quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

If restricting somebodies right to earn a living is not an infraction on civil liberties then what is?

I disagree. Civil liberties are intended to be for the good of wider society as well as for the good of an individual.

Your argument suggests contract killers have a right to earn a living. The government steps in to censor various forms of potential earners. It is not an invasion of civil liberties to do so. Think badger baiting, dog fighting, contract killing, seal clubbing etc.

I fear I am about to stamp on an awful lot of toes here........ but really, what difference does badger baiting, hunting on horseback with hounds etc make to society as a whole? I also think that likening a cheese processor to a contract killer is stretching the link a little far, many folks would work in a cheese factory to feed their kin, I suspect not too many of them would start shooting people in the street.

Anybody who tries the "its for your own good" line on me automatically makes me think the exact opposite,

Fair enough. I prefer to listen to what they have to say and make my own decision. It's exactly what good business and finance managers do - they listen to the views of many and make their own decision.
The difference here is that you are unable to make a desicion, you are being told this is the way it is, it is not informed consent, but dictatorship, you must choose adherence to the law or be a law-breaker (although admittedly unless you run a broadcast media outlet it is not a law you could easily break). I wonder how much different your opinion would be if the question were not advertising food stuffs on TV, but avertising yourself on the internet (something only one step removed from the intended violent imagery legislation perhaps, maybe not even that much, after all alt com will surely fall foul of such legislation, a prudish judge could say the same of CM) I support the right of cheesemakers to advertise cheese exactly as much as I choose the right of all those who do so to advertise here. Here we are both products, it is for the consumer out there to make an informed desicion as to wether or not they want to "buy" us

the majority view could well be "who gives a shit", ie apathy.

Apathy is a huge problem in Britain. You're in good company with this point of view as it has been posted many times on this board.
Hopefully apathy is not something I could ever be accused of :)
The point is that the govt are wanting to ban the advertisement of a product, they are wanting to dictate to a private entity how they may try sell their product.

Loads of products are censored e.g . porn to kids, guns, knives, fur products, certain animal meat. This is one of many. A view is taken on what is right for our society. If people believe it is fascism and the government are over-stepping the mark then campaign to revoke such provisions. Majority view holds.
But as sort of stated, it is NOT a majority view, but the view of a small vocal minority. Unfortunately apathy exists for two reasons, firstly some folks generally dont care, others do care but feel that speaking out is a waste of time. Ask a random poll of people in the street how many have heard of the move towards such laws, let alone actively asked for them. I wager not many will have heard of it, the number who actually asked their represenative to vote for, let alone introduce such laws.
I do think that given all the other costly problems society has that have been mentioned elsewhere, such as crime, substance abuse, etc etc that the legislation and work involved in banning the advertisement of certain foods at certain times of day is to be blunt a ridiculous waste.

I can't agree. Obesity is a real problem. Parents and teachers are struggling to get to grips with it. Time for a last resort, helping hand from the government.
Given the choice between fighting obesity, of fighting the yob that half kills a grandmother for a few pounds I know exactly where I would prefer my taxes to go. I know exactly which I regard as a real problem. The reality of a problem depends on your perspective, I would much rather the Govt made it compulsory for people to make choices than to have it hold the hands of those without the strength of character to deal with such simple issues themselves.
As with most legislation of its type the proposal is very vague, covers many things it should not do, and often does not cover the areas it is trying to. At the end of the day have the restrictions on the advertising of alcohol made any difference?

Completely different. Alcohol is so ingrained in British society it is going to take something extra special to make inroads into the problem of alcoholism.
Why then does it seem to me that when I first started drinking was there much less of a problem than today? I dont think it is so ingrained but a more recent cultural event along with the big mac and unleaded petrol.
Those who care will have already sorted out the family diets, those that dont, well they are either really gullible folks who will buy whatever appears on the screen*, or they just dont care and it wont make any difference at all.

I can see the government argument. Kids are not always with their parents. When they're at school there is less chance of them eating rubbish if they're not being bombarded with advertisements for rubbish food.
I can see an argument for education, at a push I can see an argument for financial incentives such as the tax on tobacco products, I cannot see an argument for badly thrown together legislation to pander to the whims of a focus group. No amount of dubious law-making can outlaw stupid people who dont give a hoot about health/environment/freedom of choice.
You know what, they tried something similar in the US for adults. A Canadian firm put together an advert which went along the lines of "A North American consumes 30 times as much as an Indian and 8 times as much as a Chinese, give it a rest for a day". The advert was fully funded yet the big US TV stations refused to show the adverts due to corporate pressure. Personally, I would rather see the health of a kid protected than allow corporations to market their shit food to gullable kids who don't know any different. 
 I have never bought my offspring the lastest toy for xmas, or the "in" trainers just because they are advertised or what every other kid in class has. I have a stronger will than that. If people are really that stupid/gullible I think diet could be the least of their problems. If I was a TV station, the ONLY way such an advert would get aired is if they could match the money I would lose by annoying my regular customers, after all it is a money making opportunity, not a public service, moral gaurdian or soapbox.

edited for typo

quote:

On the otherhand, one kid not old enough to make informed decisions = problem.

quote:

A 12-year-old special education student in Montour County was charged with disorderly conduct after authorities said she deliberately wet her pants at school. Source: http://cbs3.com/watercooler/local_story_004113538.html 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

On the otherhand, one kid not old enough to make informed decisions = problem.

NG,
A minority of one, no longer a "huge minority" by any standard, requires government intervention? You sure of that position and its application to all matters?

Merc, there are millions of kids in Britain. I was comparing adults to kids, my point was kids are not in a position to make an informed decision. Hence, we have laws protecting kids ranging from laws surrounding porn to the purchase of weapons. Two consenting adults = fine, one kid multiplied by about 10 million (in Britain) = problem.
 
Anyway, I thought we'd knocked this on the head and agreed to disagree. You coming back in for another go leads me to believe you know you couldn't answer one of my posts and thought this particular one was easier to go at. Unfortunately for you, you misunderstood my post.
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

I fear I am about to stamp on an awful lot of toes here........ but really, what difference does badger baiting, hunting on horseback with hounds etc make to society as a whole? I also think that likening a cheese processor to a contract killer is stretching the link a little far, many folks would work in a cheese factory to feed their kin, I suspect not too many of them would start shooting people in the street.
 
There is certainly a huge difference between contract killing and working in a cheese factory. However, this doesn't detract from the point I'm making. The point being, everyone on this board believes in a certain amount of government intrusion in our lives (unless they're an out-and-out anarchist). For example, I'm sure you'll agree the government have a duty to pass law relating to paedophilia. As said in other posts, we are disagreeing on where the line is drawn in terms of government intervention.
 
Unless a person is an anarchist it is misleading to suggest that he/she does not approve of government intrusion in his/her life in one form or another (this is not particularly aimed at you Sleazy, it's a general point).

The difference here is that you are unable to make a desicion, you are being told this is the way it is, it is not informed consent, but dictatorship, you must choose adherence to the law or be a law-breaker (although admittedly unless you run a broadcast media outlet it is not a law you could easily break).
 
No-one is pulling my strings. My views are based on my values. Believing in government intervention does not make me a servant to the government. They step in at our request i.e. when we can't resolve our issues (and we have more recurring issues than you can shake a shitty stick at).
 
Another valid point, the government aren't aliens from another planet. We elect them, they are created in our society just like we are. If they are corrupted they simply mirror our society. They went to school, they like a beer, they go to the shops on a Saturday morning for their milk and papers. In other words, subscribing to government law does not make us subservient as they are not extraordinary - we put them there to work for us.
 
I wonder how much different your opinion would be if the question were not advertising food stuffs on TV, but avertising yourself on the internet (something only one step removed from the intended violent imagery legislation perhaps, maybe not even that much, after all alt com will surely fall foul of such legislation, a prudish judge could say the same of CM) I support the right of cheesemakers to advertise cheese exactly as much as I choose the right of all those who do so to advertise here. Here we are both products, it is for the consumer out there to make an informed desicion as to wether or not they want to "buy" us
 
There is a difference. I advertise myself on the internet and I'm expecting an adult of a legal age to reply i.e. a person able to make an informed choice. I am not expecting a kid who is still learning about pubes to hassle me.

But as sort of stated, it is NOT a majority view, but the view of a small vocal minority.
 
No way to prove this one either way. You include those who say nothing as being in the majority. It's debatable.

Given the choice between fighting obesity, of fighting the yob that half kills a grandmother for a few pounds I know exactly where I would prefer my taxes to go. I know exactly which I regard as a real problem.

I think they should tackle both instead of spending my tax money on tridents and the like.

