The Political Asylum

SilverMiniCooperS · Inmate of the Asylum Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 195

I vote no. There is far too much government in our lives as it is (on both shores of the pond).

cherrybabe · Inmate of the Asylum Joined: 26 Jan 2007 Posts: 345

I voted yes, it cannot do any harm to encourage healthier eating. Whether it would make a big difference to what kids eat only time would tell, but it would be interesting to see.
_________________
-----------------------------------------------------------
I hear the ancient footsteps like the motion of the sea
Sometimes I turn, there's someone there, other times it's only me.

Lady Viola Wellbeloved · Joined: 29 Mar 2008 Posts: 66 Location: Out of this World

I voted no. I don't like all the regulations government wants over us. Also I agree the onus should be on parents to educate their children about eating sensibly.
_________________
Once I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken...

adrien · Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:46 pm Post subject:

I voted yes. I'd much rather have the government have their say in health education than the food corporations...
_________________
Sit on the banks of the river and wait for the corpse of your enemy. - Indian proverb.

cherrybabe · Inmate of the Asylum Joined: 26 Jan 2007 Posts: 345

Half the parents in this country need educating on diet never mind the children. If the onus is on them to encourage healthier eating and a more active lifestyle away from the playstation (CB says with her arse glued to a chair typing Razz

) then were is the harm.

If there is no intervention at all, it's like they don't give a damn. The way obesity is rising in this country, i just dont think we can afford to sit back and let our children explode because we don't like being regulated.
_________________
-----------------------------------------------------------
I hear the ancient footsteps like the motion of the sea
Sometimes I turn, there's someone there, other times it's only me.

kitchenwitch · Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:14 pm Post subject:

I have no problem with government agencies encouraging healthy eating and promoting education regarding nutrition, but I don't think banning junk food ads is the answer. It's just one more thing we as citizens give up control over and before you know it the government is taxing junk food and vilifying it because it is in our "best interest". It is most definitely nanny state mentality, whichever side of the Atlantic you're on.

Vintage Girl · Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:27 pm Post subject:

I agree absolutely!

Of course it is the governments role to issue guidelines for healthy eating but this law would be a step too far. There is no justification for banning this type of advertising.
_________________
Girls are like phones. We love to be held and talked to, but if you press the wrong button you'll be disconnected!

cherrybabe · Inmate of the Asylum Joined: 26 Jan 2007 Posts: 345

It's censorship that people seem to dislike the most. The government should get off their behinds and find out what the public do want and then act.

It certainly is not nice to read stuff like this, so something has to be done to educate the masses.

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/39Your-children-are-too-fat.3907187.jp
_________________
-----------------------------------------------------------
I hear the ancient footsteps like the motion of the sea
Sometimes I turn, there's someone there, other times it's only me.

adrien · Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:48 pm Post subject:

wakeyboy · Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:45 pm Post subject:

I dont think fast food adverts should be banned because its our choice as citizens to make that decision for ourselves. However, I voted Yes, because we're talking about adverts aimed at children. I see it as unscrupulous to aim unhealthy eating habits at children who are not old enough to make that decision. It doesnt matter what the parents do, because the kids have it lodged in their minds that its cool to eat certain types of food and not others.

I dont like the idea of an all pervasive government, but on certain issues, I'd rather the 'nannying' of concerned elected representatives than the manipulation of corporations whose only concern is to make profit.
_________________
http://www.realradioyorkshire.co.uk/

Dame Brunhilde Golightly · Joined: 30 Mar 2008 Posts: 9

kitchenwitch · Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:41 pm Post subject:

adrien · Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 1:26 pm Post subject:

Merak · Inmate of the Asylum Joined: 05 Apr 2008 Posts: 214

i remember paying no attention to ads when I was a kid - they were simply an interuption to whatever I was watching, and they displeased me on account of it. Laughing

Come to think of it... they still displease me! I rarely sit through ads. Not that i watch much tele anyway, but they are a nuisance, and I'm sure they're on for longer than they used to be.

Vintage Girl · Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 8:21 pm Post subject:

They're definately on for longer. Also I know they are not allowed to increase the volume when the adverts come on so what they do is lower the volume when the programming is on. Consequently, you keep upping the volume because you can't hear and when the adverts come on you get your ears blasted. So the effect is still the same. Mad

_________________
Girls are like phones. We love to be held and talked to, but if you press the wrong button you'll be disconnected!

