Forum

The NewsBiscuit Community

Quick links: NewsBiscuit Home • Chat Room • Writers' Room • Top Ten

1. 

   Titus
   

   offline

   Member

   Why do commentators in the news media persist in parroting each other and perpetuating this nonsense?

   Unhealthy junk food is more expensive than healthy food. From my local co-op I can buy 2 Cornish pasties for £1.20, so one plus a packet of fresh veg. for 90p and a few minutes in a microwave gives me an appetising, satisfying, nourishing, high-fibre and relatively low-fat meal for £1.50. I can't buy a pizza or burger - let alone pile of chips to go with it - for anything like as cheaply as that.

   Even if I want the luxury of spaghetti bolognese, a lasagne or a cottage pie, and some more fancy veg., it isn't gong to cost me more than £3 or so. And that is instant food, for just one person, involving no preparation or cooking skill. If you're catering for a family and have a few minutes to spare, you can economise a lot more by buying un-packaged vegetables and other fresh ingredients.

   To be very subtle and diplomatic about it: poor people eat shit food because they're thick and/or lazy. Poverty isn't the cause of poor diet or poor health, although they often go together. Stupid, idle people smoke more, drink more and (since the demise of physical labouring jobs) get less exercise. Stupid, lazy people also tend to have badly paid, shit jobs, so have less money. That's the reason for the association between poverty and poor health; it's not a causal relationship, they have a common cause - dimwittedness.

   And you can't cure this by simply giving money to poor people. If only the solution were as easy as that! You need to educate, inform, encourage and incentivise people to eat a better diet and to lead healthier lifestyles. Which means the intervention of Nanny State, interfering Big Brothrer government, patronising people and controlling their lives more. And that is harder for a lot of people - including me - to accept, who think that voters are entitled to be treated like responsible grown-ups.

   I don't know the answer to this dilemma, and I get really pissed off with idiots who think it is easy and that the government doesn't act, merely because it is uncaring and too mean.

   /rant.

   Posted 2 weeks ago #

2. 

   Gerontius
   

   offline

   Member

   Had you not demonised poor people for being poor I might have agreed with you.
   You raise some valid points but in a toxic way
   Which I guess was your intention.

   Posted 2 weeks ago #

3. 

   Titus
   

   offline

   Member

   Where did I demonise them for being poor? Try reading what I wrote. I criticised them for being thick and lazy, although even that is not strictly true. I described them as thick and lazy, but did not criticise them for it. They are not to blame for being thick, any more than you can blame anyone for being short or tall, or for having stupid, ignorant, lazy, uncaring or even possibly abusive parents (or quite likely, single parent).

   The much harder question is: what do you (or what does society) do about it?

   Posted 2 weeks ago #

4. 

   LittleSpender
   

   offline

   Member

   ...any more than you can blame anyone for being short or tall..

   
   What about being a cunt?

   Posted 2 weeks ago #

5. 

   Sinnick
   

   offline

   Member

   what do you (or what does society) do about it?

   
   Easy. The bigots should be the first against the wall

   Posted 2 weeks ago #

6. 

   deceangli
   

   offline

   Member

   Titus - I've been poor and I've been well off. My work ethic and intelligence didn't vary (both a little sub-par, tbh).

   Your 'explanation' is absurdly oversimplistic.

   BTW, I'm not completely convinced that a supermarket pastie is what dieticians mean when they talk about a healthy diet

   Posted 2 weeks ago #

7. 

   Al OPecia
   

   offline

   Member

   poor people eat shit food because they're thick and/or lazy

   All of them?

   People vote Brexit because they're thick and/or lazy - is this OK?

   Then there's this:

   Why people eat junk food

   As to your erroneous assertion that "it costs the same":

   Food costs

   If you are swanning about in the middle of a rural county you might find getting hold of fresh food easier than if you are stuck up a tower block in the heart of a deprived area of a post-industrial city. And less likely to burn to death.

   You really are a intellectually lazy bigot.

   Posted 2 weeks ago #

8. 

   Titus
   

   offline

   Member

   If you are swanning about in the middle of a rural county you might find getting hold of fresh food easier than if you are stuck up a tower block in the heart of a deprived area of a post-industrial city.

   More bollosck.

   If you live in a city you be as near to a shop selling real (fresh) food as you will be to an outlet selling overpriced junk food.

   If you live in the countryside, you may be 10 or even 20 mile from a shop selling anything, even if you live in a village.
   _ _ _

   I'm not completely convinced that a supermarket pastie is what dieticians mean when they talk about a healthy diet

   Agreed - it certainly isn't a free-range GM-free fresh organic lentil salad. But it's a darn sight healthier than endless pizzas or kebabs or burgers & chips.

   Your 'explanation' is absurdly oversimplistic.

   Agreed. But it is not a complete load of bollosck, which the moronic assertion that 'poor people eat crap because they can't afford healthy food' which gets parroted so continually by ignorant, lazy journalists that many people actually believe that it's true.

   The reality is that junk food is not only junk, it's bloody expensive. Real food is relatively cheap. It's just that thick, lazy twats can't be arsed to buy it or cook it.

   Posted 2 weeks ago #

9. 

   deceangli
   

   offline

   Member

   If this opinion piece had shown some insight into the thoughtworld of people who find themselves at the wrong end of the wealth gradient - if, perhaps, there had been a bit of 'there but for the grace of God . . . ' in it - we might have had an interesting debate about nutrition and food pricing.

   However, conflating poverty with 'thick, lazy twats' takes it over the line for me. As that Scottish twat off Dragon's Den would say: Ah'm oot

   Posted 2 weeks ago #

10. 

    Gerontius
    

    offline

    Member

    It's a shame
    The topic is an important one, but the manner in which it is presented comes straight out of the Katy Hopkins word book
    There was a debate to be had about obesity and junk food.
    Instead it's just hateful bile attacking poor people for being poor.
    Sadly our time will be spent berating Titus and not discussing the issues.
    So he wins.....again.

    Posted 2 weeks ago #

11. 

    sydalg
    

    offline

    Member

    It could be plain ignorance, rather than stupidity, that's the cause of bad diet among poor people. Despite the tsunami of data on everything that's come at us with the communication revolution, some people just don't know the basic facts of nutrition and healthy eating. The government could have information campaigns on it, they way they did with smoking. Not many private companies have a commercial interest in educating people about healthy food.

    Posted 2 weeks ago #

12. 

    Titus
    

    offline

    Member

    Instead it's just hateful bile attacking poor people for being poor.

    FFS where did I attack the poor for being poor? I'd have a bit more respect for your comments if they were in response to what I had actually written, instead of just being a typical unthinking kneejerk trendy-lefty reaction to anything written by someone who was not a fellow trendy-leftie. No wonder you guys never manage to carry the public with you.

    Posted 2 weeks ago #

13. 

    Titus
    

    offline

    Member

    It could be plain ignorance, rather than stupidity, that's the cause of bad diet among poor people (etc.)

    Indeed. An intelligent (and positive) response at last, thank goodness, to what I wrote.

    Posted 2 weeks ago #

14. 

    deceangli
    

    offline

    Member

    FFS where did I attack the poor for being poor?

    I think the following phrase might have coloured perceptions. It certainly coloured mine:

    thick, lazy twats

    Posted 2 weeks ago #

15. 

    Titus
    

    offline

    Member

    Exactly. I criticised thick, lazy twats for being thick, lazy twats, not for being poor.

    Posted 2 weeks ago #

16. 

    Al OPecia
    

    offline

    Member

    I criticised thick, lazy twats for being thick, lazy twats, not for being poor.

    You are a liar. To quote:

    poor people eat shit food because they're thick and/or lazy

    Not "some" - just "poor". No thick rich people then? But then they have cooks and chefs to look after their diet. Because they have money.

    You are a slug.

    Posted 2 weeks ago #

17. 

    LittleSpender
    

    offline

    Member

    I described them as thick and lazy, but did not criticise them for it. They are not to blame for being thick

    
    

    I criticised thick, lazy twats for being thick, lazy twats

    
    Drivel, written by a cunt. As usual.

    Posted 2 weeks ago #

18. 

    Titus
    

    offline

    Member

    Drivel, written by a cunt. As usual.

    Thank you for your valuable, intelligent and constructive contribution to the debate.

    Posted 2 weeks ago #

19. 

    Titus
    

    offline

    Member

    But then they have cooks and chefs to look after their diet. Because they have money.

    I don't. But, amazingly, I manage to avoid eating shit.

    You are a slug.

    The response of someone acknowledging that they have no effective counter-argument. Sad.

    Posted 2 weeks ago #

20. 

    sydalg
    

    offline

    Member

    Think of people's attitude to smoking a generation or so ago. You'd see pregnant mothers puffing 50 day without a care in the world. Education plays a big part in health.

    Posted 2 weeks ago #

21. 

    Titus
    

    offline

    Member

    Think of people's attitude to smoking a generation or so ago. You'd see pregnant mothers puffing 50 day without a care in the world. Education plays a big part in health.

    Spot-on.

    Posted 2 weeks ago #

22. 

    Sinnick
    

    offline

    Member

    Guys, is there really any point in helping Titus toss himself off on yet another of his ill-considered & ill-presented, bigoted diatribes ? At times like these, he makes even Katie Hopkins look like a lightweight - and I certainly don't reply to her rants (or read them)

    Posted 2 weeks ago #

23. 

    Al OPecia
    

    offline

    Member

    Well said, Sinnick. Time for Coventry for our inadequate (can't think of a word here).

    Posted 2 weeks ago #

24. 

    oshaughnessy
    

    offline

    Member

    Titus, I’m sure you won’t mind me disagreeing with you about the media perpetuating nonsense that the poor can’t afford healthy food, or everything else in your post, for that matter.

    There is plenty of evidence and studies that show why the poor eat badly and can’t afford healthy food. This would explain why the media publish findings from bodies such as the Food Foundation. Back in 2018 it found that the poorest families cannot meet the healthy food guidelines of government.

    Low-income families were less able to pay for healthy food and satisfy the requirements of the governments own Eatwell guide, which was drawn up by Public Health England. They found that a family would have to put aside 40% of their total weekly income after housing costs, to pay for it. Its staggering to think that around 4m children live in the kind of household that can’t afford to eat to the government’s own dietary guidance.

    This is not bollocks and it's not perpetuating 'nonsense.' It is reporting serious academic studies and findings.

    There are a multitude of factors as to why the poor can’t afford to pay for healthy food. Low-income families for example, might live in areas of deprivation where access to healthy food is difficult, where a diet is more likely to consist of low-cost processed food and drinks. Public Health England, back in 2018, showed that of the 50,000 or so fast food outlets in England, just under half are in the poorest 30% of wards.

    You state that ‘poor people eat shit food because they’re thick and/or lazy.’ Is this carefully considered, sweeping generalisation, based on anything beyond your own prejudice towards people who you likely don’t meet and don’t know? Is every last one of them thick and lazy, or can you credit some of them at least with working multiple jobs to make ends meet? How inconvenient for you if the working poor fail to live up to your cliches and stereotypes, and amongst their dimwitted brethren we might include struggling NHS and care home workers. It's worth considering perhaps that at least a few of them don’t have much time to cook healthy, and the only ‘choice’ might be fast food or pizza.

    Education is of course important, but when food manufactures fill their products with fat and sugar and say they don’t add this and they don’t add that, then making the ‘right’ educated choice can be tricky. How many people think orange juice is healthy? Take your beloved pasties and cottage pies for instance. Are they that much healthier than pizzas, burgers and chips etc? A cursory examination of the ingredients reveals a significant fat content and a sugar content. They both probably need to be slightly more than doubled up as they will be published on a per 100g basis. A few of those a week and you’re roughly consuming the sugar equivalent of a can of coke. A healthy, educated option indeed.

