How Do We Solve a Problem Like Obesity?

[Leith Green]

Just now, Stellaboz said:

I'm not in the country, im just interested. 

 

In honesty? If it was Scotgov, I'd feel disappointment. 

UKgov? Another reason to go indy! 

 Only joking m9.

It is a UK govt one - and tbqh I suspect that a lot of it (maybe not the tv adverts) will be England only.

If you remember, you cant presently get BOGOF deals on bevvy in Scotland, as we put minimum pricing on units a few years back.

[Albus Bulbasaur]

10 minutes ago, Moomintroll said:

Pretty much, HFSS Legislation means that affected products cannot be on promotional ends or areas & can only be sold from its permanent fixture. Going to be a nightmare for me when it kicks in. There are also restrictions on how close they can be to the store entrance which is going to be fun in small format convenience.

Cheers for the run down, I hadn't really followed the story. 

That's ridiculous though. Never believe Conservatives when they say they want a small state that doesn't reach into your private lives. These c***s are at it on every single level. 

I'm in good shape and I enjoy junk food I just exercise enough to not gain weight. Pretty simple stuff, the idea the state should be that involved in normal peoples diets is so weird. I'd partially understand it if the MPs setting this sort of stuff were in peak condition rather than mostly being overbloated gammon types. 

[Aufc]

For a professional writer, Jack has made a complete arse of getting her point across there.
She's added one-off costs and presented that as her monthly bill. That was moronic.
Whatever point she was making got lost right there.
People like her do so much damage when they post stuff like this because it adds fuel to the fire that poor people are just too fucking stupid to be anything other than poor. She played right into that Tory bloke's hands.
What she SHOULD have done is either say nothing or present the full facts (full income and expenditure including all benefits and assistance payments) of what someone right at the bottom is facing each month. That latter bit would be impossible to argue against.
 

It depends on how you take it. I didn’t take it as her including those costs in her monthly costs. Some tory knob said “oh well it only costs 30p to make some pasta”. She rightly pointed out that it doesn’t include stuff like seasoning, pans and electric. Now the stuff like seasoning and pans are a one off cost which are spread over several meals but they still need to be paid for. If your weekly costs are more than your income then how do you expect people to pay for them? Whilst a bowl of pasta will fill you up, it’s not really that nutritious or tasty.

As I said, it is easy for people to comment when they haven’t experienced those circumstances whereby they need to decide between being cold or starving or between feeding their children and not eating themselves.

This seems to have sidetracked the discussion away from its original point. Removing meal deals won’t do f**k all.

[Aufc]

The problem is she literally said "these are my monthly bills".
 

As someone said above, but clumsy.

[Albus Bulbasaur]

5 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I agree but as I said before, it's happening because the fatties out there won't control their own behaviour and are running the NHS into the ground. That's when governments step in and start interfering.

Yeah I don't think that's the only option they have though. 

Collective punishment of a society over some people's mistakes isn't something I want the government to be doing. Same with the MUP stuff and the ridiculous hiding away tobacco so the shop keeper has to play guess where the product I'm trying to sell is. 

[coprolite]

4 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

The problem is she literally said "these are my monthly bills".

 

No she didn't. 

She said "those are my actual bills" after listing a load of stuff which included some bills. 

What sort of idiot would think that referred to items that clearly weren't bills? 

(rhetorical - no answer required) 

[coprolite]

2 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Yeah I don't think that's the only option they have though. 

Collective punishment of a society over some people's mistakes isn't something I want the government to be doing. Same with the MUP stuff and the ridiculous hiding away tobacco so the shop keeper has to play guess where the product I'm trying to sell is. 

Take it to the Hague.

We're talking about Mondelez, Nestle, Kellogs and Unilever throwing their bargaining power around to get their highest margin products a promotional display on the end of an ailse. 

I personally won't loose any sleep if they can't promote their latest shaped potato-based snack in exactly the way they'd like. 

It's hardly the Burmese government rounding up Rohingya. 

I have my doubts over the effectiveness, but it's really not an imposition on the population. 

[Stellaboz]

18 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

 Only joking m9.

It is a UK govt one - and tbqh I suspect that a lot of it (maybe not the tv adverts) will be England only.

If you remember, you cant presently get BOGOF deals on bevvy in Scotland, as we put minimum pricing on units a few years back.

Vote YES for meal deals!

[Benjamin_Nevis]

1 minute ago, oaksoft said:

Exactly. I remember asking for someone to provide this a couple of years ago when I was trying to understand Universal Credit and if I remember rightly, you provided some extra information but I don't recall anyone ever giving a full breakdown.

A single mother I/E would also be very useful as they are another hugely disadvantaged group.