Merak · Inmate of the Asylum Joined: 05 Apr 2008 Posts: 214

Yes, it's outrageous, and the point of it so the people like me who go and make tea... or get a beer from the fridge in my case more like... whilst ads are on can still hear the ads from another room. The law should be a constant volume. Do you notice as well - I don't know if this the same with ITV, C4 & C5, but on the cable channels the ads seem to be on at the same time if you go flicking through channels to try and avoid them! Evil or Very Mad

Vintage Girl · Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 9:02 pm Post subject:

You're right, so no chance of flicking through during the ads to see what else is on.

Not that you flick anywhere with Virgin Media cos it takes so bloody long for the channel to change. Mad

_________________
Girls are like phones. We love to be held and talked to, but if you press the wrong button you'll be disconnected!

adrien · Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 10:26 am Post subject:

What, wait, don't you also oppose the nannying of the State that decide for you what the volume should be during the ads, and "for your own good"? And what about your freedom of choice? Wink

_________________
Sit on the banks of the river and wait for the corpse of your enemy. - Indian proverb.

Vintage Girl · Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 12:30 pm Post subject:

I believe it is my freedom of choice not to have my ears blasted just because the advertisers want to sell me something. Shocked

_________________
Girls are like phones. We love to be held and talked to, but if you press the wrong button you'll be disconnected!

adrien · Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 1:00 pm Post subject:

Sure, but why a law? Of course it may be the government's role to issue guidelines for protecting your hearing, but isn't this a step too far? There is no justification for banning this type of advertising. Wink

And isn't it also your freedom of choice not to be exposed to junk food advertising during children prorammes? I mean, why is a law necessary in one case, and nannying in the other? Isn't ad volume controlled by what the people buy and what they watch, just like in this wonderful world ad content is controlled by what the people buy and what they watch - at least, according to kitchenwitch, maybe you don't share her views? If the government agencies get to dictate the volume to which items are advertised on TV, or anywhere else for that matter, then where does that leave our freedom of choice? Wink

_________________
Sit on the banks of the river and wait for the corpse of your enemy. - Indian proverb.

JuanaLaLoca · Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 3:38 pm Post subject:

BlueEmperor · Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 7:38 pm Post subject:

I have voted 'no' because I feel this represents the nannyism of the State. Not only is the Government constantly trying to lecture us on what is good and bad for us and treating us all as though we were idiots, this particular law represents lazy parenting. What this law basically says is that food companies need to be prevented by legislation from aiming their adverts at children because those children will then go and beg their parents to buy them junk food and this will make them all fat and unhealthy.

Hello??? When did parents lose the ability to say 'no'? I think parenting has become altogether too spineless nowadays. Too many parents just give in to their children and let them run wild. We need to start promoting better parenting instead of trying to blame ad men for the fact that we have an entire generation of unruly, ill-disciplined pigs as children.

B.E.
_________________
The doctor is in!

adrien · Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 9:17 am Post subject:

Vintage Girl · Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 12:35 pm Post subject:

As far as the volume of TV ads is concerned I'm not of the opinion that the law should determine the volume of either the ads or the programming. What should be determined though is that the volume remains constant throughout. That way, I can exercise my freedom of choice as to the volume I wish to listen to my TV at without having to grab the remote to adjust the volume every time the ads come on. Similarly, each channel would also be broadcasting at the same level as there can often be a huge difference between one channel and another.

I am in complete agreement with Blue on the question of junk food advertising. It is up to parents to control what their children eat. There is no harm in chidren being allowed junk food occasionally and to that end, companies should be allowed to advertise their product in order to increase their sales. It is the parents role to decide how often, if at all, they will allow their children to have this type of food. The governments role is to educate both parents and children on the principles of good nutrition. Banning certain types of advertising at certain times is not the way to do this.

There can be no comparison between these two arguments as one concerns 'prohibition' and the other 'regulation'.
_________________
Girls are like phones. We love to be held and talked to, but if you press the wrong button you'll be disconnected!

adrien · Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 3:26 pm Post subject:

You're playing on words. Junk food ads would not be prohibited, they would be regulated, and this regulation would imply that it would be prohibited to broadcast them during children programmes. Just like speed regulations allow you to drive at 100km/h and more on the motorroad, but prohibits such a speed in town centers. Or like it is allowed to make noise, but not after 10pm. And if junk food ads were prohibited during children programmes, companies would still be allowed to advertise their products during other programmes or through other media, and parents would still have the choice to give their kids junk food, once in a while or everyday if that's what they want, but society would not be sending the wrong message.

