Cadbury is in discussion with 2012 regarding sponsorship of the London Games to which I say ‘great’ – but should tread with caution.

Some will no doubt argue that it is an outrage for a confectionary brand to sponsor the Olympics and that children will pester their parents for chocolate… and turn into puddings.

But that is a horrible argument and absolves parents of their responsibilities to their children. Good parents say ‘no’ and it means no.

You could also argue that it is contradictory for a chocolate brand to be involved with sports sponsorship. That argument has its merits, but would those who criticise a snack or beer brand for sponsoring sports prefer they simply plough their money into TV ads to absolutely nobody’s benefit?

The sponsorship in itself is my opinion is fine and will help fund the Games. The execution is another matter.

Should it secure the deal Cadbury should learn its lesson from the mauling it took in 2003 when, with considerable justification, it ran a promotional scheme that encouraged children to eat chocolate in exchange for sports equipment.

The ‘Get Active’ marketing promotion, endorsed by then minister for sport Richard Cabon and the Youth Sport Trust, was slammed by The Food Commission as ‘absurd and contradictory’.

According to the Food Commission, if children had consumed all of the promotional chocolate bars they would have taken in a massive 36bn calories. A newspaper worked out that one set of volleyball posts would require kids to consume 5,440 chocolate bars – or 1.25m calories.

Cadbury, for its part, maintained that ‘Get Active’ would not specifically encourage children to eat more chocolate, instead suggesting the scheme allows the wider community to help schools.

And in fairness, the company pointed out that it offered up to £9m worth of free, unbranded sports equipment to schools.