Read the full story here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
PLEASE NOTE:THE POPE FRANCIS LITTLE BOOK OF INSULTS CAN NOW BE READ AT ITS OWN WEBSITE, click link below: THE POPE FRANCIS LI... -
How is your reply to the survey coming along? I have answered two questions and am nearly ready to hand in the towel. It's s...
-
Over the years on this blog I have offered some commentary on Pope Francis and his bizarre, scandalous and increasingly diabolical pontif...
2 comments:
I was under the impression that,before milk was added, the sugar on "Frosties" was about the only genuinely nutricious ingredient in them.
How much of a U*&*&* is that journalist?? For a kick off, anyone who uses the phrase 'nanny state' (as he does) is probably a bit of an idiot. It's the kind of daft logic argument that a child in need of a nanny would actually employ. Because some big bad evil adult is imposing a rule that is actually sensible then they must represent the nanny stopping baby having his sweets. Obviously, it's easy to stamp our feet and spin this as a freedom of choice issue ('if baby WANTS Frosties, baby GETS Frosties'), but that is really just being petulant. A product that is, basically, sugar and preservatives is being marketed at children by a company who don't give two hoots if they all get diabetes (and won't be dipping into its profits to pay for it when the NHS sees its bills surge either). I bet this same man was one of the 'don't sexualise children with pop videos' brigade (which, I hasten to add, I am a fully paid up member of). My point is, if you accept the need for a 'nanny' to stop exploitation of children through aggressive marketing and sale of damaging products, why should this not apply to a breakfast cereal. A BREAKFAST CEREAL!!! It's not even a treat - it's like they're saying 'hey, mums, it's safe to feed your kid a big bowl of sugary crap EVERY FREAKING DAY'.
Post a Comment