I see the BBC is now actually leading the campaigning against Sugar.
Two thirds of people support a ban on sugary drinks in all UK schools and academies, suggests a poll carried out for the BBC. The Populus poll of 1,000 adults in Britain also found more than four out of 10 people would support a tax on sugary drinks. And 59% said warnings on packaging – similar to those on cigarettes – would encourage them to eat more healthily. Six out of 10 wanted supermarkets to stop promotions on unhealthy food.
Now, whether or not one approves of sugar (I don’t but then again I am diabetic and have little choice!) surely the BBC has absolutely NO mandate to campaign either FOR or AGAINST??
the BBC has absolutely NO mandate to campaign either FOR or AGAINST
Of course, it’s doing no such thing. But the mindless hordes of Biased BBC commenters who make Vance look like an intellectual heavyweight don’t care. Vance’s ridiculous spin helps perpetuate their own prejudices, so they’ll overlook the fact that he’s talking nonsense.
“Of course, it’s doing no such thing.”
If you say so.
Many people, clever or otherwise, seek material that validates their own opinions those who go around attempting to belittle those they disagree with tend only to make themselves look sad and pathetic.
And I agree with you that David’s argument doesn’t follow but I can do that without trying to offend people.
Fcuk off, Scott. Are you really as smarmy as you look?
Wow it really didn’t take you long to lose the argument this time Scott.
I can imagine you in the Monty Python sketch of the argument where is starts off with a simple contradiction and instead of carrying on you go into a whole diatribe against Cleese.
I’m sure that would be a very amusing twist on the original.
Scott: It’s long been known that opinion polls not only measure public opinion, they also influence it.
For this reason the BBC has extremely strict rules on when what and how public opinion is measured and/or reported.
Unfortunately the BBC, as usual, ignores their own guidelines. Perhps because Sue Inglish (BBC head of political research) has such close links to Labour?
A classic example of Beeb bias is their reporting of voting intentions. Those polls favouring labour are reported much more frequently than those favouring the Conservatives. Any poll showing a party in a favourable light will reinforce their advantage. People like voting for successful parties, they don’t like voting for failures.
Similarly,the results of this poll about sugar in food will encourage more people to support the notion that it should be reduced.
No opinion poll is pure research that stands alone. Each one is a little campaign in its own right. The BBC is well aware of this. The BBC should NOT be campaigning in such a manner.
Quite right. I am sure that most of the people in the survey had never given sugar much thought, but when faced with the questions, will answer in the most right-on manner. I was once phone polled by Gallup, and the questions are very rudimentary, you cannot give any nuance, you have to answer on their terms. As ever, the people who devise the poll get the results they want. This is pure politics, and the BBC are the willing collaborators. They know exactly what they are doing.
And if you think that is bad, try YouGov!
Presumably the substance should be banned in ALL their canteens & vending machines?
Don’t think the great British bake off is going to be much fun without sugar do you?
The BBC where hypocrisy has a home.
This always shows the double standard to me
Obviously Delia and nigella s food is Ok because someone made it. Ooh no you can’t get fat by eating homemade food my arse!
Labour in a thinly veiled attack on business again. Lets we them serve wine containing no natural sugars. How many calories in a pint? Not thought through.
The type of white powder Nigella likes is also pretty popular in Broadcasting House, so I hear.
Have a look at the ingredients of the kinds of drinks that kids love and virtually all of them contain artificial sweeteners. If there’s a problem with sweet stuff, then perhaps more attention should be given to the sweeteners rather than sugar itself. I can only find Orangina to have proper sugar in it.
One of my MEPs sent out a flier encouraging his constituents to “tell me what you think” by completing his on-line ‘survey’ on the EU. The first question was something like “Are you in favour of retaining three million jobs by staying in the EU?”
Clearly this was no survey, just an attempt to rail-road opinion. I suspect, like David Vance, that the BBC is doing the same here.
It would be interesting to know how many surveys that the BBC commission never get reported, especially if they get the ‘wrong’ answers, though clever question setting usually solves that problem. One of my past employers delighted in carrying out annual staff surveys where answers were numbers 1-5 indicating degree of agreement. When the results were compiled numbers 1-4 or 2-5 were counted together as required, i.e. the only contrary opinion that counted were the ‘very strongly’ held ones. Most people don’t want to be seen as extreme so the contrary view always lost.
This is an extremely dubious interpretation of what is actually in the story, which reports only that a majority of people polled were in favour of a ban on sugary drinks in schools. If ‘reporting the findings of a poll’ equates to ‘campaigning for’, it follows that the BBC is also ‘campaigning for’ UKIP, which has led all the recent polls the BBC has reported on its front page.
I moved to the US last year and haven’t bothered to visit this site since, until a visit to see my daughter and her family over Easter. It’s interesting how it’s changed in the interim. There used to be a few contributors who made some rather subtle forensic points about BBC output, and express it rather eloquently. But now every single commenter who could string a coherent paragraph together has abandoned the site. Why have they left? Might it – just possibly – be because they felt uncomfortable being associated with some of the extremely unsavoury opinions being posted here? And so BBBC shoots itself in the foot once more.