    You write from the point of view of an embittered anti-nanny state libertarian and not someone who is going to advocate for higher public spending. That’s a shame because, like smoking, only government intervention will do anything about the level of fats and sugar in your food.

    Posted 2 weeks ago #

25. 

    Al OPecia
    

    offline

    Member

    Superb O. Please don't be disappointed, however, as Titus is incapable of engaging in Socratic discourse.

    Posted 2 weeks ago #

26. 

    Midfield Diamond
    

    offline

    Member

    Microwaved cornish pasty? You heathen, Titus. Pastry should never go in a microwave unless you like sucking on soggy cardboard.

    Not exactly healthy either, 372 calories, and 56% fat, 34% carbs, 10% protein (https://www.fatsecret.co.uk/calories-nutrition/co-op/cornish-pasty/1-pasty). And probably best not ask which particular body parts constitute the protein.

    I think I get the point that you're trying to make, but that was not a good example. You can eat healthily on a budget, but many choose not to for various reasons. And it is a choice, but that choice is often strongly influenced by the food processing giants, the massive fast food corporations and the government's inability or unwillingness to stand up to them.

    Convenience is a major factor for many of those with busy lives, irrespective of income. It is just easier to get a takeaway or microwave a ready meal than it is to cook something from scratch, even if you've planned ahead and got all the ingredients for a stir-fry that only takes 15 minutes, for example.

    I think the people Titus is targeting are wonderfully portrayed by Goldie Lookin Chain in this video though (warning - strong language):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-S_W_mWT9c

    Posted 2 weeks ago #

27. 

    Titus
    

    offline

    Member

    M-D: can't disagree with much, if any, of your post.

    Posted 2 weeks ago #

28. 

    Vertically Challenged Giant
    

    offline

    Member

    I agree, poor people make me sick. Especially if I try to eat one without ketchup.

    I'm fucking hilarious. Honestly, I should try writing comedy or something.

    Posted 1 week ago #

29. 

    Oxbridge
    

    offline

    Member

    This is what George Orwell said about it in 1937:

    “The miner's family spend only ten pence a week on green vegetables and ten pence half-penny on milk (remember that one of them is a child less than three years old), and nothing on fruit; but they spend one and nine on sugar (about eight pounds of sugar, that is) and a shilling on tea. The half-crown spent on meat might represent a small joint and the materials for a stew; probably as often as not it would represent four or five tins of bully beef. The basis of their diet, therefore, is white bread and margarine, corned beef, sugared tea, and potatoes - an appalling diet. Would it not be better if they spent more money on wholesome things like oranges and wholemeal bread or if they even, like the writer of the letter to the New Statesman, saved on fuel and ate their carrots raw? Yes, it would, but the point is that no ordinary human being is ever going to do such a thing. The ordinary human being would sooner starve than live on brown bread and raw carrots. And the peculiar evil is this, that the less money you have, the less inclined you feel to spend it on wholesome food. A millionaire may enjoy breakfasting off orange juice and Ryvita biscuits; an unemployed man doesn't. […] When you are unemployed, which is to say when you are underfed, harassed, bored, and miserable, you don't want to eat dull wholesome food. You want something a little bit 'tasty'. There is always some cheaply pleasant thing to tempt you. Let's have three pen north of chips Run out and buy us a twopenny ice-cream! Put the kettle on and we'll have a nice cup of tea. That is how your mind works when you are at the P.A.C level. White bread-and-marg and sugared tea don't nourish you to any extent but they are nicer (at least most people think so) than brown bread-and-dripping and cold water. Unemployment is an endless misery that has got to be constantly palliated, and especially with tea, the English-man's opium. A cup of tea or even an aspirin is much better as a temporary stimulant than a crust of brown bread."

    And here's what I say today:

    "Fuck off Titus"

    Posted 1 week ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.