Wednesday, October 17, 2007

More sport is not about money

Excuse me for a moment whilst I have a bit of a rant, but I am absolutely bloody sick of hearing this complete total bollocks from Brown and other ministers about sport in school. Apparently, in order to tackle obesity, the Government is going to make schools have not just 2 hours a week of sport but now 5 hours a week. According to Brown this is only possible because of the money he is spending investing.

Why is this bollocks? Well, for a start I went to state schools from 1979 to 1992 and I had more than two hours a week of sport. This was during the time that, according to Brown, bugger all money was spent in schools on sport. And yet, during that time there were not hundreds of oompa loompas rolling around the schools. His argument is, frankly, complete crap.

Oh yes, and he also said in Parliament that he's going to ban the advertising of "unacceptable foods". How long before he bans "unacceptable foods" altogether and we only eat a Government approved diet? Clause IV may not be around to allow for the nationalisation of production anymore, but it sounds like Brown wants to go for the nationalisation of consumption instead.


Anonymous said...

Yet more state control on it's way, folks. I'm in favour in heavily taxing unhealthy foods to help pay for the subsequent NHS treatment it creates, but banning things isn't going to solve anything.

Labour address the symptoms but not the causes. Same old story.

Nicodemus said...

Sorry old chap - it's clled rationing - not only does it reduce carbon, but we can ten only eat what nanny says we should. Mark my words, they are licking their reptilian lips in anticiption.

Perry Neeham said...

Allowing (in fact, encouraging)education authorities to flog off playing fields over the past 10 years to raise much needed cash can't have helped fat kids' waistlines.

Machiavelli's Understudy said...

Clause IV might not be on the table anymore where the current Labour Party is concerned, but its spirit is very much alive.

Whereas the aspiration was previously to put the means of production etc in to the incapable hands of the state, the focus now is very much on building up instruments of the state to control by intensely regulating means of production, so much so, that the owners are merely left with a disproportionately large level of liability for their efforts, whilst the state reaps the benefits.

Little Black Sambo said...

I propose the shooting of an unacceptable government.

Shug Niggurath said...

@letters from a tory
Are you serious? You are in favour of heavily taxing unhealthy foods? Get a grip.


I'm bloody furious at a lot of things government gets up to - from cravenly following the EU road, to taking half my wages to invest.

But I'm absolutely incandescent about this government deciding what is and what isn't healthy. Every couple of weeks we get told this or that is bad for us, and then that it's good. So F***! Last time I was looked I had freedom of choice.

So can we take it that that epitome of Britishness, Brown, is no longer as British as fish n chips?