29 Oct 2009

Ian Anderson - BBC god

Former editor of BBC; Ian Anderson made a visit to Winchester University in order to help guide and give advice to the current year 3 single honour journalism class (me). He was lucky enough to view some of the television news packages produced by the year 3 on stories around the city that they believed were interesting and would grab the readers.


The advice he gave was exceptional and really gave me an insight in to what things regional news packages look for:

* Simplicity

* Good language

* Clear communication in words and style

* Don’t over complicate the piece

One good piece of advice he gave which i found interesting was to use a PTC (Piece to camera) as much as you can, or about 30 - 40 seconds depending on the length of the package. It is the quickest and easiest way of giving those who are watching the correct information whilst propelling the narrative forward, but also it highlights the journalist who is doing the piece to the audience! If you are an up and coming journalist the only way you can get people to see how good you are, is to show them how good you are. PTC's shows exactly how well you make packages in front of the camera and behind the scenes also. "Don’t be scared to be in the PTC", said Ian. "It helps to promote you".

The compliments he gave to our studio, our skills and of course our course was great too. Journalists nowadays, especially when working with smaller companies, have to become Video Journalists or VJ's for short. These are journalists that are multi-skilled across all fields of journalism whether it is in television, radio, newspaper or magazines or even with video a package, editing, sound and lighting. There is some bad news in there too ... If anything goes wrong with the package (bad footage, too long, too short etc) it means they are solely responsible.

Also, don’t be afraid to be in the shot when interviewing someone, it gives the audience the knowledge that you are there doing what you say you are doing.

With my group’s package, he liked the story it was based on, and the editing. He did say that one way it could be improved was to do the piece to the camera where the action was taken place and not another part of the university.

Recap lecture on Defamation & Libel

Article 8 of the Human Rights Act = privacy

Article 10 of the Huam Rights ACt = freedon of speech/expression


LIBEL -->         Defamation
                            Publication
                            Identification


                                                       DEFAMATION

       * Shunned / Avoided
       * Lowers them in opinion of others
       * Hatred. ridicle, contempt
       *  Dispages person in work or business


Juries all have a different opinion - so one jury may find the word "gay" defamatory but another group of jurors may not. It depends on several factors: sex, race, location, behaviour, up bringing, social group, and the changing of society as a whole.

23 Oct 2009

BBC Question Time - my opinion of tonight show

I have just finished watching the debate (if you can call it that, it seemed to be more of a 'slagging' match that you would find in the playground of 6 year olds) on BBC's Question Time, which of course has been the most spoke about controversial television programme during the last few weeks. Many people have come out speaking that they believe Nick Griffin who is the leader of the British National Party (BNP) should be allowed on the political programme.
Watching the 'debate' i found myself laughing at most of what was being said. Please before you begin to persecute me for my laughter it was not about the particular issues raised, it was the shambolic behaviour of those in the audience and quite frankly those on the panel too. Many who read this may in fact disagree with me, you may think that shouting and 'slip of the mouth words like "dick ... I’m sorry nick griffin" is adult like behaviour, but as a 21 year old i think that these are very childish acts. A vast majority of people in the UK do not follow or even agree with the policies of the BNP and therefore wish to; on a public front; so their disgust and anger at a man that has very much become public enemy number 1 in the UK.
Although two particular things rose during the show i think should be looked upon again.

1) At the end of the show they spoke about the article printed by the Daily Mail about Stephen Gatley, who sadly passed away recently. All of those at the table agreed that although the article was distasteful and wrong, the journalist and indeed the publication had a right to publish it. They all agreed that the reason for this was because people in this country have the right to FREEDOM OF SPEECH/EXPRESSION as it is written in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act. However ... if this is true, then why was there so much uproar from those in power and those around the country about Mr Griffin being allowed to voice his political party’s agenda on a BBC show?
If people in society want to be protected by freedom of expression and those in power of the country want to have article 10 written in the Law then surely they can’t try and refuse someone (who obviously has his own agenda) who wants to use that right to voice his opinions, however controversial. His party has been elected! Therefore he has a right to be seated on Question Time along with other members of political parties, whether we like it or not. If we don’t like it then we could always throw out the right to express ourselves? But then where would we be? This is why the BBC HAD to allow the BNP a seat on the programme. They were as we say in slang terms "doomed if they do, and doomed if they don’t". It was either upset people who don’t follow the BNP or upset those who do, only difference is if the BNP wasn't allowed on the show then they always had the article 10 of the Human Rights Act to change decision. We as society fight to have better lives, we are given that opportunity by laws such as the Human Rights article 8 (freedom of privacy) and article 10 (freedom of speech). So we can’t protest to allow ourselves to be defended behind that and not someone else.
2) The show found itself answering the question of if they believed the success of the BNP recently was due to the lack of control over immigration. This is where i really began to watch the people speaking on the panel, because unfortunately they all seemed to blame one another for the failings of immigration. But here is a valid point. If these political parties do not want to see the BNP have more control in society then maybe instead of squabbling between themselves they should pull their finger out - work together - and fight the problems the country are having at the moment. Otherwise people will vote for the only other party left in a hope that they will do something worthwhile. Many of the panel gave their opinion on Nick Griffin and the BNP but isn’t it because of their parties that he has become so popular? Maybe the political parties in the country should stop playing playground tactics and start actually do the job they are supposed to, otherwise they will end up seeing someone like Mr Griffin in downing street running the country ... all i will have to say to them at that time is this ... "where were you when something could have been done"?