Why then does it seem to me that when I first started drinking was there much less of a problem than today? I dont think it is so ingrained but a more recent cultural event along with the big mac and unleaded petrol.
 
The press have a huge role to play in our perception of the world. Some seem to think crime is worse today than 100 years ago but this is based on the fact that our press senationalise and devote so much space to crime i.e. over representation. It is a problem but worse than 20 years ago? I'm not so sure. Same with alcohol. If someone can point me to a credible link I'll accept the point.
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

I fear I am about to stamp on an awful lot of toes here........ but really, what difference does badger baiting, hunting on horseback with hounds etc make to society as a whole? I also think that likening a cheese processor to a contract killer is stretching the link a little far, many folks would work in a cheese factory to feed their kin, I suspect not too many of them would start shooting people in the street.
 
There is certainly a huge difference between contract killing and working in a cheese factory. However, this doesn't detract from the point I'm making. The point being, everyone on this board believes in a certain amount of government intrusion in our lives (unless they're an out-and-out anarchist). For example, I'm sure you'll agree the government have a duty to pass law relating to paedophilia. As said in other posts, we are disagreeing on where the line is drawn in terms of government intervention.
 
Unless a person is an anarchist it is misleading to suggest that he/she does not approve of government intrusion in his/her life in one form or another (this is not particularly aimed at you Sleazy, it's a general point).

I am not quite a total anarchist, more a believer in minimalist government. A government should provide an infrastucture to fit society's needs, not attempt to squeeze society into the infrastructure it wants to create. Sure that may mean higher taxes sometimes, but it should never intrude too much into the personal lives of citizens. I would feel if a government deems me adult enough to vote it into or out of office, it should likewise deem me adult enough to be responsible for my own life and family.

quote:


The difference here is that you are unable to make a desicion, you are being told this is the way it is, it is not informed consent, but dictatorship, you must choose adherence to the law or be a law-breaker (although admittedly unless you run a broadcast media outlet it is not a law you could easily break).
 
No-one is pulling my strings. My views are based on my values. Believing in government intervention does not make me a servant to the government. They step in at our request i.e. when we can't resolve our issues (and we have more recurring issues than you can shake a shitty stick at).
 
Another valid point, the government aren't aliens from another planet. We elect them, they are created in our society just like we are. If they are corrupted they simply mirror our society. They went to school, they like a beer, they go to the shops on a Saturday morning for their milk and papers. In other words, subscribing to government law does not make us subservient as they are not extraordinary - we put them there to work for us.

A government should step in at the request of its citizens, howevcr it should not respond with knee-jerk reactions to each and every focus group or vocal minority that happens to voice an agenda. There is rarely a good case for legislating against free choice. I can see a rationalisation for making laws that result in consquences as an example the only free healthcare available to drug users could be assitance in kicking the habit, any other healthcare costs as result of the addiction would be chargeable.

Whilst politicians may be from this planet, I have my doubts how many are actually from this world. How many have had to feed a family of five on minimum wage, or even worked a regular 9-5 job in an office, a call center, a supermarket or factory? Our prime minister studied law, has he ever actually stood in a court and pleaded a case? Politics should not be a profession, it should be a moral duty. I cannot attribute the quote, but an american once said "Anybody who wishes to hold office should automatically be disqualified from doing so. The president should be dragged kicking and screaming into the oval office, that way he will do the best job possible in the hope of time off for good behaviour" The words are probably inaccurate, but I believe the concept is there still. If a politician is to be paid a salary he must work for it. He must attend every vote, he must spend a minimum set number of hours actually integrating with his constituents. Rather than declaring them he must not have any outside financial interests at all.

quote:


I wonder how much different your opinion would be if the question were not advertising food stuffs on TV, but avertising yourself on the internet (something only one step removed from the intended violent imagery legislation perhaps, maybe not even that much, after all alt com will surely fall foul of such legislation, a prudish judge could say the same of CM) I support the right of cheesemakers to advertise cheese exactly as much as I choose the right of all those who do so to advertise here. Here we are both products, it is for the consumer out there to make an informed desicion as to wether or not they want to "buy" us
 
There is a difference. I advertise myself on the internet and I'm expecting an adult of a legal age to reply i.e. a person able to make an informed choice. I am not expecting a kid who is still learning about pubes to hassle me.

But it might happen! Just as my kids might indulge in a sneaky slice of processed cheese whether it is advertised or not.

quote:



But as sort of stated, it is NOT a majority view, but the view of a small vocal minority.
 
No way to prove this one either way. You include those who say nothing as being in the majority. It's debatable.

Correct. I regard a majority as something to be taken from the whole, rather than the majority of those that choose to be vocal on an issue. If 31% vote for A, 29% vote against A, and 40% do not vote at all, then in my eyes the majority view is no view. Compulsory voting has been commented on elsewhere in another thread so I shall not drag it up again.

quote:


Given the choice between fighting obesity, of fighting the yob that half kills a grandmother for a few pounds I know exactly where I would prefer my taxes to go. I know exactly which I regard as a real problem.

I think they should tackle both instead of spending my tax money on tridents and the like.

 
Unfortunately tackling every issue is at least impractical, if not outright impossible. There must be some form of prioritisation, and for me the proposal to ban advertising of certain foodstuffs at certaind times of day should not be on the list of priorities at all. If I were to agree for the sake of argument it must be on the list, it should be as near the bottom as possible, in the overall scheme of things I really do not think it that important, nor do I think it would actually make any difference in the way it is intended.

quote:


Why then does it seem to me that when I first started drinking was there much less of a problem than today? I dont think it is so ingrained but a more recent cultural event along with the big mac and unleaded petrol.
 
The press have a huge role to play in our perception of the world. Some seem to think crime is worse today than 100 years ago but this is based on the fact that our press senationalise and devote so much space to crime i.e. over representation. It is a problem but worse than 20 years ago? I'm not so sure. Same with alcohol. If someone can point me to a credible link I'll accept the point.
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

General post:

Our environment has an impact on us.

The bloke down the street has a drug habit and he needs to go on the rob to fund his addiction. You may be in the house when he comes round to take from you and you can do your worst but if you're elsewhere he'll take advantage of an empty house and you've lost out.

The bloke next door is obsessed with celebrity. He has nothing to lose as he has nothing and his mind has gone. He goes on the rampage in a school in search of fame (infamy) and one of your kids is a victim.

One of your lads gets involved in the wrong crowd and ends up a drunk.

All of the above can happen to anyone. No one lives in a vacuum. We all benefit from attempting to reduce social problems. You can't watch your kids 24/7.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Being an American I have no use for *my* govt. trying to tell me what to do.
The People tell the govt. what to do and if they don't do it we vote them out of office.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

I am not quite a total anarchist, more a believer in minimalist government. A government should provide an infrastucture to fit society's needs, not attempt to squeeze society into the infrastructure it wants to create. Sure that may mean higher taxes sometimes, but it should never intrude too much into the personal lives of citizens. I would feel if a government deems me adult enough to vote it into or out of office, it should likewise deem me adult enough to be responsible for my own life and family.

Sleazy, the above is pretty much as I expected and I'm in agreement with you. Thus, where we have a difference of opinion is as follows:
 
1) What we deem to be necessary and justified intrusion.
 
2) The extent to which you can be responsible for your own kids and family. You can't watch them 24/7. Think of this like a business. You're the MD. There are external influences on your business (for example, competitor actions, supplier price changes etc) and if you do not take account of these your business will go under. To take account of them you are relying on information from outside of your business. You are still managing the business but you are receiving a helping hand from externally sourced information. In terms of cheese, you can buy your kids whatever cheese you want to but you have received information from an external source to the effect that over indulgence on fatty foods will lead to health problems.
 
3) The extent to which our society is working. We know we have huge problems and we know the market, parents and teachers are not resolving them. Thus, you can either let them fester or you can direct tax payers money, through government organisation, to make a dent into these problems. If everything was rosey in the garden in Britain I would say the government should be responsible for justice only. In reality however, we have problems as does every country in the world and we're not resolving them.
 
Ultimately, an I'm alright Jack approach is short-sighted because there are an economic and social costs (for all of us) associated with social deprivation and anti-social behaviour (unless you're prepared to build a huge barbed wire fence with a guns on top and shut out the world). Also, there is the moral dimension of support for those less fortunate.

A government should step in at the request of its citizens, howevcr it should not respond with knee-jerk reactions to each and every focus group or vocal minority that happens to voice an agenda.

Agreed and this highlights a difference of opinion. I don't believe tackling social problems is either a) a knee jerk reaction or b) only in the interests of a minority.

