To get fed up with people with people like Jamie Oliver trying to coerce poor people via taxation.

[Booyaka]

I absolutely loathe Jamie Oliver anyway, but this crusade of his over sugar is driving me mad. I think something possibly needs to be done about sugar, but I don't think this is the way to do it. He did make a suggestion about prominently labelling total number of teaspoons of sugar in a product, which seemed quite sensible. But mainly he was pushing the tax angle.

Jamie Oliver's entire schtick seems to be that poor people can't be trusted to make the right decisions so they should instead be priced out to force them to make the decisions that he and his ilk believe that they should be making.

It bloody annoys me that they seem to think if you are wealthy and can afford them anyway you can be trusted to make the right decision anyway, but if you're poor you need to be coerced, and that coercion, of something as basic as what you eat and drink, is fine as long as you are poor. He did very much concentrate on handwringing about 'the deprived' too and how this tax would seemingly save them from themselves.

Apparently 1/3 of the products he sell in his restaurants are high sugar anyway, but he probably doesn't mind that, because he prices his tat so highly only middle class people can afford it and they're sensible enough to be trusted with sugar unlike the proles.

He probably doesn't realise, but a lot of people can't afford to take their kids to Tuscany or the Caribbean, Cornwall or even Skeg-bloody-ness. They can't buy their kids a lot of toys or give them days out. Is it really fair to give these people a financial kicking for giving their kids one of the few treats they can afford? Especially when many of them do so sensibly and in moderation.

"Because then 1/3 of the products he sells would become either banned or he would be taxed."

Are you suggesting that producers make their own products illegal?

I try to avoid him and his dopey wife but it's difficult when they're on a mission to promote something.

There was a series where he was saving the kebab-munching classes and visited a jobless single mother living with her child in a one bedroom flat with a pre-paid meter. They ate takeaways from polystyrene boxes.

She didn't know how to cook. Her mother didn't know how to cook. She probably came from a long line of non-cookers. But that wasn't really the point. The obstacle was that she didn't have any fucking money.

Someone asked earlier in this thread: who doesn't have saucepans? She didn't. So instead of addressing that, Ch4 magicked them up. And the spices to make things palatable but more importantly, the fuel to cook it on.

If she had really spent all that money, she'd have had none left over for a cheap chicken to cook.

But he glossed over that

"Childrens lives ARE more stressful now Look at all the tests they get put through at school."

My parents lives were terrible, as were many children bought up in the 1930's and 1940's. Poverty, crap schools, massive classes, poor teaching techniques, corporal punishment at home and school, horribly dysfunctional families (divorce was difficult for most), serious poverty.

But most children were thin because all they ate were three meals a day and they walked everywhere.

People are much kinder to children now and schools are massively nicer places.

"Childrens lives ARE more stressful now Look at all the tests they get put through at school."

My parents lives were terrible, as were many children bought up in the 1930's and 1940's. Poverty, crap schools, massive classes, poor teaching techniques, corporal punishment at home and school, horribly dysfunctional families (divorce was difficult for most), serious poverty.

But most children were thin because all they ate were three meals a day and they walked everywhere.

People are much kinder to children now and schools are massively nicer places.

Uh, no. He's campaigning for legislation on tax, so if he targeted producers he would be looking at legislation to stop them producing sugary food or taxing them on the levels of sugar they add (I thought 'banned or taxed' would have made the fact it was legislation rather than self regulation I was talking about pretty clear'.

But of course he doesn't want to do that, because he doesn't want to be prevented from selling high sugar products to wealthy people.

Poor housing does cost the NHS - no doubt about that - but this is a thread about JO and sugar.

I agree that housing is a huge issue but it is not easy to solve and not simple either. Build more, spend more on the houses we have, put pressure on private landlords, stop immigration and therefore reduce demand, develop areas where housing is not oversubscribed but there are no jobs, bring in taxes on unoccupied/second/big homes??? What???? Huge! Doesn't mean we shouldn't tackle it - we absolutely should - but start a thread about it and interested people will post.

"so if he targeted producers he would be looking at legislation to stop them producing sugary food or taxing them on the levels of sugar they add (I thought 'banned or taxed' would have made the fact it was legislation rather than self regulation I was talking about pretty clear'."

So companies like Kraft and Nestle would be forbidden from making and selling chocolate and sweets in the UK? And that would be fairer and better than taxing them so that they were more expensive and people ate less, and money could be raised through the additional taxation to prop up the NHS.?

That would definitely work.

"so if he targeted producers he would be looking at legislation to stop them producing sugary food or taxing them on the levels of sugar they add (I thought 'banned or taxed' would have made the fact it was legislation rather than self regulation I was talking about pretty clear'."

So companies like Kraft and Nestle would be forbidden from making and selling chocolate and sweets in the UK? And that would be fairer and better than taxing them so that they were more expensive and people ate less, and money could be raised through the additional taxation to prop up the NHS.?

That would definitely work.

Poor housing does cost the NHS - no doubt about that - but this is a thread about JO and sugar

I think this thread proves that 'stop them eating sugar, and let's do that by making sugar too expensive for poor by which they mean stupid people' is a massive oversimplification of the real issues and is unlikely to cure anything.

And it's exposed some of the usual myths of poverty, and the 'let them eat porridge and potatoes' attitude of the not poor.

Actually I eat porridge and potatoes and am seriously struggling for money. I never buy breakfast cereals because porridge is cheap and better for you. I had a baked potato for dinner every night last week, one day with baked beans, one day with cheese and grated carrots etc etc.