20 Oct 2009

World’s heaviest man chomps away at taxpayer’s money

Just imagine the scene ... you’re hard at work in the job that pays your wages ... whether it is at the office filing papers, in the school classroom teaching teenagers algebra or doing that horrible night shift at the warehouse ... you all have one thing in common PAYING TAX. Then you look at today's paper and you discover that the world’s heaviest man is here in Britain living in Ipswich; off TAX PAYERS MONEY!


Paul Mason, 48, eats EIGHT TIMES the recommended amount of calories for a male – consuming over 20,000 A DAY! Paul, who weighs 70 STONE scoffed his way through thousands of pounds worth of food and now is going to be treated ON THE NHS!!! His care cost the UK more than £100,000 a year and he has been stuck in bed for more than eight years. The cost continues to mount up at the expense of tax payers as the ‘super-obese’ man needs to get to the specialist hospital more than 152 miles away, where he will undergo stomach surgery to stop him eating food in a fight to keep him alive.

Now i am all for saving people’s lives but when they have disregarded all common sense and have ate their way to death i don’t think they should have the NHS and taxpayers money being spent on them. If this man was in a different country it would be a different story but because he is in Britain he has the NHS to fall back on, so what is that saying for the overweight and obese teenagers or children in the country? That they can eat all they like and at the end when they are yards from death the NHS will save them?

Health chiefs first thought of transporting Mason in a RAF CHINOCK HELICOPTER because of the issues surrounding his weight, but this idea was later ruled out but it just goes points out a question that even though OUR BOYS in Afghanistan need this specialised equipment they come after individuals who consciously CHOOSE to eat themselves to death. Now the NHS is going to take him to Chichester, West Sussex in a reinforced 5-ton ambulance which cost £90,000 and is used for severely obese people. I read this story and my initial reaction was shock, but reading the article published today in The Sun newspaper my emotion turned from shock to disgust at the fact the government, NHS, and local councils would spend thousands of pounds on someone who chooses this life style when that money could be spent on doing so much more in the country.

The money could be spent on making hospitals around the country benefit from better cleaning and sanctuary conditions to help fight diseases in our wards, or on equipping our military with the right weapons and armour whilst they are giving up their lives in a foreign country or even spending it to fix the diabolical and shameful military homes that families of service personal are forced to live in. Yet it doesn’t happen. That much needed money is thrown at someone who could have stopped his eating habits more than 8 years ago but did nothing and now his life is in the hands of us... the tax payers.

A spokesman for Suffolk NHS said: “the nature of his illness is psychological and the NHS has a duty to help him”. But what about everyone else they have a duty to help? The Hippocratic Oath is there to save lives yet they have the nature to decide who to help?? In 2002 he was 56 stone and then he lost 20 stone in 2006 – that would have made him 36 stone, yet he piled on a record breaking 34 stone in just 3 years!!!! How is that psychological? Surely if he could do it once he should be able to do it again?

I for one am disgusted! Some hospitals around the country refuse medical treatment to patients in need of life saving surgeries. Gary Reinbach, 22, from Dagenham was refused a liver transplant after he was diagnosed with cirrhosis of the liver. He started binge drinking at 13 years old. Even though he was only given just a FEW weeks to live, Health Chiefs rules that he should NOT be exempt from the organ donation criteria, which says that patients should be alcohol free for 6 months. They knew he was too ill to be alive that long to even try, yet they still refused him LIFE SAVING treatment. But a man who has ATE HIMSELF to near death is saved by Health chiefs? How is that fair? Or more to the point ethically right!


