howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#1
sounds too ludicrous to be true, will be interesting to read what other members think of this situation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2033486/Your-children-fat-again.htmlGuest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#2
The sooner this gets to court and sorted in the parent's favour the better. It would have made far more sense, IMHO, to attempt to alter the family's eating habits and changing where they shop.
What a dramatic change from the usual methods of State intervention; where the pig is weighed to fatten it. Here the pig is weighed to slim it down.
The money would have been better spent in shopping at a farmers' market and a few home economic and cooking lessons.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#3
Children being permanently taken away from their parents because they are too fat and did not keep appointments with a dietitian is complete and utter madness. The parents might not be perfect but they are not abusing the children, I did not know overfeeding counted as abuse.
I do hope the children have been tested for that missing gene I think it is, which means they are always hungry and never feel full even after a large healthy meal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
#4
The social workers - and I have little or no time for the breed - cannot tell us what else may be an issue because of client confidentiality. It sounds dreadful and probably is: social workers and social services tend to be a law unto themselves, and I do not trust them as a rule. They often make up rules to suit their own prejudices. But perhaps the sum of the incidents may speak? Crawling through the contents of an ashtray.........?
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
#5
Is the recent interest/action over obesity driven by a desire to help people cope or by the economic impact?
"The cost of obesity in the UK is estimated at up to £3.7 billion per year, including £49 million for treating obesity; £1.1 billion for treating the consequences of obesity; indirect costs of £1.1 billion for premature death and £1.45 billion for sickness absence. By adding similar costs for the overweight population the estimation is nearer £7.4 billion per year (Department of Health 2004). Unless the current trend in obesity is halted and reversed, the cost will be in the magnitude of £46 billion by 2050 (equivalent to four Olympic Games every year), with a seven
fold increase in NHS costs alone".
How about tackling the food industry?
#6
Indeed Mark.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#7
i don't think we should blame the food industry there is enough choice of what we can eat and drink.
mark
you ask whether the recent interest in obesity is driven by economic impact or helping people cope.
it is neither, once the health fanatics got smoking banned in public spaces they needed another hobby horse.
#8
So, trying to reduce the impact of a habit that is proven to kill and injure but has remained unaddressed because it is so lucrative for the powerful organisations who sell and promote it was a hobby horse? Trying to reduce the abuse and manipulation of millions of young people and those in the Third World simply to raise profits for some western companies was a hobby horse?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#9
indeed it is a hobby horse.
we know that the following are serious health threats:-
smoking, obesity, over indulgence in alcohol, over use of illegal drugs, pollution from traffic, lack of exercise to name some.
the bureaucrats decide what is to be the their nemesis until they get their own way then move onto something else.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#10
beware of greeks bearing gifts to mind on this subject.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#11
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
#12
So, Howard, how is it a bad thing to want to reduce the risk to children, for example, of passive smoking - proven many times over to impact severely on the health of the young and reduce their health when they are older - and them without a choice if they live in a house with smokers? Just asking.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#13
The single cause of obesity is putting too much of the wrong foods and too little of the healthy ones into the cakehole. End of. But the problem is that few people can tell the difference, in a recent survey 23% of respondents thought sugar was a vitamin.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
#14
This one is a minefield that I think, all depends on what angle you are coming from.
The Kids are at the centre of this problem and everything should be done on their behalf. They are obviously happy, they love their parents and they have their rights and that should be respected.
The Parents obviously love their children, want their children to be happy and they have their rights. They have tried their best but still need help from someone.
Social Welfare has to make sure the kids are safe and well.
If the children are obese, then they are at risk.
I think in this case, it is plain that the social welfare, have fallen out with the parents and trying the heavy hand approach, threatening to take the children from them is appalling and hopefully will not happen. This dispute has taken the priority away from the children's welfare.
Howard.
Smoking should be banned full stop. Too many people die from un-avoidable lung cancer, many choose to smoke and that is their right but many have cancer thrust upon them without choice.
Babies, Infants and children should be more protected from parents and adults smoking, why should they suffer?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#15
this one has lost me i have to admit.
#16
GaryC:
The safety and wellbeing of the children should always come first. Sadly, sometimes, social services follow a dogmatic path with little room for conversations and judgement.
Peter - people never cease to amaze me!! Sugar as a vitamin. Presumably fibre is a carpet.
