To think change4life shouldn't partner up with a baby killing machine?

[LambinsideaDuckinsideaTrout]

Nestle? Really?

www.nhs.uk/change4life/Pages/national-partners-nestle.aspx

Excuse the language but, what the fucking fuck?

Majority don't boycott nestle why should they be denied a health programme

No thanks, hand is fine where it is. You keep going with your opines - always guaranteed to get something going, that's for sure.

Nowhere did I say anyone should be denied the programme.
My point is that Nestle as far as I can see, are about as far away from promoting health and well being as any company can be.
Therefore wholly unsuitable.

They should be denied a partnered health programme because their approach is not compatible with the NHS.

YANBU couldn't agree more. I was shocked too when I heard the news f the partnership. What were they thinking.

Ok, some people on the thread were unaware of the many, many issues with Nestlé but the NHS cannot possibly share the same ignorance.
so it is important to make children healthier in this country, but those abroad-in the developing world don't count? just horrible.

No,that's only your opinion that nestle unacceptable.you can decline programme if offered it
But this is an imposition and limiting health access to majority who not boycott nestle
Heath ethics and economics are complicated you've only got to look at pharmaceutical companies.not squeaky clean but nhs needs them in partnership

Ok so you're still name calling,now it's wee have a drink dig.i've got San pellegrino to hand
Why can't you discuss without dogma or digs?im pointing out the obvious fakes in your responses
If you're eligible for this programme,decline.bur let others chose if they want it

So you want to limit free trade?seeing feel business shouldn't command large market share
Does the state manage that imposition -when,what time scale
That's a central economy

Well you're going off track, I'm digging at you because you're objecting to things I haven't said.

What are you on about 'letting others choose it if they want'? Where did that even come from?

Are you drunk?

Is that really the best you can muster!youre incapable of discussing how you're preference on boycott isn't shared by majority
But yet you want to impose your minority view upon others,affecting their access to health programmes
You can't summon up an alternative other than a command economy were big business is limited

The end doesn't justify the means scottishmummy. In my opinion, if the NHS can't afford to run the programme unless they collaborate with vile companies like nestle, they shouldn't be running them. Some people in this country will lose out, true, but I think that is the lesser of two evils.

We can't justify the experiments the Nazis did on concentration camp prisoners, just because they found out a lot about how the human body reacts to freezing conditions. Similarly, I don't think we can justify using nestle to fund this programme just so parents can be taught not to feed their kids the kind of food that nestle makes.

Nazis!oh good grief,now you've really lost it

I'll ask you why should patients be denied a health programme because disagree with nestle

If everyone knew and researched or truly witnessed nestle for what it is the minority/majority could/would shift. excluding your type of course

Imposing? Informing I'd call it.

There are alternatives out there. With less money, yes. But alternatives there are, they managed so far to run the programme without them.

££££ Money, money, money.

Fgs. The nazi point was an analogy to show how the end can't always justify the means.

And that's why people should be denied a health programme. If the only way, truly the only way, that this programme can run is for it to be funded by a company with such an appalling impact on the people, animals and environment as nestle, then it shouldn't run. If it is essential, it needs to be funded another way. It's quite simple.

Would it be ok if this programme was funded by a weapon manufacturer? Why is it ok for it to be a company who is directly responsible for the deaths of millions of babies, just because they make tasty cereal and have nice adverts?

Like Sir said, it doesn't have to be nestle or nothing.

The nhs has responsibility to manage money it receives wisely,this includes partnership deals
Yes health and social care is about money.money paid by individual tax and ni
And as op has said most people don't participate in nestle boycott,the minority can opt out of nestle partnership

What's your alternative to nestle lamb?youve already advocated central economy
Do elaborate....

Or, money dangled like a bone in front of a starving dog, by a big fucking twat called Nestle.

Eat this as you have no other choice? Yeah?

You digress with hyperbole.answer the question what's your alternative

They managed so far to run the programme without. Whatever the alternative, it would be a better decision than using nestle.

presumably the partnership working offers greater patient access to programme to promote health gains. As you've agreed nestle have the clout,finances and internal structure to deliver

Have you ever read up on health ethics and health economics?i suggest you do
What's your thoughts on the big pharmaceuticals companies,they're not squeaky clean
If you can get beyond nationalising nestle it's v interesting

I've no doubt nestle offer all that and more. But at what cost?

I like to choose my own reading material, but thanks for the suggestion.

I doubt I would find anything about big pharmaceutical companies very interesting, it sounds like the most boring shit ever. But if that's your thing fair dos. I'm guessing I would just be annoyed and frustrated by it.