19 Oct 2009

HOW TO USE FINAL CUT PRO - basics

Final Cut Pro is the editing system used by journalists in the industry to produce high quality and professional looking work. At Winchester University we have been taught how to create television packages and other video work using Adobe Premiere Pro; Final Cut Pro is of a similar quality however it has its extra facilities to increase the professional quality of any work.
Below is a mini guide to show those who need it how to use Final Cut Pro and the particular facilities it has and what are the most important things to use
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2867237905327464722#

This link above shows how to do basic editing in final cut pro - you can follow this with the below guide as you can see the componants on the screen

One of the important things to remember when editing is SAVE! SAVE! SAVE! YOUR WORK!!! If you don’t you have a high chance of losing all your precious work – so don’t take the risk!

STARTING FINAL CUT PRO

1) Open Final Cut Pro

2) At the top click FILE > AUDIO/VIDEO SETTINGS ** Make sure all the boxes are marked with DV Pal 48 kHz

3) FILE > New project

4) FILE > SAVE ** save the project in a place you will always remember. It is good that if using a computer or laptop with not much memory or a public computer you should save on to a HARDRIVE.

5) In the same place as number 4 also make sure that the AV devices tab is set to default.

6) Creating a scratch disk ** Go to FINAL CUT PRO (top left hand corner) click it and then click SYSTEM SETTINGS > make sure it is all saved in the same place you saved number 4 to (otherwise it may save half your work in other areas on the computer)


BEGINNING TO EDIT


1) Click FILE > LOG CAPTURE ** A tab will appear so you can begin capturing all the clips you wish to from the tape you have. There are 3 ways to do this:

Capture Now ** Name the clip FIRST!!! Then click “NOW” in the bottom right hand corner of the tab that appears. This will make another tab appear – to stop the clip capturing press ESC – the logged clip will appear on the top right of the Final Cut Pro screen.

Capture Clip ** On the tab that appears you will see the play, stop, rewind etc in the middle of the tab – on the left there will be what looks like a arrow pointing down towards the bottom right which is inside a circle – a black rectangle box – then a circle with what looks like a triangle pointing towards the right with a line going down from top to bottom. THIS IS THE BUTTON YOU WILL NEED TO START CAPTURING. On the opposite side there will be the exact same thing as above but a mirror image of it (i.e. the triangle pointing left and the arrow pointing down to the left)

** The “triangle buttons” are the ones which you press to either log in the capturing or log out them capturing. The one on the left is to set the capture – the one on the right is to stop the capture. You then name the clip and it appears on the final cut pro screen. (Might be long winded but when you see the screen it will look VERY simple)


Batch Capture ** You can set many in and out times and it will capture each as a separate film and it will make a list of these. Advice is not to use batch capture if you are a beginner. It is very useful and will speed you up when you are confident.


2) Once you have all the clips you want captured you click and drag in down on to the sequence bar to begin editing.


3) Use the IN and OUT points to trim the clips to how you want them ** if you double click the video or audio on the sequence bar it will appear in the box above it to trim etc

Above is a still shot of what the final cut pro looks like
* under the picture of the biker you will find the arrows i was telling you about, to which you use to capture.
(larger version visit: http://www.geniusdv.com/final_cut_pro_training/2007/05/24/final_cut_pro_editing.gif)


EDITING THE CLIPS
1) LINK/DE-LINKIN CLIPS > the button for this is on the far right above the sequence bar > it looks like a dashed lined box with a pair of glasses inside ** it allows you to link or de-link video and sound clips so you can move things around

• This is what you should use when you wish to put a still image or a video clip on top of a different audio clip so you can have audio on top of different video or vice versa. ** You can also turn off the audio or increase/decrease the sound. ** REMEMBER to highlight particular clips or it will do this to all of them!!

http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/finalcutpro/editing-tools.html
This link will take you to the Apple website and it will show you videos to help show you editing.
2) THE RAZOR TOOL > is one of the buttons on the right hand side of the sequence bar or you can press ‘B’ ** this adds transitions effects between clips REMEMBER ... you have to separate the clips to give the transitions time to work


3) TRANSITIONS > in effects tab ** find this at the top there is a tab finding under the tab which has the clips logged in it

NB. You can only put transitions on to clips that are on the same sequence line, if they are not use the link/de-link took to do this.

