the fat of the land is up north

[hembo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6033023.stm

 

 

is this a classic nanny state or do they have a point.

 

 

personally i think its as bad down in the south i blame jamie oliver for his persecution of the adults with his incredible recipes.

 

as for smoking the sooner it is banned from public places the better.

Edited October 10, 2006 by hembo

[RobStubbs]

I would imagine it's factually correct but I don't really think the area of the country is important. There's fat, thin, short, tall, smokers and non smokers all over the country.

 

Rob.

[s_mac]

I have lived both north and south, and i think the state is true, because of the life styles, caused by what is called the north south devide.

 

I know this will cause alot of disagreement, but it comes down the the private house owner and the council house owner.

 

The further north you go, there is more council properties than lets say in London. i come from the north east and the place i lived was approx half council and half private. the further south you go the less council and more privately owned or privately rented accomadation.

 

this leads onto the argument of unemployment, one parent families, the will to work against what the state will provide to a family with children. or a one parent family with children.

 

Housing benefit, council tax benefit, unemployment benefit, and benefit for the children, which will average a income over i estimate these days of over 300 a week. thus the insentive to go out to work, is not worth it, so bordem then creeps in and then the bad habbits creep in, drinking, smoking, takeaways.

 

The further south you go, people want to work for a future, one because most have to buy there house, or privately rent accomadation, which in most cases wont take DSS as they call it. so most work, thus less boredom, have a better self esteem as their career is important. thus paying higher rents and mortages and thus a better stanadard of living.

 

This not to say that any one is wrong, whether north or south, its the state we live in.

 

sean

[Huge_Vitae]

Well, I personally was pleased to read this, being an architypal Southerner I am pleased to publically announce that any of you 'Northern People' (thats Portsmouth and upwards) are welcome to use my physical condition to rebuke, in total, the results of this survey

[five bellies]

I would imagine it's factually correct but I don't really think the area of the country is important. There's fat, thin, short, tall, smokers and non smokers all over the country.

 

Rob.

 

 

Yep.

 

I cover quite a large area of my part of the country

[Guest franticfisherman2]

I think I'll move south, then I should live a couple of extra years, are you coming Snatcher?

[DavyR]

I think I'll move south, then I should live a couple of extra years, are you coming Snatcher?

 

It would be interesting to see if people moving from south to north (or vice versa) eventually acquire the same health/longevity profiles of their new neighbours.

 

AFAIK, the only published studies have been on populations moving to other countries with widely differing cultures (e.g. Japanese migrants to the USA) and these have invariably shown the incomers quickly developing the same illnesses and major causes of death as the indigenous population.

 

The argument about genes vs environment (nature vs nurture) seems to go round in circles according to fashion and new research findings, but it's a very complicated subject and there'll probably never be a clear answer.

 

East Anglia always used to be the "best" area to go to in the UK (but not Boston in Lincolnshire, according to the latest survey).