Single person 20 y/o with (eg) Epilepsy. Assessed as having Limited Capability for Work (excused from seeking work but no extra money. May be expected to take part in "work related activity", eg attend appointments with work coach, maybe do a computer course, CV writing etc etc) 

• £265.31 per month Standard Allowance
• £260.00 per month housing costs (based on a 1 bed flat in my local area which is pretty cheap)
• £525.31 per month total UC payable / £265.31 if claimant opts to have housing costs paid direct to landlord. 

From the remaining £265.31 per month they may have the following deductions applied: 

• UC advance (if they take the full amount available probably £35 p/m)
• Any rent or council tax arrears are taken at off 20%/5% of the total Standard Allowance
• Gas/Electricity suppliers can apply for 3rd party deductions whether claimant likes it or not if they can make a case that the claimant hasn't been paying the fuel bills

That's before you get to food, replacing clothing and travel

Single mum over 25, no health conditions, just had first child. 

• £334.91 Standard Allowance
• £244.58 Child element
• £350.00 Housing costs
• Total UC payable £579.49 (assuming HC paid to landlord direct)
• Plus Child Benefit at £21.80 per week (not part of UC)

Above percentages for deductions etc still apply. Also worth noting that claimants are effectively forced to take advances on the UC as any legacy benefits, ie JSA, Tax Credits, stop as soon as you claim UC. You then have a minimum 5 week waiting period for first UC payment so folk will need to take an advance in most cases to bridge the gap, or they'll instantly be behind on rent, and monumentally skint. 

Both scenarios are pretty grim, but pretty commonplace. The single mum is slightly better off up here as she would also get the Scottish Child Payment at £20 per week, plus baby box and some other SG-specific assistance. 

[Albus Bulbasaur]

Just now, coprolite said:

Take it to the Hague.

We're talking about Mondelez, Nestle, Kellogs and Unilever throwing their bargaining power around to get their highest margin products a promotional display on the end of an ailse. 

I personally won't loose any sleep if they can't promote their latest shaped potato-based snack in exactly the way they'd like. 

It's hardly the Burmese government rounding up Rohingya. 

I have my doubts over the effectiveness, but it's really not an imposition on the population. 

A bit melodramatic...

I won't lose sleep on it either I'd just prefer to be able to buy junk food on promotions and think it's a  ridiculous way of tackling the issue at hand. 

Your point about the large companies promoting their brands more favourably than others misses my concern too, the local shopkeepers put popular products on display or on offers to get them profit and sell more. Why should they be punished and lose out on potential income because some people are too lazy to exercise? 

 

 

[Leith Green]

5 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said:

Single person 20 y/o with (eg) Epilepsy. Assessed as having Limited Capability for Work (excused from seeking work but no extra money. May be expected to take part in "work related activity", eg attend appointments with work coach, maybe do a computer course, CV writing etc etc) 

• £265.31 per month Standard Allowance
• £260.00 per month housing costs (based on a 1 bed flat in my local area which is pretty cheap)
• £525.31 per month total UC payable / £265.31 if claimant opts to have housing costs paid direct to landlord. 

From the remaining £265.31 per month they may have the following deductions applied: 

• UC advance (if they take the full amount available probably £35 p/m)
• Any rent or council tax arrears are taken at off 20%/5% of the total Standard Allowance
• Gas/Electricity suppliers can apply for 3rd party deductions whether claimant likes it or not if they can make a case that the claimant hasn't been paying the fuel bills

That's before you get to food, replacing clothing and travel

Single mum over 25, no health conditions, just had first child. 

• £334.91 Standard Allowance
• £244.58 Child element
• £350.00 Housing costs
• Total UC payable £579.49 (assuming HC paid to landlord direct)
• Plus Child Benefit at £21.80 per week (not part of UC)

Above percentages for deductions etc still apply. Also worth noting that claimants are effectively forced to take advances on the UC as any legacy benefits, ie JSA, Tax Credits, stop as soon as you claim UC. You then have a minimum 5 week waiting period for first UC payment so folk will need to take an advance in most cases to bridge the gap, or they'll instantly be behind on rent, and monumentally skint. 

Both scenarios are pretty grim, but pretty commonplace. The single mum is slightly better off up here as she would also get the Scottish Child Payment at £20 per week, plus baby box and some other SG-specific assistance. 

f**k me, thats nothing..............as you say, grim.

Friend of my wife is renting a flat in Edinburgh after a marriage break up - £1300 pcm before bills and apparently "thats not the most expensive".

How do people deal with that, ffs

[Moomintroll]

6 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

A bit melodramatic...

I won't lose sleep on it either I'd just prefer to be able to buy junk food on promotions and think it's a  ridiculous way of tackling the issue at hand. 

Your point about the large companies promoting their brands more favourably than others misses my concern too, the local shopkeepers put popular products on display or on offers to get them profit and sell more. Why should they be punished and lose out on potential income because some people are too lazy to exercise? 