This link will take you to the page which will help you with effects and transitions
http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/finalcutpro/effects-transitions.html

4) EFFECTS ON CLIPS > double click to put it in to the viewer ** in the motion tab you can control the size or the shape of the frame – it can be fastened or put in slow mo) be careful about the audio though in slow mo) – There are other effects also in this tab but these two are useful.

NB. After doing these effects you can’t change – so if you mess up you will have to drag the original clip back on to the sequence

5) -2 or +5 next to each clip on the sequence line??? ** This is showing you that the clips are out of sync ... to set it right you will need to pull them back or apart till there is no number showing.

PLEASE REMEMBER THIS!!


ALWAYS render you work ... it saves time and energy when it comes to doing it later ** it is found in the tool bar

15 Oct 2009

Media Law Lecture – 15th October 2009 – DEFAMATION & RELATED LAW

Defamation is a statement which can damage a person’s reputation, company or organisation either through libel or slander. These are two different ways in which you can cause a defamatory statement. LIBEL is something that is written in a permanent form, whereas SLANDER is something spoken and not in a permanent form.

Definitions of a defamatory statement will help us better understand how jurors consider what statement is defamatory and which one are not. Judges tell juries that a defamatory statement TENDS to do any of:

• Expose them to hatred, ridicule, or contempt;

• Cause the person to be shunned or avoided;

• Lower the person in the eyes of a “right thinking member of society”;

• Disparage the person or his/her business, trade, office or profession

The lecture initially focussed on a case involving The Daily Mail published an article saying that an officer within Banbury Police was corrupt, and taking bribes in order to help people get off charges. Many people would say that this is defamatory at first glance because the newspaper has not identified anyone. HOWEVER, because they have not it means that suspicion falls on EVERY officer at Banbury police station. They all sued the newspaper and won because all of their reputations had been tarnished because there is not a specific individual targeted….

People do not have to show that they have been defamed, only show that it could happen. A recent example of a possible defamatory statement was found on X-Factor last Saturday night (10th Oct 09) during a live television broadcast pop singer and X-Factor judge Dannii Minogue made a jibe about Danyl Johnson’s sexuality in front of millions of people around the world. She spoke out after he changed the lyrics in the song he was singing to make it from the point of view of a man; and not the traditional version in which is sang by a woman for a man. Although (allegedly) a joke, 4,000 people complained.


Dannii said “If you're to believe everything you read in the papers, then you didn't need to change the gender references in the song." Danyl has openly admitted to being bisexual, however there are many people who may not of known this (me for one). Is this a statement that can be classed as defamatory? Although it is a fact that is true … it could still cause the singer to be shunned, ridiculed or even blasted by radical groups who believe that bisexual men shouldn’t teach at schools. I believe that Dannii should have chosen her words more carefully, but in her defence it was a live show and it was true…. In this case if he wanted to sue for defamation it would go to a jury in which they would decided (with the above points being taken in to consideration) if his reputation was defamed.

Defamatory and libel problems arose on Richard Taylor’s blog after he wrote (as a joke and in an “if” scenario) about a student being gay. He published the name of the student and wrote the article in a particular way, as to not write that the student “is gay” (in those words). However he implied by innuendo that the student was gay and therefore it became a defamatory statement. As I previously mentioned last week, innuendos are very easy to write and sometimes Journalists may not see that it could imply a different meaning to the one they originally wanted to infer. Unfortunately for Rich he also libelled not only the student but everyone in the world with the same name.


In Libel we need something called “positive identification” – which is things also published that can help reduce the possibility of misrepresenting another person with the same name. More detail like, hair colour, age, address, job, helps to do this.
An example would be:
“John Smith of North London was charged with the murder of 4 people today”
However what tells us nothing. John Smith is a very popular name and there could be over 100 people in the North London area with the same name.
It should be:
John Smith, 43, of Bounds Green, North London was charged with the murder of 4 people today. The ex-marine and father of 3 was …..

The second example gives more detail about the person and reduces the likeliness that it wrongly accuses someone else. There is however the unfortunate circumstance where by fluke, there could be two or three John Smith’s, in Bounds Green, who is a father of 3 and is an ex-marine. In this situation journalists are covered by “Accidental Libel”. You have tried to reduce the chance of someone else being identified but as a result there were still a few with exactly the same information, it is highly unlikely that a jury will convict a journalist of libel in this circumstance because you have tired by all means to reduce the risk.
After the discussed on Rich’s blog we continued with libel etc whilst looking at The Sun newspaper. The story inside showed a picture of a lady and we deconstructed the article making references to “positive identification” – they used the full name of the company she worked for and then for added reassurance her photograph so they could correctly identify her and not wrongly identify someone else.