Those who remain do little more than moan bitterly about how things were better in the old days, post links to anti-Muslim websites and rant incoherently about immigration. There’s also an interesting new strand of Infowars-style conspiracy theory, a sure sign that the site is losing its collective marbles. You should check out the archives from four or five years ago, and see how the short, well-written and reasonable pieces by previous contributors contrast with Alan’s deranged rants. And then ask yourselves why nobody outside this blog ever mentions this blog.
Anyway, that’s me done for this year, I’m on a plane tomorrow and will be back in Houston by the evening. Play nicely.
Moved to America how internationalist of you, I had missed your convoluted obfuscations (truly I had)
All that time to think and yet nothing new to say
-Conspiracy Theory Central.
A short, well written, reasonable piece – Mind the door doesn’t hit you on the arse on the way out.
The one with nothing to say is a gobshite like yourself.
Are you unable to visit this site when you are at home in the US? If your American ISP is blocking it for some reason that sounds like a Conspiracy Theory to me, though perhaps not a Central one.
I can’t say for sure with you but I have found all over the internet that some people invent a backstory to help get their point across…….I get the feeling you are one of those people
It strikes me that Beeboids are the last people to be complaining about health issues caused by people using too much white powder.
The group behind the sugar campaign and who are benefiting from the BBC’s plugs are called Action On Sugar. It contains a number of professionals respected in their field, along with well known activists. According to their website, one of them is Tam Fry (no, it is a person’s name, not a dish from a Thai restaurant), who is described as “Head spokesperson for the National Obesity Forum”. Mr Fry was in the news a few years ago after the NOF was found to have secretly received £50K from Coca-Cola to promote low calorie sweeteners (see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2013062/Obesity-charity-paid-50k-secret-Coca-Cola-promote-sweeteners.html). No conflict of interest there, then..
It always amazes me that observers like yourself can soon find this information and come up with some valid facts regarding stories that appear on the BBC, while the BBC with their multi-billions budget are seemingly incapable of such elementary investigating.
Rather like the 24 hours (or even less) demolition of their recent story about a “new grassroots organisation against Scottish independence”.
As is often mentioned here, censorship by omission is one of their main weapons.
On Sunday we hear that as part of their policy review, the control freak Socialists (and Andy Burnham who should have no place in public life after Stafford) are considering a ban on sugary drinks and cereals.
Only 24 hours later the BBC ‘coincidentally’ publish the results of a poll that they have conducted (at our expense) that seemingly support what is Labour’s position.
At the crack of dawn this morning, Five Live have a reporter, reporting from outside a sugar beet factory In East Anglia.
And then the inevitable phone-in on the subject, this morning, with the ever-obliging Nicky Campbell.
One of the contributors on here might argue that the BBC hasn’t taken a position – but to me the choreography of this stinks.
This, just like those little exclusives that Emily Maitless ‘uncovers’ as she runs breathlessly into the Newsnight studio trailing the latest thoughts of Chairman Miliband, convinces me that the BBC is once again in lock-step with Labour and is a fully fledged member of their PR machine.
The BBC is corrupt.
And this afternoon, Bacon is all over the story.
Well, the survey was carried out for his programme. But that doesn’t mean the BBC is taking a position, oh no.
Ah yes, bacon. They’ll be advocating a ban on that soon too.
Lot of grumpy trolls up above and in need of sweeteners today eh?
It`s a lovely Bank Holiday.
If any of our chums fail to see the “hidden curriculum” behind any such “polls” as this one…and the baleful influence of the Big Health massage guyz n gals who take state money to get their agenda enforced with no democratic mandate whatsoever…then it`s best to let them keep mummys ear muffs on, those rose tinted spex and that blue sky thinking of theirs.
Imagine if they were all out today, they`d be making alot of other people miserable…so might as well corral them here.
Public Service Broadcasting at its best here…off to watch the snooker now.
Pip Pip…Sir Alan Sweetener!
Dianne Abbot & Emily Thornberry, both a picture of health. Ed my boy, let he without obese weight cast the first cream cake.
Playing the man not the ball.
Typical BBC tactic
Instead of debating Europe with Ukip they have sort out nutters who fulfills their jaundiced views.
I could find you hundreds if not thousands of racist labour donors/activists/coincillors
I know many fruitcake tories
And as for the limp dems or the eco fascists you don’t have to dig too deeply to find anti Semites racists and bigots.
Politics can be quite mixed. On the one hand you have Bercow pretending to be a Tory , you have Blair pretending to be left wing and you have brown pretending to be human. Sometimes people join parties where they don’t fit.
The beeb know they would lose attacking Ukip on what they stand for so they attack them on people who support them.
Remember labour took £1000,000 from the pornographer in chief R Desmond.
As for the beebs followers on here Scotty Ernie and CTC, portraying this site as the home of swivel eyed loons may make you feel superior in your oh so perfect leftist fantasy lives but it doesn’t address the many valid and important points posted here. Scott , as the most sensible of our house trolls, why don’t you answer the point about BBC themes following Labour Party campaigns so fast. Surely you can see and element of a fit up.