 

 

Tbf your average Premier or Costcutter will be fine as they are usually under 2000 sq foot, it is the big supermarkets that have a lot of space that can no longer be used. I have done space audits on various stores and you are looking at c60% of promotional space allocated to food & drink having products that will be affected as well as the removal & replacement of a lot of food to go areas to meet the requirements.

Co op & Tesco Express/ Sainsbury Locals/ McColls will find it tough as well as they will have to move a lot of products further from their front doors as a result.

Edited May 14, 2022 by Moomintroll
Not enough detail.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

5 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

f**k me, thats nothing..............as you say, grim.

Friend of my wife is renting a flat in Edinburgh after a marriage break up - £1300 pcm before bills and apparently "thats not the most expensive".

How do people deal with that, ffs

Probably by running up debt, rent arrears, getting evicted and getting put into local authority homeless temp. Personal debt is going to go through the fucking roof over the next few years. 

I used to have a rough 50/50 split of benefit appeal cases and debt cases. Now I've got about 80% debt cases. It's just going to get worse. 

[coprolite]

20 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

A bit melodramatic...

I won't lose sleep on it either I'd just prefer to be able to buy junk food on promotions and think it's a  ridiculous way of tackling the issue at hand. 

Your point about the large companies promoting their brands more favourably than others misses my concern too, the local shopkeepers put popular products on display or on offers to get them profit and sell more. Why should they be punished and lose out on potential income because some people are too lazy to exercise? 

 

 

Why can't they advertise fags and sell booze to babies? 

You think that people should be free to push harmful products unrestricted, at the expense of actual food, in the pursuit of profit.

It's only volume promotions that are getting restricted. They can still do price reductions. If you want two tubes of pringles for tge price of one you can simply buy two at half price. The point is you don't need to buy more to get the discount. 

Your local shop keeper is protected by it only applying to shops over 2000sq ft (have we had legislation in feet recently? Nice touch) 

So that just leaves prominent displays. I appreciate that some people might like a nice cardboard frame on the end of an aisle, with a gondola filled with a new low grade chocolate flavoured sugar and hydrogenated vegetable fat bar. I'm afraid those people are going to suffer terribly under this new monstrous regime. 

Liberte, Egalite, Category Captaince.

[Albus Bulbasaur]

2 minutes ago, coprolite said:

It's only volume promotions that are getting restricted. They can still do price reductions. If you want two tubes of pringles for tge price of one you can simply buy two at half price. The point is you don't need to buy more to get the discount. 

That's good then. 

Edited May 14, 2022 by Albus Bulbasaur

[Miguel Sanchez]

59 minutes ago, eez-eh said:

My abiding memory of home economics in school is being taught to make “pizzas” by spreading tomato purée on an English muffin and sprinkling a paltry amount of cheese on top.

"Pizza toast" was the version I learned. We at least mixed the puree in with the cheese before it went under the grill.

[Albus Bulbasaur]

In home economics we had to make a sandwich, it took more than 1 lesson as we had to plan our sandwich and then make it the next week. 

[Moomintroll]

10 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Why can't they advertise fags and sell booze to babies? 

You think that people should be free to push harmful products unrestricted, at the expense of actual food, in the pursuit of profit.

It's only volume promotions that are getting restricted. They can still do price reductions. If you want two tubes of pringles for tge price of one you can simply buy two at half price. The point is you don't need to buy more to get the discount. 

Your local shop keeper is protected by it only applying to shops over 2000sq ft (have we had legislation in feet recently? Nice touch) 

So that just leaves prominent displays. I appreciate that some people might like a nice cardboard frame on the end of an aisle, with a gondola filled with a new low grade chocolate flavoured sugar and hydrogenated vegetable fat bar. I'm afraid those people are going to suffer terribly under this new monstrous regime. 

Liberte, Egalite, Category Captaince.

There are some Kelloggs lines in Morrisons atm that are £2 but quite splendidly on a 2 for £4 deal, so they would be both legal and illegal under the new rules. Boring point of order but Pringles are always price promotions in Supermarkets now anyway, they stopped doing multibuys on them ahead of the new Laws.

[coprolite]

13 minutes ago, Moomintroll said:

There are some Kelloggs lines in Morrisons atm that are £2 but quite splendidly on a 2 for £4 deal, so they would be both legal and illegal under the new rules. Boring point of order but Pringles are always price promotions in Supermarkets now anyway, they stopped doing multibuys on them ahead of the new Laws.

I bow to your superior Pringle knowledge.

Does anyone ever buy Pringles when they’re at their pretend inflated price between offers? 

[Moomintroll]

2 minutes ago, coprolite said:

I bow to your superior Pringle knowledge.

Does anyone ever buy Pringles when they’re at their pretend inflated price between offers? 

Pretty much no, they are on promo 26 weeks of the year though and then they stick the Sizzlin variants on the rest of the time.