“OUR” Children: ‘Obese or Overweight’

That phrase, ‘OUR children’, keeps cropping up in the sayings of Health Zealots. Courtecy of VGIF, here is a prime example:




That was a BBC interview about obesity. It is short, about four minutes, but reveals a lot.

I remember some time ago, a Health Zealot becoming hysterical when someone, in  reply to her claim that children were ‘our’ children, asked the question, “Whose children?” She, the Zealot, could not cope with the idea behind the question. “Whose children?” She became, litterally, hysterical.

The person in the BBC interview is a person called Simon Capewell. I suppose that he is a ‘Professor’ or a ‘Doctor’ of something or other. Decades ago, I passed the Banking Exams and am still entitled to add certain capital letters after my name, as far as I know. I have forgotten what they are. They might be ‘Associate of the Banker’s Institute’ – ABI – for all I know. “Junican ABI” sounds just a little impressive, but less so than “Junican MP”, if there was such a person.

So this guy, Capewell, pronounced, using his ‘highness’.

And he trotted out the usual stuff.

There are some clear indications of – dare I say it – fraud. One of them is the phrase ‘overweight or obese’. The two conditions are utterly and totally different. When the two are conflated, there is an obvious intention to misinform. The word ‘misinform’ is a soft word, but the consequences of such mis-information can be drastic.

Capewell claimed that masses of children are ‘overweight or obese’. I take herself to the hairdresser every other Thursday, just when the local primary school is loosing. I have never yet seen a very fat child among the children being loosed. Not one. But, for all I know, every one of those children might be ‘overweight’, if the ‘standard’ is skinny. Under-nourished children are the ones who tend to be skinny, apart from those children who are genetically skinny. I had three daughters. Daughter 2 was skinnier, by far, than daughter 1, and daughter 3 was shorter than daughters 1 and 2.  But the difference is tiny. They have all turned out, in their middle age, to be somewhat plump. But when they were children, they were perfectly normal children – statistically, they might have been either overweight or underweight. There is no way that they could have been conflated into a catagory of ‘OVERWEIGHT OR OBESE’.

It is beyond my comprehension how Politicians can allow these Zealots to build up a head of steam. Why do they not ‘deadhead’ the academic blatherers at source? It is quite simple. Just ask the likes of Capewell who is paying him. If he says that he is not paid at all, then ask him why he is so intent upon persecuting the poor.

In the radio broadcast above, he specifically state two ways to control ‘the overweight or obese’, and he specifically stated that the ‘tobacco control template’ should be followed. He said that ‘price and regulation’ are the way to go. He said that. In other words, THE USE OF FORCE.


But what really, really gets up my nose is the idea of OUR children. No, you totalitarian, fascist, control freak, the children are not OUR children. Nor are they ‘The Nation’s’ children. EVERY CHILD MATTERS, which means that every child is an individual, belonging to its parents, who feed it, clothe it, wash it, dress it, teach it manners, etc.

GET YOUR HANDS OF MY CHILDREN, YOU DISGUSTING PEODOPHILE! Who are you to call my child ‘overweight or obese’? Who gave you permission? Bugger off!


These people, like Capewell, can only get away with their interference in the lives of millions of people because Politicians are terrified of confronting them. And yet, it is so simple. It is simple because asking the question, “Whose children?” buggers up their whole argument. Their argument depends upon the existence of an amorphus mass of identical children. Politicians should be saying that parent are wonderful. They do the absolute best that they can for their children (but not always!). Zealots like Capewell should be put in the stocks and have rotten eggs thrown at them. I mean it. That is the appropriate punishment for claiming to own the children of the People of our Nation, and for claiming that being heavier than the average is the same as being very, very fat.


Whenever a Professor, or the like, says “Our children” or/and “overweight or obese”, you can be sure that he/she is a charlatan. He/she is a snake-oil salesman, proposing ‘remedies’.


One has to giggle. Cameron, that previous arsehole PM, pushed through Plain Packaging. What on earth possessed him? Of what importance, in view of the impending Brexit vote, possessed him to even allow the PP stuff to go to a decision in Parliament? Personally, I do not think that it had anything to do with his former publicist. The fact is that he did not give a shit, nor did any members of the Cabinet. They just did not give a shit, and so gave the go-ahead by omission. On that basis, Cameron could have agreed to bomb the White House in America. Why not? The Health Zealots might describe the USA Administration as ‘A Tobacco Company’. Who can contest that description?


What I would like to see is a Government system which has a control of statistics. In the UK, we have the ONS – Office of National Statistics. Apart from a few hiccups, it is definitely, truly independent, even though it might have to ask some politically motivated questions. The important thing is that it is genuinely ‘academic’. That is, it just does statistics without judgement.

Also, Nat Stats are very helpful. When I was investigating Lung Cancer stats, I had occasion to ask Nat Stats for clarifications, and they were most accomodating. Very helpful.


The whole Capewell interview was pure propaganda.”OUR children”, “Overweight or Obese”. “Calories are the equivalent of tobacco”.

But I must say again that it is Politicians who are to blame for the persecution of smokers, and no one else. It is also Politicians who are to blame for the Global Warming fiasco, and no one else. It is they who bowed down to academics.



4 Responses to ““OUR” Children: ‘Obese or Overweight’”

  1. garyk30 Says:

    Experts will also use such grandiose statements as:

    Everyone knows

    Most people will agree with me when I say

    I speak for most people when I say

    Rational intelligent people will agree that

    All of those statements are usually used by people that feel that they are superior.

  2. garyk30 Says:

    Experts will say that some law or program is worth the cost if it saves the life of just one child.

    This implies that the life of a child is of infinite value.
    Thus, spending half of our GDP to save one child is a reasonable idea.

    The debit/cost side of laws or programs is never mentioned to us.

    • garyk30 Says:

      Plus; by saying ‘if’, they are saying that the life of a child may not be saved and that they are not actually certain that there will be a benefit at all.

      • junican Says:

        When the words ‘life of a child’ are mentioned, logic goes out of the window and emotion takes over. By definition, Emotion is not rational. Many a person has drowned whilst trying to resue a person in difficulties in the sea. Often, the person in difficulties survives.
        You seem to be accepting the logic of ‘Child Protection’, although I think that that is not what you mean. What is REAL is that Protection can go too far. It can become stultifying. Or rather, it has already become stultifying.
        But what I observe is that, by and large, what has been happening for generations continues to happen. Either a parent picks the kids up from school or a grandparent does. But there comes an age when kids can make their own way home if they live nearby. And then these ‘kids’ cease to be ‘kids’ when the start secondary school. No one defines when exactly those ‘kids’ are capable of boarding buses.

        RULE BY EXCEPTION is what has been happening, and not only with tobacco. It is time that RULE BY EXCEPTION was overturned.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: