Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ckn

Malnourishment

43 posts in this topic

 

Parents who can't afford to feed themselves able their children as well able so feed their children and also without themselves?

 

 

that's easy for you to say.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's easy for you to say.....

I.m not sure what you mean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect the numbers would be higher if it included all the large folk who eat large quantities of low quality "food".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hhave a look here:

 

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/malnutrition/by-country/

 

You'll see the socialist paradise of France has it cracked--- a malnutrition death rate  some 660% WORSE than that in the UK. In fact, the UK record seems to be one of the best in the world.  

 

 

I agree - that is alltrue. And covered by the quote from the NHS.  Maybe I am over-sensitive , but the tenor of CKN's post - No need for additional commentary really, those two lines say it all -  was that this was the fault of the nasty government who was deserting the poor and driving them into the food banks. 

 

My contention  is that those two lines do not say it all, and that by one measure at least - malnutrition death rates - we are amongst the best in the world and certainly better than countries that some may rate as better at this than us.

 

Are you saying that because  the numbers in the OP are lower than France these figures are acceptable?

 

Or is it that we currently have the Tories in power that the current government is beyond reproach? 

 

Personally, on issues such as this, I don't really care about party politics. If Labour were still in power the fact that there is a marked upward trend over the last three years in these numbers would be just as bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Likewise!!

You don't understand what you mean?

feckin  hell

I see what you mean now

My apologies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that because  the numbers in the OP are lower than France these figures are acceptable?

 

Or is it that we currently have the Tories in power that the current government is beyond reproach? 

 

Personally, on issues such as this, I don't really care about party politics. If Labour were still in power the fact that there is a marked upward trend over the last three years in these numbers would be just as bad. 

 

 

Are you saying that because  the numbers in the OP are lower than France these figures are acceptable?

 
- No.  I'm establishing a level of comparison, though.
 
Or is it that we currently have the Tories in power that the current government is beyond reproach? 
 
- no. The current govt has let us all down in so many respects, from simple things like not addressing the scandal of public sector pensions, the public sector pay freeze that never was, not addressing the public sector pay inequalities where the higher paid civil servants trample all over  the many  public servants on  the minimum wage , its kowtowing to UKIP on immigration and Europe, it's inability  to set light to the "Bonfire of The Quangos", it failure on housing policy, nuclear,  etc.
 
 overall, my point is that  when the OP writes that "those two lines say it all." , they don't in fact say it all, whatever " all" is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 overall, my point is that  when the OP writes that "those two lines say it all." , they don't in fact say it all, whatever " all" is.

 

For me, they do.  Levels of malnutrition that gets so severe it requires in-patient hospital treatment have gone up by an appreciable and significant level in the last 5 years yet it's just not an area of political importance.  If you look at everything the government's responsible for, surely the highest priority by a long, long way should be that everyone has sufficient food and means of getting that food in them.  If the government started with that as one of their key aims then that would drive the trivially few policies that it would actually take to remedy this.  I can't think of a single policy, tax or piece of investment that's so important that the government should prioritise it over feeding the country, I'd be happy to hear your alternatives but try to phrase it in your head before you type as "If I do this, more people in Britain might starve"

 

You'll always find the unhelpable, mainly those who are intentionally homeless and refuse help, but those who would take help to feed themselves if it were offered should be given that help regardless of the consequences to the overall government budget.

 

Let's take the cost.  If, say, we use the NHS's figure of 3m (that's just shy of 5% of the entire population of Britain that's malnourished, 5 percent...).  Again, say that my figures are about right about how much it costs to feed someone and discounting any government levels of economies of scale, let's use £20 per person per month.  That's £720m per year to provide subsistence level food for everyone even vaguely tagged as "malnourished".  There are government policies that cost over that per year that are surely prime targets to kill off in order to feed the country, here's a few just off the top of my head:

 

- Help to Buy.  Surely a no-brainer for killing off.

- £15bn on new road, rail and infrastructure construction projects.  Surely we can defer £1bn a year of this or even outright cancel some of them.

- HS2.  This alone covers the cost of feeding everyone in that 3m bracket for the next 50 years.

- The Corporation Tax cut that has just been implemented cost the Exchequer £750m, let's reverse that then.

- Reintroduce the stamp duty that was abolished this year on shares traded on alternative markets.  This adds absolutely nothing to society or even the capitalist market, it's just about getting more money in the pockets of rich people without having to be bothered by that pesky tax man.

- A more controversial one but surely it's up for debate: Trident replacement

 

I could go on but I've got a report I've got to get out by mid afternoon!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry... I had to come back to this.  I know this is going to be difficult for many people who think the worst of David Cameron but could you imagine if he announced a press conference today and said:  "We, as a government, are appalled by the increase in malnutrition in Britain.  To help solve this, we are with immediate effect announcing the cancellation of HS2 and diverting £1bn per year directly to a food distribution system to stop this malnutrition.  We will ensure the nation is fed, and what makes it better is that it won't cost us an extra penny from the government budget as we're using the money we'd earmarked for HS2 to pay for it until 2063."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry... I had to come back to this. etc...

 

Your solution is so simple that it makes one wonder why it hasn't been advanced by any of the political parties... Maybe it is more complex than it seems, and maybe the issue of malnutrition is more complex, too. Maybe the sums don't stack up either.

 

So even if Trident were scrapped ( and yes, certainly worth thinking about), how would you actually eliminate "malnutrition?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't understand what you mean?

feckin  hell

 

t'was mere joshing, chief.

 

re-read what you typed:

 

"Parents who can't afford to feed themselves able their children as well able so feed their children and also without themselves?"

 

.....it clearly wasn't easy for you to say. never mind.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like you may also add freezing to death to malnourishment: Energy row erupts as winter deaths spiral 29 per cent to four year high of 31,000

 

Shocking really that people should die for want of sufficient warmth for a supposedly 1st world country. 

 

I suppose there are two ways to respond to this.

 

1) Link to something about how it's also cold in the socialist paradise that is France

 

2) Link to something that describes The Guardian's tax arrangements.

 

Either response merits italics though, and plenty of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hope this helps.

 

The figure for 2008/2009 was 36,450

The figure for 2004/2995 was 31,640

The figure for 1999/2000 was 48,440

The figure for 1998/1999 was 46,840

 

​Something not quite right there as the forums favourite party was in office then but I don't recall the current level of wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

Mind you, if the Guardian decided to donate its avoided taxes to charity......and I don't mean the Rusbridger Home for Old Lefties..... :tongue:  :tongue:  :tongue: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the usual two wrongs make a right response; it was just as bad/worse under Labour, so it is acceptable now. Personally, I don't think it was acceptable then and I don't think it's acceptable now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the old "I read into your reply something that wasn't in there" response.   If you think that level is not acceptable, what level do you think is acceptable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

t'was mere joshing, chief.

re-read what you typed:

"Parents who can't afford to feed themselves able their children as well able so feed their children and also without themselves?"

.....it clearly wasn't easy for you to say. never mind.....

Mate I know and responded accordingly a few posts back

You were quite right to pick me up on it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017