If these kids had pump action shotguns, like I did as a boy, they could shoot nutritious and low fat wild game to eat. The hunt itself is healthy excercise. This highlights the contrast between growing up in a free country and a police state which is what the UK is.

but the laws tend to be written in order to punish the people who don't want to share a particular moral code.

I have heard stories that the parliamentarians in Sweden only legislate laws banning their own character faults.  Also, in Denmark, the police arrest themselves.

...I mean I fail to see anything that could possibly go wrong with that plan.

Here is a little gedankenexperiment for everyone though... what do you think is worse for a child in the long term?  A parent that let's the kid hit the ding-dongs a little hard (or the crisps if you will), or a child that doesn't read to their kids a few times a week?   I know which side I'd be on, so I fully expect parents to start filling out book reports each week and submitting them to the appropriate authorities.

I really believe in minimal government intervention in situations like this. I can see where some would be concerned (Oh! Think of the Children!) and I think it is horrible that children are already overweight. But, unless the child is overweight (extremely morbidly obese) to the point where they are physically unable to carry on day to day activity I would rather the government take a more advisory role, if any. Unfortunately, I believe action in these cases would lead simply to more "nanny state" activity down the road (Medicare Administrator doesn't approve of terminally ill patient or families course of treatment choice? Why, get a court order and force the alternate!).

Somebody implied that poor education, etc could lead to obesity. If this is true, and poor education usually leads to poverty, how about requiring food stamp eligible items to be "healthy" and not processed junk food crap? Perhaps couple this with a program to provide low cost transport to the area grocery stores for people on 'stamps? I cannot tell you how many times I have seen people on assistance buying high salt, high fat (and high cost!) tiny frozen pizzas or whatnot at the corner store when a mile or two away is a grocery store full of healthy food that they are barred from getting to due to lack of transportation. This wouldn't cure the problem, but I believe it would help those who wanted to change.

Of course, it could all just simply be the microbes in your gut that are linked with obesity, leading to the argument (which I do not buy) that it is not really the fault of anybody at all that they have the wrong bacteria in their intestines.

One of the curious things about liberal democracies is how the collective will of busybodies results in attempts to create laws which would people for having "bad" character attributes. For example, in the 20th century in America, right wingers have been going crazy for laws that restrict or punish homosexuality, indecency, and unsobriety, despite the fact that most Right Wingers pushing said laws didn't need the laws in place to make their own personal decisions about those topics. Occasional gay pastors aside, most Rightists would choose to abstain from "immoral" behavior, but the laws tend to be written in order to punish the people who don't want to share a particular moral code.

Left wingers are just as crazy for legislation that addresses physical health, particularly the physical health of other people. Hence, a good idea like banning smoking where children are mutates into scolding all smokers and attempting to ban the practice entirely. Putting a safety helmet on your lame kid while he peddles around the driveway is your business, but requiring that every child wear gear is nonsense--myself and millions of other former reckless children who never suffered a broken bone or worse will agree. It is the job of the individual parent to ascertain whether their child is clumsy enough to require safety equipment, not the government's job to require that all non-clumsy children wear unneeded knee pads.

In the area of food, this is close to what I've been insisting through these years: the battle against fat people is going to very much resemble the battle against social tobacco, where first, the "needs of children" will be rightly addressed, but then the choices and freedoms of adults are questioned in the guise of "public health economy". One can easily envision a society where adult obesity is either a civil or criminal offense, or everyday situations where discrimination against the zaftig is accepted.

And as far as "protecting children", and "active children", I'm not sure I get it, or agree with the concept. There is a wide line between the freaks that pop up on cable news and trash tv and an everyday chubby kid. As an adult, I happen to be thin, but the years I was ten and eleven, I was somewhat chunky. I'm nearly positive that I would have failed today's psychotic BMI/obesity tests. But I was active. I played sports 12 months a year, and I was properly fed. I was just gaining weight faster than height. Imagine if you will, then, my shock to find out that the British government was fining my parents from the future. Well, that part didn't happen. But it does consternate me to think that when I have children someday, the government may well want to punish me if some chart says that my kids are fat. Even worse, if laws like this get passed in America, it will be more likely to be advocated by busybody liberals, ever at the ready to punish what is unhealthy.