From: Betty Peel, Filey.
WHO is responsible for childhood obesity? The parents are. The parents are in control of the provision of food.
We seem to live in an era when everything is someone else’s fault.
The supermarkets don’t force the customer to fill their trolley with fizzy drinks, crisps, pizzas, burgers, chocolate, breakfast cereals, sweets, etc.
If it doesn’t go into the trolley it won’t be in the larder and the temptation won’t be there. The poor unfortunate obese teenager who was unable to leave the house was totally reliant on her parents to provide sustenance.
Was it her fault that they provided the wrong type?
If parents provide too little food and the child starves, they are likely to be arrested and taken to court. Maybe the answer to childhood obesity will be solved when lawyers decide that it is possible, on behalf of the child, to sue their parents for buying the wrong type of food and causing them to be obese – on a no-win no-fee basis of course.
From: BJ Cussons, Curly Hill, Ilkley.
YOUR editorial comments on Rowan Williams’ own waffle (Yorkshire Post, June 25) are spot on and scarcely need much amplification.
Coincidentally I had just finished re-reading Rhodes Boyson’s article of October 1971.
Parents must be encouraged to believe that the traditional methods of bringing up their children are more likely to be right than the ever-conflicting advice of experts.
What has the Archbishop of Canterbury done to help re-create a civilised society? A huge and difficult path has to be taken to overcome his dereliction of duty. He is in no position to criticise; he has not achieved his own mission.
Lording it over a second house
From: Duncan Anderson, East Halton, Immingham.
WHY do we need a Second Chamber? What purpose does it serve? What purpose is the House of Lords supposed to serve? If it is supposed to be a scrutinising body, why do we need party politics involved? Surely, the best people to scrutinise policy would be experts in that particular field.
If the Second Chamber become elected it will be divided along party political lines, with the “crossbenchers” being virtually excluded and virtually no representation by the Lib Dems as they are likely to suffer a humiliating meltdown.
We will see two party politics with members in the Second Chamber following their relevant party ship. Is this proper scrutiny?
Personally, I’d prefer to see professional and experts scrutinise policies. I’d like to see these people chosen from professional institutions and communities etc, but not from political parties. I think politics should be kept out of a Second Chamber.
Let business provide advice
From: Terry Duncan, Greame Road, Bridlington.
AS our Chancellor of the Exchequer has no apparent qualifications whatsoever for being in the job, the country deserves better.
If PM David Cameron wants to keep his pal George Osborne in the Cabinet, then surely the former should tell “Boy George” to get his finger out and bring in advisers who are not civil service mandarins, but men and women who know the finance game from broke to bust to billionaires, in these tough times.
Out there in this Great Britain of ours there are thousands of successful entrepreneurs, men and women, who have managed, through thick and thin, to continue to not only balance their books, but also make profits.
It is they who should be advising Mr Osborne, not the Bank of England!
The quicker PM Cameron realises this, the better it will be for the taxpayers of this country of ours.
Then we can show the rest of Europe how the UK does business.