BBC News fail

[Northerner]

Just stated 'we're seeing things we never used to see in children, like diabetes' 🙄

 

[vince13]

Just stated 'we're seeing things we never used to see in children, like diabetes' 🙄

I heard this too - but as the item was about the increase in obesity in our children I assumed they meant more children are being diagnosed with type 2 because of this. Would they be right ?

Obviously I understand that Type 1 in children has always been there and is now understood as being a problem not of their/their parents' making.

 

[Northerner]

I heard this too - but as the item was about the increase in obesity in our children I assumed they meant more children are being diagnosed with type 2 because of this. Would they be right ?

Obviously I understand that Type 1 in children has always been there and is now understood as being a problem not of their/their parents' making.

You are right Faith, but although we are familiar with the context and Type being assumed, it wouldn't have hurt to include the words 'Type 2' - still rare but on the increase in children, instead of just saying 'diabetes', which didn't make sense.

 

[vince13]

Yes, Alan, you are right - they should have made the difference more clear instead of the usual "people bringing it on themselves" label - after all, that's what we all did didn't we - feckless little diabetics that we are !!😛

 

[ukjohn]

I don't understand, whats wrong with saying diabetics, is it because the word obesity is mentioned, and you think type2 should be there to distance type1 from association with that nasty word.

 

[Northerner]

I don't understand, whats wrong with saying diabetics, is it because the word obesity is mentioned, and you think type2 should be there to distance type1 from association with that nasty word.

No, my point was that they said diabetes was formerly rare in children, but it never has been. They made it sound as though it was something new for children to have diabetes.

 

[vince13]

I don't understand, whats wrong with saying diabetics, is it because the word obesity is mentioned, and you think type2 should be there to distance type1 from association with that nasty word.

John, you surely know me better than that !

 

[ukjohn]

No, my point was that they said diabetes was formerly rare in children, but it never has been. They made it sound as though it was something new for children to have diabetes.

So your point is as stated, they are wrong to suggest diabetes is rare in children, because we know its not. so why would having the word type2 included in that make any difference as against the word type1. It still wouldn't alter the fact that it was rare or not..

 

[ukjohn]

Faith, I'm not getting at you or Alan honestly, I'm debating the issue as I see it, we are all entitled to our views, Anyway, I have to keep my brother on his toes..

 

[vince13]

I'd just hate to think you thought I would make that horrid distinction - ignorance on the BBC's part yes - but not on these boards surely !😱

 

[Northerner]

So your point is as stated, they are wrong to suggest diabetes is rare in children, because we know its not. so why would having the word type2 included in that make any difference as against the word type1. It still wouldn't alter the fact that it was rare or not..

But Type 2 is rare in children, relative to Type 1. They are wrong to suggest that diabetes per se is something new in children as though it only previously existed in adults.

 

[Flutterby]

They should have said "we're seeing things we never used to see in children like type 2 diabetes"

 

[ukjohn]

They should have said "we're seeing things we never used to see in children like type 2 diabetes"

Flutterby, thanks for making the subject clearer, your quote now makes sense.

I did not read ,see or hear the program, I could only take what was written here, thanks again.

 

[Flutterby]

that's ok.xx

 

[Northerner]

Flutterby, thanks for making the subject clearer, your quote now makes sense.

I did not read ,see or hear the program, I could only take what was written here, thanks again.

Sorry John, that's what I meant, in my waffly way 😉

 

[ukjohn]

No need to say sorry Alan, if theres no discussion we never learn,or me anyway