The Incredible Hulk wrote: » That last girl on the Tinder panel sounds like an absolute wagon. Can't believe he read out a text licking her hole.
reg114 wrote: » Darcy being his usual obnoxious self in castigating Senator Noone over regulation of ice cream vans in an attempt to tackle childhood obesity. He tore strips off her theory and openly admitted he'd be rude to her if she had been available for comment, an appalling admission and one if the reasons why Darcy needs to get off the air.
NotVeryHappy wrote: » I don't really think having to say no to the kids was the problem with the texters, but more so dealing with the tantrums that follow multiple times per day, every day of the week
kunst nugget wrote: » If your kids are having multiple tantrums every day over you not letting them get a 99 from the ice cream van, you're doing it wrong.
ivytwine wrote: » Kids have always had tantrums, we had tantrums growing up, every single one of us- if parents are good parents they don't give in.
NotVeryHappy wrote: » I don't have kids but I agree. I'm just suggesting that the texters were saying that an ice cream van calling to the estate 4 times a day every day of the week during summer holidays made there lives (very slightly) unnecessarily difficult and they would prefer not having to deal with it
ivytwine wrote: » That's true, but not to the extent of the moaning that went on today, people blaming icecream men for their kids being fat... I'm sure that's nothing to do with chicken nuggets and chips for dinner and plonking them down with a iPad!
reg114 wrote: » In the context of the senators proposal, the spotlight was clearly on ice cream / sugar. Yes the causes of childhood obesity are multi-factorial , that wasn't in dispute. My initial post merely drew attention to Darcy's contempt for opposing opinions.
BaZmO* wrote: » In fairness to the Senator, I thought she was a bit batty when I read the quotes yesterday, but she was on the Matt Cooper show yesterday evening and she was just making the point about the amount of times ice cream vans were driving around estates on a given day and that in some cases it was after 8/9 o'clock in the evening, which is a bit much in fairness. We actually have laws prohibiting direct marketing junk food to kids on TV, so this would be similar to that. All that said, the responsibility does lie with the parents, but Ray was being a total knob the way he was dismissing the Senator's comments this morning.
nice_guy80 wrote: » Oh, here's the solution to everything - education. The schools have a bigger role to play! The schools are meant to correct every ill. PARENTS are the primary educators. Maybe they need to look in the mirror and examine their own habits. One ice cream doesn't make a child obese However, the crap cereals that their parents are buying (because they are advertised as being low fat and having 5 grains etc) the sugar laden yoghurts and yoghurt drinks being pedalled as healthy food the crap parents put into kids lunchboxes because they are too lazy to properly prepare a bit of fresh fruit and veg for them? and the sugar laden drinks that parents send kids to school with and give at home because they are 'handy'. white bread. white bread? its like cocaine to kids and probably has less nutritional value what about the crap served for dinner? and the huge servings go work in a supermarket and see the junk parents buy if you work on a till - fizzy drinks, crisps, white bread, pizzas, ********************** parents need to get outside with their kids. turn off the tv, out to the park or garden, throw a ball to them, hop on the bike and get the kids moving.
Michael Weston wrote: » Jesus it's like Ray wrote that comment himself!
somesoldiers wrote: » Reminds me of a tv theme tune, always thought it was a bit self-defeating as a tv slogan though.... "Why Don't You Just Switch Off Your Television Set and Go Out and Do Something Less Boring Instead"
mrsdewinter wrote: » God, that show. From Belfast, wasn't it?