Publication

Identification                              = LIBEL

Defamation

13 Oct 2009

Media Law Lecture - 8th October 2009 - CRIME REPORTING

The lecture was our first main lecture which got to grips with the ins and outs of crime reporting within the UK, although not much has changed in the way journalists are allowed to report crime. This was probably the main reason why the lecture deviated from crime reporting and on to Libel which is next week’s lecture, but the points that arose from what we spoke about were very interesting.
However, before I jump in to the deep end with what happened in the lecture I believe that in order for someone to understand how things work when talking about libel you have to first understand what it means itself.

Defamation (or defamatory/defame) = is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image or ruin ones reputation.
Libel = harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast.
Slander = harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech.

First of all we examined a few of the blogs from other students in the class that were connected with libel, and found our way to Ben King’s blog. There was a photo of the prophet Mohammad with a bomb infused into his turban, it can be biased and could infuriate some of the Muslim community as it infers that he and possibly Muslims are suicide bombers. This could then cause someone to try and sue as they could think Ben was defaming the Muslim religion’s reputation. However for people in the UK we are very lucky to have Article 10 of the Human Rights Act to protect us when we wish to voice a certain opinion on particular subjects. Article 10 of the Act states:
‘Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary’. (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/ukpga_19980042_en_3)

This broken down in to fragments, means that everyone has the right to express their beliefs and opinions and be protected to the full power of the Act; AS LONG as they are not breaching national security, breaking the law, territorial integrity or putting the safety of the public in jeopardy. (Including those listed in the above quote)



The topic of conversation also stopped on the preferential treatment given to the Christianity religions when it comes to libel against it. The correct term is known as Blasphemy, and the law protects the Anglican God and allows a 3rd party to sue on his behalf. Why only one religion? Although the only question should be is, is this right? Shouldn’t there be equality within the religious community when it comes to the reputation of its God? Or is it because we cannot really defame the reputation of someone that isn’t alive? ... If so why could Mary Whitehouse sue Gay News because they libeled the Christian god?
I thought at this point it would be good time to ask if someone who is dead could be libeled. However, this couldn’t happen. No one can be libeled if they are dead because they do not have a reputation – no 3rd party can be sued for libel for someone who is dead. BUT AGAIN only the Anglican God can be 3rd party libeled. Wouldn’t it be fair that it changed so either all religious “gods” could be 3rd party libeled or no religious “gods” could be?
There is no protection given to religions such as Islam, Buddhism or Judaism, but it is needless to say that they would want the blasphemy law extended to include their own religions to make a fair and equal opportunity for everyone. For the Islamic religion it is possibly more important that they have it extended to their religion because of the constant bombardment from the media in the UK and the world over things such as the war in Iraq and Afghanistan or suicide bombers. I think that if there is a law to protect one then it has to protect all. Yes... we are in a predominantly Christian country, but because the UK has become so multi-cultural it has to take in to account the fairness to the other religious beliefs now found within society.

This is possibly a reason why a few Muslims extremist take steps to fight for what they believe in but in an inhumane and illegal way, whereas there are many Muslims that voice their opinions in a legal and just way by marches or peaceful protest. In my opinion I think that it’s either cover all or cover none. Otherwise it is just going to insight religious hatred which could end up causing a lot more problems.
Journalist have protection against people or company’s suing them for libel, slander or defamation because they have three defenses in which to fall back on, if these are not followed then it could see the Journalist, the Editor and the Paper/Television/Radio show to be sued successfully in the courts.

Justification = Is it true? Can there be any proof to back this up? Yes = publish
Comment = A journalist or anyone’s right under the Article 10 Human Rights Act usually appears on blogs or comment pages in newspapers – this is clearly shown by the word COMMENT
Qualified Privilege (QP) = Applies to cases in Magistrates and Crown courts, parliament and public forums – if something is said in there and you publish it then QP covers journalists from libel.

