Wide Loads Should Proceed in Single File.

"Interesting that the British Government agrees that the obese need to be tackled, perhaps they were inspired by watching rugby or American football matches, who knows? Certainly, the figures quoted in this document just go to show how bad pavement congestion caused by slow-moving obese people will get unless the problem is addressed as a matter of urgency." Indeed, who knows, but the "tackling" as so eloquently put is the more acceptable (and long term) option of actually reducing people's weight. The figures show nothing at all about "pavement congestion" this is merely an inferential ploy by my opponent. Again we get back to the actual percentage of obese individuals, there are more people walking the streets that actually like walking slow than those that can be possibly annoyed. Your fix is merely a crass short term one. At least the government is thinking ahead. ;) Which brings us to "Ideally, this would be done by explaining the health risks associated with being overweight, in the same way as has been done previously through public information campaigns which outlined the dangers associated with smoking, taking drugs and drinking to excess. In this way, the obese will be able to make an informed choice about their weight, and those that choose to slim down rather than to continue to stuff their faces full of junk food in an continuous orgy of gluttony and greed, will find they will be able to walk quicker and not take up so much space on the pavement and, therefore, not be subject to summary punitive action at the hands of anti-fat-related-pavement-congestion police snatch squads." You have simply failed again to explain why your preference is more important than anyone other individuals in this matter. If it is a given choice then the action should not be punishable. You are advocating either obesity as being illegal or obese in public as illegal. The former reverts back to what moral superiority do you claim as right and the latter to a totalitarian house arrest for the obese for in public you will be beaten/tasered. What about 'borderline' individuals? Will the police carry scales for testing? By what right does the government have to know a person's weight? What about those 'thin' people who walk slow? Will the police enforce their speeds as well? People who walk in small groups side by side? Tourists standing on footpaths creating flow problems? What about those people who walk with several bags in each hand? As you can see the lines are fuzzy, it is an ill thought out plan. "I don't quite agree with my opponent's analysis of the legislative system so I have supplied a link to the Parliament website for those who may be interested." I am certainly interested because you supply no information about by-laws, merely the 'front page' as it were of the website. "Procedure for passing secondary legislation in the UK Subordinate legislation is a collective term for statutory rules, regulations, ordinances, by-laws and rules created by persons or bodies to whom Parliament has delegated some of its law-making powers. Stages to go through Authority for making the subordinate legislation comes from an enabling or 'delegating' Act that will set down the requirements for making the subordinate legislation. Certain persons or bodies, such as the Scottish Executive, are given law-making powers allowing them to enact such legislation. Generally, subordinate legislation is created when signed by the person authorised to do so by the enabling Act. There are no specific stages in creating subordinate legislation, however there are two procedures for it coming into effect: 'Negative resolution' - the subordinate legislation has immediate effect, but is brought before Parliament and may be annulled if a resolution against it is passed within 40 days 'Affirmative Resolution' - the subordinate legislation must be affirmed by resolutions in each House of Parliament before it may come into effect." http://www.out-law.com... Despite its unfortunate address, the link in question is an international law firm. "I do not agree that this law would be unpopular with the obese. After all, my favourite pastimes are driving and drinking, yet I agree that drinking and driving should be illegal, so even though I believe I am perfectly capable of motoring quite safely after a few pints, I nevertheless obey the law." "My favourite pastimes are eating and walking yet I agree that eating and walking in public ...." Nope that doesn't work does it? "My favourite pastimes are eating and walking yet I agree that obesity and walking in public should be illegal" Maybe that will work then (still not fully analogous to your example). Ok the law as it relates to DUI is due to the fact that drinking impairs judgement, and is a risk factor in one's own and possible others death and or injury. Walking should be encouraged one would think. There is no health risk to other pedestrians. Claims of frustrated men dashing madly, risking oncoming traffic etc are not the blame of any other individual other than those that do the mad dashing. So no, I don't agree that the population in question will agree to house/car confinement. It is detrimental to their health and well being. Regards, Puck