throwing an 82 year old man and a younger man out of the Labour party conference for heckling just shows how totalitarian the Labout party is. The conference itself is stage managed to the n'th degree and no form of debating actually takes place anymore because it's seen as making the party look divided.

The people ejected were detained by the police under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Just shows how these acts can be used to suit any circumstances. In my view the 'ejectees' should be sueing the bouncers for assault and there must be all sorts of human rights violations that could be invoked as well. All this really shows how law has got into such a mess.

I don't see the removal of 'junk' foods from school as anything detremental to the rights of pupils. All it means is that the school is complying with it's obligations to provide healthy food in schools. If pupils want to eat rubbish then they can bring it to school with them or eat it out of school, it's entirely their choice.

Refined white sugar should carry a government health warning as over the long term it can be as lethal as tobacco, therefore it should not be in the school's remit to promote it.

JAN.

[Garbarsardar]

This policy is as hypocritical as they come. Ban smoking, nice. Ban unhealthy food? Checked!
Education on healthy eating:rubbish (they cannot afford teachers, right?)
Ratio of price of healthy alternative in Tesco's: 1:2 (it's 1:3 for free range meat)
Tackling say, the binge issue:More rubbish, they will have a revolution in their hands.(I really want to see them trying to reduce alcohol consumption in the Midlands)

I really wonder, have these planners ever visited places like Peckham and Seven Sisters? Have they seen the council housing, the garbage, the complete lack of alternatives for thousands of children? Sorry for my incoherence, but these health incentives-especially since I was in a position to see how those are planned, make me furious...

This incentive will fail as it is more ill conceived than the millenium dome.

[JAN]

This policy is as hypocritical as they come. Ban smoking, nice. Ban unhealthy food? Checked!
Education on healthy eating:rubbish (they cannot afford teachers, right?)
Ratio of price of healthy alternative in Tesco's: 1:2 (it's 1:3 for free range meat)
Tackling say, the binge issue:More rubbish, they will have a revolution in their hands.(I really want to see them truing to reduce alcohol consumption in the Midlands)

I really wonder, have these planners ever visited places like Peckham and Seven Sisters? Have they seen the council housing, the garbage, the complete lack of alternatives for thousands of children? Sorry for my incoherence, but these health incentives-especially since I was in aposition to see how those are planned, make me furious...

This incentive will fail as it is more ill conceived than the millenium dome.

Are you saying that schools should continue to provide unhealthy food then?

It should be the school's responsibility to comply with a general government directive to provide healthy food. The school should be given the resources and allowed to get on with it and parents should take enough interest in their children's health to see that it is done.

JAN.

[Garbarsardar]

Are you saying that schools should continue to provide unhealthy food then?

It should be the school's responsibility to comply with a general government directive to provide healthy food. The school should be given the resources and allowed to get on with it and parents should take enough interest in their children's health to see that it is done.

JAN.

Nope, I say that without the proper implementation-which requires some research into the root of the "unhealthy food" issue, this standalone measure will have no effects whatsoever, except for the earnings of the local junkshops and of course the prestige of some third class sociology rejects, that the government can afford with the meagre R&D budget.

That's what I'm saying.

[imb39]

Garbarsardar, yes there is a deep problem in Britain. On its own this will be a failure and it obly panders to the middle classes. Other initiatives need to be taken to encourage the adoption of healthier lifestyles. Perhaps there needs to be some 'encouragement' (probably through the tax regime - money talks) that makes healthier ones more attractive - trouble is, who decides? I think that would be my worry...

[Kanaric]

If they are government owned they should provide whatever the government asks of them. Private schools on the otherhand should be able to do whatever they wish.

[GORE]

something must be done about the food served in schools, but not just change the food, more improtantly the children must be educated (the food education i recieved in school was pathetic). its all because of jamie oliver, and the part in his show where he held up fruit and vegetables and asked children to identify them, and they could not identify 90%. but when he held up the trademarks of large companies providing 'junk' food, they could identify 100%. that has shown the problem we are faced with, large corporations providing exactly what the children want to eat, cheaply. then in schools they try to imitate these foods, but even cheaper, because children will refuse to eat 'greens' and such-like. so i believe the government should act on this, not by banning the food, but by limiting the amount provided, ie. 1 day a week 'unhealthy' food will be served(in belgium children are only allowed chips in school once a week). then if children wish to leave school to buy there own food, or there parents provide them with what they want, its there choice, but they are the ones who will need to be educated more (especialy the parents).

as for the man ejected from the labour conference, i was disgusted at the footage. and it was a slap in the face to our so called democracy, especially when we have sent men half way round the world to fight for another nations democracy. and a room full of people sat by and watched, the only man who intervened was ejected aswel, im ashamed of every person in that room, particularly the 'bouncers'.