Whilst politicians may be from this planet, I have my doubts how many are actually from this world. How many have had to feed a family of five on minimum wage, or even worked a regular 9-5 job in an office, a call center, a supermarket or factory?

Agreed but is it an issue? If it is an issue for you, are you saying you would like to see politicians come from all walks of life regardless of education and background? If so, would you extend this to an unemployed drug addict? If you want to practice a principle of politicians being drawn from all walks of life then by its very nature you couldn't start making decisions on those groups allowed and those not (any such attempt to make decisions would simply be another case of marginalistion).

If a politician is to be paid a salary he must work for it. He must attend every vote, he must spend a minimum set number of hours actually integrating with his constituents. Rather than declaring them he must not have any outside financial interests at all.

quote:



In complete agreement but many MPs do integrate with constituents. With regard to the Labour Party, it is those at the centre of the Labour government who have lost touch with grass roots Labour and also lost touch with other Labour MPs. The movers and shakers in the Labour Government are a law unto themselves. They don't listen to other Labour MPs and the grass roots party.

But it might happen! Just as my kids might indulge in a sneaky slice of processed cheese whether it is advertised or not.

A kid shouldn't be seen as a money making consumer. They're kids, man. There are laws protecting kids for a good reason. If the bloke down the street was a convicted paedophile how many parents would be not be looking at the government to do something to remove them from the area to keep their kids safe? Very few.
 
In sum, banning the advertisement of fatty foods to kids is a necessary intrusion into our lives. The real problem is these business' who pump their products full of rubbish. Is it legitimate to make a profit while knowingly causing serious health issues? You may say it's a free world but where are you going to draw the line i.e. are we all free to murder each other?

edited for typo 

< Message edited by NorthernGent -- 1/6/2007 4:05:05 AM >

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to sleazy)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

General post:

Our environment has an impact on us.

The bloke down the street has a drug habit and he needs to go on the rob to fund his addiction. You may be in the house when he comes round to take from you and you can do your worst but if you're elsewhere he'll take advantage of an empty house and you've lost out.

The bloke next door is obsessed with celebrity. He has nothing to lose as he has nothing and his mind has gone. He goes on the rampage in a school in search of fame (infamy) and one of your kids is a victim.

One of your lads gets involved in the wrong crowd and ends up a drunk.

All of the above can happen to anyone. No one lives in a vacuum. We all benefit from attempting to reduce social problems. You can't watch your kids 24/7.

Two of these can be dealt with to some extent by adequate education. there are laws that aim to prevent the sale never mind advertising of controlled substances, there are restrictions on the advertisement of alcohol. given that neither of these serious issues are adequately dealt with by restricting advertising, how will the proposed foodstuff advertisement restrictions have any real effect?

The obsession case I feel is a question more of healthcare and its availabilty, suitability and effectiveness

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Has the idea of an "all knowing" government controlling and deciding what is "good" for you become an accepted goal?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FangsNfeet

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Has the idea of an "all knowing" government controlling and deciding what is "good" for you become an accepted goal?

Funny. Most countries started off with a King or Dictator in which the people rebelled and formed a government in which all the people have a say so in the matter. Now that everyone is free, most are realizing that they miss the discipline/strictness and fast decisions made by a king who knows what's "best" for his people. A kings decision may not always be in best interest of his people, but at least action gets done and speaks louder than a Prime Ministers words.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

Cheese LOL.ummm, LOL. okay stop laughing. hehehe. Is this a joke, common it must be , banning cheese. Heil Hitler. LOL. okay compose self and type.
1, 2, 3....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac

NG

As with many good ideas the devil is in the detail, we know McDonalds advertising targetted at kids has for years been contributing to damaging the health of some children, the difiulty is when they draft the advertising ban guidance how do you create a list that is sensible and can not quickly be got round e.g. Mac can advertise there "salads" but when children go in how many of them will order a salad? What you need to do is take money from Macs pocket, and use it to send a subliminal message to children that burgers etc are really un-cool, (as well as all the health stuff) net effect - put up cost of Macs advertising budget, & undermine their advertising campaigne, all financed by Mac.......

e.g. all adverts on hild time TV are surcharged 10% which is used to finance healthy eating propoganda. You could have a character called life Burger...lar, who steals childrens toys and makes them really sick at fun fairs etc... Of course we would also state that it is a market driven inititive educating the consumer to allow them to make an informed choice.