When writing anything, journalists have to be very careful not to imply anything! This is usually done without thinking and in the form of an innuendo, this is why proof reading and sub editing is ALWAYS done to save problems later. Innuendos are a straight way to be sued for defamation because 1) you know it’s defamatory and therefore have no defence with the three listed above, and 2) there is no proof. The Sun newspaper provides an example in one of its issues in October 2009. It showed a photo of the singer Mika, Graham Norton, Sir Ian McKellen, David Walliams and Matt Lucas. The picture was taken as a play Matt Lucas was playing in. The Sun published it with the “gay-o-meter” placed under each person showing how much they believed they were gay. Although David Walliams has never openly admitted he is gay, he could sue the newspaper for defaming his reputation, however some celebrities do not sue because the media provide them with coverage which they need. This means newspapers get away with libel.



Two potential problems for journalist are below:

1) Journalists should never publish something they no to be untrue – even if it is quoted as someone else saying it. “Malice is transferred” to the journalist because they publish the quote which they know or do not know to be true. (Good journalists should always check quotes and sources to see if things are true. If they can’t prove it then it is best not to publish anything.)
2) Fact and comment is always mixed up in the early years of a new journalist, therefore it should always be separated. Comment is always the thing you cannot find proof of.

ALWAYS be sceptical of things until proof is found. If it can’t be found then do not publish anything as you could be getting conned. The consequences of this are very high. E.g. Piers Morgan and the Iraq prisoner photos.

6 Oct 2009

The fat just get fatter

With the 2012 Olympics just around the corner the Government are trying to battle the out of control child obesity rate that is rising within the UK. The Government have tried many schemes in the past that obviously has not worked, because they are still trying to win the war.

Last week, The Sun revealed that football has taken over jogging as the best way for women to keep fit. Football is said to be better for strength of the muscles and heart health due to the high amount of cardiovascular exercise involved.


But what does this have to do with child obesity rates I hear you cry? ... Well it is often common knowledge that children learn from what they see around them; their environment or their social interaction is what helps them decide what they will do. If children watch their parents sit in front of the television all night going through countless bags of crisps whilst watching the football. Then that is exactly what the children will emulate. With growing technological advances surrounding the Internet and its interest with children between 10-16 and also young adults, something needs to be quickly done to save the next generation.

 The Danish study, which took 2 years to complete split 100 women in to two groups, footballers and joggers. It showed that the continuity of football practice and matches meant that women found it harder to give up football, whereas jogging can become very boring and can easily be discarded. Football gives people the sense of community as if you do not turn up your letting down a team and not just yourself. To combat child obesity within the UK, the change needs to start in schools from a young age. Within secondary schools teenagers barely get two hours exercise and this is only from years 7-9! Those who then choose which modules they which to take can opt out of taking Physical Education as module, this is setting a trend that keeps on decreasing and putting the lives of children at risk. Not only schools, but parents need to get their children, from a young age, into some sort of exercise. This could be walking to and from school, or an after school activity that is done several times a week.
 The government ‘seem’ to be taking this seriously why? Is it because they are fearful of their image as the clock ticks down to the 2012 Olympics where the whole of Britain will be on show.... warts and all?
 http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/children/childhood_obesity.htm This website brings home very hard the shocking facts and figures concerning child obesity. The last UK survey conducted found out that 25% of boys and 33% of girls aged from 2 to 19 yrs old were either overweight or obese! Unfortunately when it comes to noticing if children are overweight ... parents here in the UK are not seeing the signs. Why is this? Well maybe because so many people in the UK are overweight that they don’t see what is right in front of their own eyes, and dad’s, sorry to say ... you are the worst at not seeing your obese kids. 57% of dads believe their kids are ‘about right’ when in fact they are obese. Parents need to be taught the basics in seeing the signs otherwise in 20 or 30 years time they may be out living their own child. It is a harsh thought but if the trend continues it is something we will be seeing a lot in the UK.

BUPA medical group say that children should take part in 60 minutes of exercise a day, which may sound a lot but in reality is not, if you count walking a dog round the park or walking to and from school then this time can be done easily.
http://hcd2.bupa.co.uk/fact_sheets/html/child_obesity.html

Parents and government really need to tackle the rising problem of child obesity before it reaches a critical level and can’t be changed. Changes for children start at home and with the combined people of schools then children are able to get a healthy balanced diet, with the correct portions of fruit and vegetables mixed with regular exercise to burn off excess fat stored within the body. The CHANGE FOR LIFE websites below created by the NHS gives vital information about how parents can start helping their children before things get too out of control. If we don’t make a start now... then we are only risking the lives of future family members in the long run.http://www.nhs.uk/Change4Life/Pages/default.aspx?gclid=CKj5v8K4qZ0CFYwA4wodhk1Uig