[Solar]

You seem too worried about junk places losing money for not being able to sell junk food. the fact is, even if some money is lost because people won't buy healthy food, a lot more money is saved, since people won't have to spend millions on health treatments to cure food-related problems (obesity, diabetes, coronary artery obstruction, etc)

Besides, it's not like the teenager will be unable to have access to junk food. he can go and eat after school, as you have said, yourself. The school's function, however, is to EDUCATE the youngsters, and good alimentary education is part of the package. The local church won't allow you to :wub: in the altar, either, and no one is bashing it for killing your freedom; it's simply against the ideals and objectives of the church. You are, however, free to :wub: at home or in some other private place.

Also, it's not like teenagers will go for healthy food, if all they have access to in school is junk food (and that is what happens, according to your logic, since no one buys healthy food, and thus it should be unavailable as it's counter-profitable to offer it)

Ban the junk from schools, I'm all for it.

[Garbarsardar]

You seem too worried about junk places losing money for not being able to sell junk food. the fact is, even if some money is lost because people won't buy healthy food, a lot more money is saved, since people won't have to spend millions on health treatments to cure food-related problems (obesity, diabetes, coronary artery obstruction, etc)

1.You got it the other way round. I'm afraid as it is clear in my post that the earnings of Junk outlets will go UP. Have you ever tried to feed "healthy foo" to a teenager, when his family and the whole world around him eats junk?

Also, it's not like teenagers will go for healthy food, if all they have access to in school is junk food (and that is what happens, according to your logic, since no one buys healthy food, and thus it should be unavailable as it's counter-profitable to offer it)

2.They will simply go out and buy junk.Which is cheaper.And it is cheaper because a Sunday trip to the mall have already taught them that healthy food is dreadfully overpriced in the UK and only nerds go to the "organics" counter.How would you counter this "street knowledge"?

Ban the junk from schools, I'm all for it.

3.Yep, it will work as prohibition in the '20s...


Whatever you said in this thread so far, addresses the symptom and not the underlying causes, as family influence, social representations of food, consumer trends, advertising.

Furthermore you seem ignorant of the fact that prohibition has always adverse effects,as it is obvious to anyone who notices the drinking behaviour of 18 years olds. As it was not enough that the legal limit for alcohol generated the whole alcohol myth and the subsequent binges, now you think the same should be done with junk food.Waaaay to go!

[Tom Paine]

A difference between church and school: oyou have to go to school until 16, you don't have to go to church,. Therefore when you are in church it is basically a contract of obligations, and rights; in school all you have are obligations, really. The eating of healthy food should not be one.

[Solar]

you are not obliged to go to school. and that's beside the point. School is there to educate, and good eating habits is part of it. You want to eat junk, you still can, just not at school. what's so terrible about it...? If such a "counter-profitable" measure was taken, it means the country really needs it, they wouldn't just let go of the money for nothing.

[Tom Paine]

you are not obliged to go to school. and that's beside the point. School is there to educate, and good eating habits is part of it. You want to eat junk, you still can, just not at school. what's so terrible about it...?

Actually, legally you are and there are sanctions if you do not. That applies from age 5 to age 16, no break in the middle or anything. Compulsory education remember? Anyway, education is not about forcing you not to do something, but tellng youi why it is not a good idea; the child or adolescent mentality means that, if you say "Don't do something" and make it against the rules to do it, they'll find a way however hard.

[Solar]

So, you are saying schools should ban healthy food, so that teenagers would eat it, because "teenagers will do anything that's banned"?

In my opinion, it's useless to just say "hey kids, eat broccoli, it's good for you", and sell no broccoli in school, only chesseburgers. Kids will pretend they'll listen to it, and then soak up all the advertisement of triple-burger-saucy-mcgrease and eat it instead.

The ban is obviously not enough, there should be encouragement campaigns so kids would eat healthy food at school. Heck, alimentary habits could even be part of the student's grade, like physical education.

[Tom Paine]

No, I don't. However when you ban something they enjy they'll (we'll) just ignore the ban. We don't really like helthy food as much, so we won't eat it, and justget a MacD's intead. And seriously, do you weant to add yet more lessons and exams to an already performance oriented and exam-based education system? because that's how it'd work: exams on what you shouild and are eating, et cetera, whereas currently we are taought about it anyawy, in Biology lessons. Ooops,forgot to mention that.