19 1 min 10 yrs

Wonder what you think of this one?

A five-year-old has become one of the youngest children to be taken into care for being obese, it emerged last night. Social workers decided the parents were doing too little to bring the youngster’s weight under control. The child, whose identity is protected by law, had a body mass index of 22.6 – clinically obese for a five-year-old.  He or she is thought to have weighed around 4st 4lb – a stone and a half more than average. The decision was taken by  officials at Tameside Council in Greater Manchester. The local authority has also taken a 14-year-old into care, according to figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.  The teenager had a BMI of 30.3, giving a weight of 13 stone – five stone more than average.

Should the State be policing the BMI of children? Is this pernicious interference or judicial anticipation?

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

19 thoughts on “FAT OF THE LAND..


  1. The Freedom of Information request sent to all local authorities asked how many children, in the past financial year, have been taken into care where obesity was cited as a contributing factor.

    So they weren’t taken in to care for being fat. It was cited as one factor in the decision.

  2. The child was abducted.

    That the state’s badged health nazies will not be arrested does not alter the simple fact that a child has been abducted. No, it is none of the state’s business in the slightest if a child is overweight or obese.

    The irony, of course, is that we’re probably talking about a dim parents, made dim by eleven years in state uneducation camps, kept dim on welfare crack, most of which will probably be turned into crap fast food and processed gunk in tins and packets.

    Now the child is in the state system he has little chance of an honest, free and productive life. Mental impairment and a life of crime and misery await.

  3. Thanks so much.

    So, 60 lbs. for a five year old. Sounds pretty darn chunky, but not cause to remove him from his parents. The teenager sounds rather large also, but how tall is the child?

    It’s an interesting concept – removing overweight children from parental custody and essentially designating too much food as abusive behavior.

    How underfed does a child have to be before the state steps in for removal?

    Do they take into consideration body type, metabolism, heredity? Not every kid is going to be a standard monotype.

    I think the pertinent consideration for social services and society in general should be how the child is treated at home; are they loved, safe, treated with kindness, living in a relatively clean environment with access to life’s basic necessities. If those criteria are being met, the state should mind it’s own business and focus on kids who are truly suffering at the hands of abusive adults.

  4. If they confiscated blubbery kids, there’d be a lot of quiet houses in Houston. Just sayin’

  5. No no no. The state must step in if any of the work units or in this case the sub unit is not fulfilling state norms in all areas. No independent thought. Everything you have is a gift of the dear leader.

    FFS 1984 was supposed to be fiction not a feckin training manual. It’s stuff like this bunch of horse puckey that wounds my very soul.

  6. We obviously know that children who are underfed (deliberately or by ignorant neglect) are rightly removed from the home. If obesity is so sever and the parents have made to effort to help it would seem to me appropriate to remove a child in those situations. Usually, the wieght would only be one of the problems in such a situation.

  7. Patty

    In Brooklyn too for sure.

    But there are really big variations by state, and the Southeast and nearby states are the true heavyweights.

    http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html

    See the maps shown, year by year, with the ratio of overweight people increasing everywhere, every year.

    There are way more fat people in NY than there are in Paris, and there are way more fat people ( including those over 300 pounds ) in Houston than in NY. It’s a big problem, and since everyone’s totally opposed to government miseducation efforts, I’m sure that private industry will solve it next week.

    I don’t think that anyone wants to be 300 pounds. But Americans ( and increasingly, Brits ) don’t know how to eat.

  8. The five year old will soon lose weight through the stress of being taken from his/her parents (how cruel, I really hope there are other more serious reasons than being fat)

    As for the 14 year old-well can anyone make someone that age see reason-certainly not social workers-what are they going to do, how are they going to stop a very large person of that age from eating what he/she wants rather than what they(state mummy and daddy) want.

    I just hope in both cases the children were happy to go. Otherwise the health repercussions, particularly psychological, could be far more damaging than being overweight

  9. ” A State approved BMI ” .. ‘State approved children’ !

    Should not be too long before just about everything requires ‘State approval’

    ” If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, it is partly because that is the road they generally start out on “

  10. Harri, on December 6th, 2011 at 10:29 am Said:
    ” A State approved BMI ” .. ‘State approved children’ !

    Should not be too long before just about everything requires ‘State approval’

    ” If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, it is partly because that is the road they generally start out on “

    A short step to setting up a network of state approved camps where the work units can be re-educated and their diet strictly controlled. Yes I believe I saw the remains of a prototype one at Oświęcim in Poland. HMG must be setting up more.
    This case chills me to the core. It shames the country.

  11. I love that the Brits and Irish continue to use the old term ” stone “, and ” miles ” in an age of kilograms and kilometers.

    Especially ” stone “. Stone rocks.

  12. The state is busily abducting any children that the voracious and dangerous social services can get its hands on. The woman who went on the rant in the Croydon tram a couple of weeks ago is still in jail, but charged with no crime. She is there for ‘psychiatric assessment’, an Orwellian term if there was ever one. Her children are in the ‘care’ of social services and relatives of Emma West were not permitted to look after her children during their mother’s detention. The message is that any woman who says anything deemed un-PC by the state will have her children abducted.

    Emma West will today be before a panel of experts to determine her mental condition but, given that her children have been abducted, and that she has been imprisoned without charge, what sort of mental condition will she be in? What condition would you be in?

  13. I don’t like what I know of Emma West, but the above comment is correct. This sets a dangerous precedent.

  14. Oh – Emma West has now been charged with a racially aggravated pulic order offence. Her application for bail was turned down by the magistrate ‘for her own protection’. I would have thought that if there were real concerns for her personal safety, she would not have applied for bail. Her children will therefore remain in the ‘care’ of the social services.

Comments are closed.