I’m sorry, what?

Radio advertising for “100 calorie snacks, two a day max!”

Public Health England is actually spending your and my money on advertising their latest piece of bollocks.

Where is that multi-person gallows?

17 comments on “I’m sorry, what?

  1. Public Harm England inciting eating disorders. Even the BBC had a video from a former bulimia sufferer pointing this out. IF this isn’t peak stupidity I hate to think what that looks like.

  2. Mrs W listens to LBC and half the ads on there are taxpayer-funded. If it’s not PHE telling you to stop smoking, eating and drinking it will be the DfT telling you to stop speeding, watch out for pedestrians and not drive in motorway lanes if there’s a red X on the gantry sign.
    What’s that Cabaret Voltaire track? Oh yeah, Nag Nag Nag.

  3. I infer that you’re in the UK, driving a fair bit, and not listening to BBC radio. Also the “your and my money” line; whereas from foreign it would have merely been “your money”.

  4. I know it’s developing into a bloody long list but I would recommend Ecks gets PHE in at least in the top half.

  5. “100 calorie snacks, two a day max!”

    Can someone more scientifically literate than me explain how this works?

    Is there a reason why one 200 Cal snack is worse? Or, say, one 150 Cal snack – after all that’s fewer calories? Or three 50 Cal snacks, is that too many?

    What if the snack is also one of your five-a-day, does it still count? (Obviously the calories are still there but you are supposedly eating more “goodness” – does that make up for it?)

    What if you eat more snacks but your main meals are smaller to compensate? (Which I’m guessing is closer to how our ancestors would have spread food over the day.)

  6. @MyBurningEars:

    Is there a reason why one 200 Cal snack is worse?

    Yes. You might accidentally eat two of them and end up a bloated whale for the rest of your life.

    More seriously, it’s all bollocks from the start.

    See Snowdon for more: Jan 2nd, Feb 1st

  7. IF this isn’t peak stupidity I hate to think what that looks like.

    That’s the public health loons who want vaping banned.

  8. the DfT telling you to stop speeding, watch out for pedestrians and not drive in motorway lanes if there’s a red X on the gantry sign.

    Watching out for pedestrians isn’t that unreasonable a request, surely?

  9. @Rob

    It’s a very reasonable request – but should be assumed to be normal behaviour. Same goes for not driving in a lane with a red X on the motorway – makes me wonder if there are a large number of people who really don’t understand these basic things, and why that might be the case.

  10. As someone with a slight interest in football I sometimes listen to Talksport. I would guess that about 25% of ads on there are from the government (and in addition ones such as gambling ads have a government mandated bit at the end). They are for FSCS, 100 calories snacks, motorway lanes, slowing before bends, Mandatory Employer Pensions etc etc. They seem to have increased recently (departments burning up unspent money before FY end?). Happily, they are so incessant, fatuous, patronising and annoying that I think there’s a good chance they will actually help ferment increasing annoyance with the intrusive state.

  11. “MyBurningEars

    “100 calorie snacks, two a day max!”

    Can someone more scientifically literate than me explain how this works?”

    Dunno.

    It starts off about eating less sugar to stop tooth decay, then segues into 2 x 100 calorie snacks without pausing for breath.

    So according to these tosspots, 2 snacks consisting of 6 teaspoons of sugar each (about 100 calories) is better for your teeth than 2 snacks of 2 boiled eggs each (about 150 calories)? Is that the message?

    WTF.

    Wankers.

  12. Talking about radio ads, I was trying to work out why those Tesco ‘love food’ adverts irritated me so much.

    It’s because they are so FUCKING SMUG.

    “I fell in love and my lovely boyfriend and I had a lovely breakfast of lovely food made of lovely ingredients because we are so much in love”

    FUCK OFF.

  13. I can’t remember who, but somebody once wrote that it was a sign of the decline of civilisation when you had to have signs on buses telling people not to spit. If you need to tell drivers – the default assumption being that they have managed to pass a driving test – that they should not drive in lane signed as closed, what the hell is the country coming to?

  14. There’s a long history of public service broadcasts around driving when something major changes. Those “smart” motorways being a case in point for those driving on the motorways all the time they get to know them throug( local changes, those who don’t need to be informed in some way, unless we insist on passing the written test every year.

    Given the externalities of people not being aware of a major change on the motorways I don’t have a problem with it.

    There are no externalities worth talking about when it come for what passes as most public health advertising, it’s just smug, middle class, hectoring.

  15. @jgh
    There once was a man from Darjeeling
    Who caught the last bus home from Ealing.
    A note on the door
    Said: “Don’t spit on the floor”,
    So he stood up and spat on the ceiling.

  16. @ jgh and Bloke in Halifax
    On the M25 (which I have to use once or twice a week) they advertise lane closures miles and miles in advance so lots of well-behaved drivers leave that lane empty and various “persons” use the empty lane to overtake dozens of well-behaved drivers and then cut in in front of them when they get close to the actual blockage.
    On occasion I have reached my exit and found that I could have driven in the X-marked inside lane all the way from where I joined the M25 with no problem. So the country is coming to idiocy dictated by a Department of Transport computer.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.