The coordination within auntie seems remarkable, its as if it were planned that way.
Ernie, that point really added to the discourse didnt it.
CTC you didn’t agree with us before you buggered off to the states and now you still don’t agree with us.
Why is criticism of Islam islamophobia? Why should one religious group get a free pass?
270 girls kidnapped in Nigeria
Bombing and killings all over the planet including
Russia
the USA
India
The Uk
Kenya
Somalia
The Philippines
Egypt
Denmark
Holland
Etc,
Why when Muslim men across many different cities in the Uk coordinate the systematic abuse of non muslim children why is it downplayed. Always Asian men never Muslims.
Cant remember the Chinese grooming gangs in Oxford or the Sikh paedophile rings. When did you last here of Japanese men in Bradford taking out thirteen year old girls and getting them drunk to turn them to prostitution.
The beeb,always lies about Islam.
When lee Rigbys killers issued their statements to onlookers cellphones there was a thirty second rant about Allah and about jihad and yet this was edited out on all the days beeb bulletins. If you want to hear it just YouTube it. No conspiracy theory making up stuff just real life and dodgy beeb editing.
I am a catholic , every time a priest was caught as a paedo the beeb delighted in saying catholic priest. It was never Christian minister or religious leader. It was Catholic priest. Quite rightly so as well.
Funny now they don’t suppress the Catholic bit for ‘community cohession’. Funny how they don’t run stories on Papophobia.
How much air time did Stephen fry al Murray and the rest of the new wave orange order get during the popes visit. St. Peter of Tactchel was canonised long ago by the holy church of islington?
You now live in houston. A fine city full of good people. Ask the locals there about the slavish position of BbC America to Obama.
I have a home in Fl and the locals, even the democrat ones are pretty pissed off with Barry O and yet is you watch or listen to auntie he walks on water. They have on giant man crush on him which borders on the religious. He’s just a bloke who happens to be black. I know in Hollywood greeting black blokes are the font of all wisdom but in the real world skin colour doesn’t indicate intelligence level.
He is an average man elevated to high office on some giant quota filling mass delusion.
I am glad there is a black POTUS just sad that its this one. Glad that the US can show the world it is not as racist as the left will have you believe, sad that the one who broke the mold was such a flawed individual.
The beeb would accept anything from Obama. They have already.
Guantanamo is still open
The US using more drones than ever .
Look at the way he has looked weak next to Putin.
The one good thing he has tried was to improve healthcare for the poor and yet he has totally screwed that up.
The beeb want him canonised before his own death.
I know of a simple way families could spend an extra £145 a year on nutrituional food.
https://orderorder.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/20140505-002620.jpg
hope that works
What these silly sods really don’t understand is what it is like to be poor. They have never been there. Oh, they may have lived in a terrace house in Oxford or Cambridge but they have never had to choose between eating and heating. They’ve never had to miss meals just so their kids could eat or spent Winter in a damp, concrete box 300 foot in the air without a working lift.
They might think they intellectually understand and, like Scott, believe that their sympathy shows what caring little loves they twuely are but they are utterly lacking in empathy.
Why the poor eat badly is not because they can’t afford better, they can. it’s not because they are stupid or ill educated even though they often are. It’s because eating tasty crap is about the about only pleasure they have. The same applies to cheap booze and fags.
It’s always them as have other pleasure they can fall back on that want to remove what little pleasures the poor can afford. Heartless bastards the lot of them.
completely agree…always a war on junk, booze and fags but not on drugs as all the right on liberals use them
Beeboids campaign on sugar, but censor on halal:-
“UK: Pizza Express reveals that all its chicken is halal”
By Robert Spencer.
“Once again we see choices restricted in the name of multiculturalism.’ This is not a multiplicity of anything; it is catering to one culture at the expense of anyone who might object to eating halal chicken. The option of offering halal chicken only in certain dishes, rather than in every one, was apparently not an option — and so once again the principle is reinforced that wherever Islamic law and practice conflict with non-Muslim practice, the latter must give way.
“Pizza Express reveals halal meat used in all chicken dishes,” by Padraic Flanagan, Telegraph.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/uk-pizza-express-reveals-that-all-its-chicken-is-halal
Supplementary.
“Pizza Express reveal ALL the chicken they use is halal – but they don’t tell customers unless they ask staff.
“All chicken used in chain’s food is prepared according to Islamic traditions.
“No mention of issue on menu and only appears in small print on website.
“Critics have accused the 434-restaurant chain of ‘duping’ its customers.
“Or is move because ‘non-Islamic customers are less likely to complain’?
“Firm insists birds are stunned before slaughter and food meets standards.
“WARNING: Graphic Content.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2622052/Pizza-Express-reveal-chicken-use-halal-dont-tell-customers-unless-ask-staff.html#ixzz314HtdlAl
“EXCLUSIVE:
ANJEM CHOUDARY BACKS RESTAURANT CHAINS OVER HALAL CHICKEN”
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/07/Sharia-Campaigner-Choudary-Backs-Pizza-Express-And-Ask