Is it not also patronising to assume that "the poor" are all stupid and unable to eat well? "They" exist on fizzy drinks and crisps and junk because they have no choice and no brains to do differently. I am poor - not food bank poor and not homeless - but those are not the majority of people included in the "fizzy drink" debate.

I have not always been poor - maybe that affects my attitude - who knows - but I use what I have in the best way I can. My kids eat well. No junk. Many of my friends are poor. It does not mean we are stupid.

Is it not also patronising to assume that "the poor" are all stupid and unable to eat well? "They" exist on fizzy drinks and crisps and junk because they have no choice and no brains to do differently

Absolutely. That was one of my points.

Is it not also patronising to assume that "the poor" are all stupid and unable to eat well? "They" exist on fizzy drinks and crisps and junk because they have no choice and no brains to do differently

Absolutely. That was one of my points.

I used to live on toast, baked potatoes, beans and veggie burgers (Eight for £1.50 with a bit of cheese in a roll) Very cheap and tasty, but my metabolism can't take carb-heavy food post-menopause in the way it could in my thirties.

"for poor by which they mean stupid people' is a massive oversimplification of the real issues and is unlikely to cure anything. "

Only if you are assuming that raising taxes on sugar should be the be all and end all of health campaigns to reduce obesity.

Nobody thinks that - it's just one of many things which should be tried.

Because of this I am morally opposed to taxes punishing "the poor" for so-called lifestyle choices. If there were fewer fat kids in my childhood, it's because today's children live much more stressful lives in every way. That's what needs addressing.

why look at it as punishment? It's just a way to discourage consumption of crap.

Milk is dirt cheap in this country and lots of people drink it. make fizzy drinks more expensive and less people, poor and not poor, will drink it.

Minifingers, he's not suggesting that the producers are taxed. He's suggesting consumers are taxed.

Is it not also patronising to assume that "the poor" are all stupid and unable to eat well? "They" exist on fizzy drinks and crisps and junk because they have no choice and no brains to do differently. I am poor - not food bank poor and not homeless - but those are not the majority of people included in the "fizzy drink" debate.

but that's not why you would tax fizzy drinks. The tax isn't to target the poor. it's to bring down consumption across all scales. of course, such a tax will have far less affect the higher you go up on the income ladder, but it will have an effect.

I don't care to have his social and political views rammed down my throat.

I live near one of his restaurants and can't say i've had his views rammed down my throat. In fact, this thread is the first I have heard of him in months.

Because then 1/3 of the products he sells would become either banned or he would be taxed. And he's not going to want to do that, he wants the onus to fall on all the irresponsible poor people, not him.

i'd like to see the data on that.

Incidentally while Jamie Oliver has been demanding more taxes on the poor this multimillionaire's company has filed it's accounts today and they seem to include a tidy little tax dodge. I can see why he's so in favour of taxes which disproportionately affect the poor. Somebody has to pay taxes, and he's going to make damn sure that as little as possible of that is him.

Why is he so keen for other people to pay extra taxes when he doesn't want to?

Do you mean knowing about food makes you make good choices? Because it may for some, some not so much.

I've replied to your PM, Italian, though I now see my small essay may not have answered the right question. Sorry.

In a nutshell, fear & confusion cause a lot of problems, the majority of which will impact on our health. Fear & confusion are piled upon our less-advantaged people with increasing ferocity. Adding to this will not make people healthier.

There's a world of difference between knowledge and rules. (I nearly said 'between education and instruction', but am too tired to face the semantic onslaught that might provoke!) Food isn't something to be scared of. It's not a moral issue. There are no wrong foods. There are no empty calories. When you understand how food works, how cooking works, and how food interacts with your metabolism - then, yes, you will make healthier choices.

An ever-changing welter of "do this, don't do that", wrong-and-right rules, and telling people they are bad if they follow their appetite will not cause people to make healthier choices, nor even to know what constitutes a healthy choice. It's the way you run a prison, not a life.

Can't keep with thread at present. I'll take a deep breath and check back in tomorrow.

Why is he so keen for other people to pay extra taxes when he doesn't want to?

I am going to guess that JO doesn't do his own taxes, and gets an accountant to do it. He almost certainly pays the legal minimum, as any business or person should.

Do you have any suggestion on how to solve the nation's obesity problem? This is just a small nudge, which usually has less adverse consequences than policies that use a big hammer.

Why is he so keen for other people to pay extra taxes when he doesn't want to?

I am going to guess that JO doesn't do his own taxes, and gets an accountant to do it. He almost certainly pays the legal minimum, as any business or person should.

Do you have any suggestion on how to solve the nation's obesity problem? This is just a small nudge, which usually has less adverse consequences than policies that use a big hammer.

Blue Jug there are connections between the two.

www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/wfnews/10904064.Single_mum_without_hot_water_for_two_weeks/

Blue Jug there are connections between the two.

www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/wfnews/10904064.Single_mum_without_hot_water_for_two_weeks/

From my link.

"A single mother-of-two has spoken of her frustration after being left without hot water and cooking facilities for two weeks in the run up to Christmas.

Tracie Wye, 41, of Boscombe Avenue in Leyton, smelled gas on December 5 in her home and the supply was switched off.

But despite several calls to landlord East Thames Housing Association, the hot water supply was not restored until December 20.

However, her oven was still not working and a mini-cooker was supplied by social services on Christmas Eve.

But Ms Wye said she could not afford any more food after buying expensive takeaways for three weeks and using costly fan heaters to replace the central heating."

i want to drink the fizzy drinks just to pee he off!