Also, if food companies are allowed to advertise during children programmes "to increase their profits", I fail to see why they should be prohibited from advertising louder than the programme volume If they do it, there must be a reason, and that's most certainly "to increase their profits" - what else. So why the double standard, if not simply because volume changes bother you, whereas you're not affected by what happens during children programmes, since your kids are old, and I doubt you watch them. Wink

Oh, and here's a quote from Partick Le Lay, CEO of TF1, which I find interesting in the context of this debate:

Vintage Girl · Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 8:19 pm Post subject:

[quote"="adrien]And if junk food ads were prohibited during children programmes, companies would still be allowed to advertise their products during other programmes or through other media, and parents would still have the choice to give their kids junk food, once in a while or everyday if that's what they want, but society would not be sending the wrong message. [/quote]

If you acknowledge that the awareness of junk food would still be available to both children and parents through other media what is the point in banning the ads during childrens TV?
_________________
Girls are like phones. We love to be held and talked to, but if you press the wrong button you'll be disconnected!

adrien · Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 7:11 pm Post subject:

Vintage Girl · Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 7:46 pm Post subject:

I don't think those are appropriate comparisons really, but do you think then, that if beer were advertised on TV during childrens programming that parents would be unable to stop their children drinking it? Of course not, because they control whether to allow their children to have alcohol. They can just as easily exercise the same control with junk food.
_________________
Girls are like phones. We love to be held and talked to, but if you press the wrong button you'll be disconnected!

wakeyboy · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 12:12 am Post subject:

adrien · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 9:51 am Post subject:

If parents want the best for their kids, if you can convince them that giving alcohol to their kids is good, they'll do it. Of course, the major difficulty would be that alcohol is as old as the human being, and the consensus that it should not be given to kids is strong. So that would be difficult, but as wakey underlined, not impossible. You could just pretend it's not really alcohol, since it only has low alcoholic content. (Just checking for the term "low alcoholic" as I wans't sure it was correct, I found this article that just goes in the same direction, though in a different context: Muslims get soft drinks go-ahead).

In contrast to alcohol, junk food is something quite recent. And for as long as I can remember, it's been marketed as food for kids. McDonalds is the perfect example: they're not even advertising for the food, but rather for the toy and the fun that come with the "Happy Meal". So the problem's not only that kids ask for it and parents can't say no: as it is marketted to children, the problem is also that people get the message that it actually is for chilren. Junk food is for kids just like dolls are for girls. If you marketted dolls for boys, boys would ask for dolls, and parents would give them (actually, that's what Action Man and the like are: dolls for boys - though we all pretend they aren't.) I mean, if junk food wasn't for kids, it wouldn't be advertised towards them, would it? And if it is for kids, and your kids ask for it, why say no?
_________________
Sit on the banks of the river and wait for the corpse of your enemy. - Indian proverb.

Vintage Girl · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 10:49 am Post subject:

wakeyboy · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 1:06 pm Post subject:

If the government doesnt set any standards then the corporations will.

Do you want elected representatives controlling your life or do you want the big businesses controlling your life?
_________________
http://www.realradioyorkshire.co.uk/

adrien · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 3:21 pm Post subject:

JuanaLaLoca · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 4:07 pm Post subject:

I'm curious, do you still have TV commercials for cigarettes over there?

SilverMiniCooperS · Inmate of the Asylum Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 195

I don't think so Juana...ciggie ads on TV are banned just about everywhere now...although I'm sure there are exceptions.

Vintage Girl · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 7:30 pm Post subject:

JuanaLaLoca · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 7:47 pm Post subject:

So, does everyone's views on having the government ban junk food commercials on children's shows align with your views on banning cigarette commercials (entirely)? Or are there some here who think that cigarette ads should be banned, but junk food commercials should be broadcast whenever they want? In other words, do you cry 'nanny state' in one case, but accept it in the other?

Vintage Girl · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject:

Well my view is certainly the same I can see no reason why cigarette advertising was banned although it was a very long time ago and pretty much a done deal.
_________________
Girls are like phones. We love to be held and talked to, but if you press the wrong button you'll be disconnected!

Vintage Girl · Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 12:12 am Post subject: