Parents Arrested Over Obese 11-Year-Old Son

page: 15
13
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

This is third time... i said before its sad it came to this and we dont know what all they tried with this family and i doubt that decision they made was made lightly.. do i need to tell that fourth time?




posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: dollukka

You didn't answer the question. I asked if you have read information I posted earlier?

I don't think its just "sad" though. I think its horrifying! This kid has a medical problem and the CPS in the UK just made it a criminal matter!

I have no doubt that the medical community should have intervened. I am not even too bothered that the CPS is involved.

Do you remember how the "war on drugs" got started? That is another example of how the government intruded on private health issues. Addition is a health issue but then it became a criminal issue.

How many lives were destroyed then (not to mention people killed by violence)

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I did read that, the reason why im not commenting is that i have not seen that change in BMI where i come from, i have kept my BMI same over the years as my weight in kgs. So what you got there might not be the same here.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: dollukka

Dollukka

I am wondering if you understood?

BMI is always calculated the same way (weight divided by hieght). What changed was the classifications for BMI

So lets say, I consider myself health at 130 lbs My bmi shows I have a normal wieght for my height.

In 1998, when the classifications were changed, my bmi would now indicate that I was over weight or even obese.

Nothing changed about me as a person. The only thing that changed was an arbitrary classification.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
That has happened where you are. My classification is still the same in here my weight was normal then and is normal now which is 18.3
Cant give you a opinion of what was overweighted or obese as those were not in my intrest when checked. But i can give you another possibly weird observation. I used to find clothes in my size `S` easily years ago but now the clothes which are size `S` are way too big for me... and im still same weight and height so what is going on with cloths sizes..



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: dollukka

That is a fashion industry thing. People were actually shorter and smaller a few decades ago. A the population gained height and bone mass due to better nutrition, they fashion industry started changing what was considered average for that size.

They also changed the number on larger sizes so that woman wouldn't be put off by buying a size 16 and a size 18.

The reason why I posted that document was to show how the obesity "epidimic" was actually created. When they changed the BMI classifications - 97 million americans suddenly went from being normal wieght to being overwieght without having gained a lbs.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
If they're too stupid to feed a child properly, they shouldn't have one.


So all people who have weight issues are simply not fed properly??

That is such a small minded view I am almost speechless.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
The reason why I posted that document was to show how the obesity "epidimic" was actually created. When they changed the BMI classifications - 97 million americans suddenly went from being normal wieght to being overwieght without having gained a lbs.

I don't see the relevance of The US National Institutes of Health redefining obesity (as a BMI of 30+ back in 1998) to this topic.
All the NIH really did was fall into line with the existing definition of obesity which has been consistent in Europe during the many years prior to 1998. Aside from obvious exceptions such as fit bodybuilders etc, a BMI of 30+ is indicative of an unhealthy obese condition in the majority of cases.

Regarding the child in the OP, his BMI of 39.7 places him in the 99th percentile. This means that in a room of a 100 kids the same age and gender as him, on average he has more body fat than at least 99 of them. That is extreme and one would not need to be a medical doctor to see this obvious health issue.

We do not know the details of this case, how cooperative the parents were, if they made any efforts to make changes which have regard for their childs health or not, etc, so condemning the decision to arrest the parents is based on speculation alone. I understand your knee-jerk reaction regarding primacy of parents and the 'horrors' of being arrested, but without knowing the details you cannot know that the decision was wrong, morally or otherwise.

That said, I believe that circumstances can potentially exist where it could be considered appropriate for the state to arrest and investigate parents who appear to be carrying out a course of action which is likely to have a damaging effect on the health of their child.

How on earth you can find any possible defence for parents who provide a lifestyle which leads to a 5'1" eleven year old weighing 210 pounds is beyond me, and frankly rather shortsighted in my opinion.

Good day sir.
edit on 14-6-2014 by grainofsand because: Typo



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion

However, I am concerned that this is a whole new intrusion on private family life. Of course its an extreme case but that how precedences are established. Unfortunately, the government never sets limits in the law (for instance: no intervention if BMI is less than say 35). Then we have situations where the government feels the need to intervene as soon as a child exceeds the average.

Tired of control Freaks



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: grainofsand

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion

As I equally respect your right to hold and express yours.


However, I am concerned that this is a whole new intrusion on private family life. Of course its an extreme case but that how precedences are established. Unfortunately, the government never sets limits in the law (for instance: no intervention if BMI is less than say 35). Then we have situations where the government feels the need to intervene as soon as a child exceeds the average.

I understand your concern, but personally, as a UK citizen, I don't see this as anything other than an extremely rare situation where 'the authorities' are struggling to find the right path for this poor child and it's parents.
I also have issues with government overstepping the mark, of course it is something to keep an eye on, but it is a delicate balancing act with some dysfunctional families.

I spent over 15 years working in various arms of UK welfare, central government, local government social services, and also the charitable sector. I even used to sign off decisions (which I had made) but on behalf of the secretary of state, with no appeal option available to the person concerned. Government is only as 'fair' as the people who administer it, but I know one thing, when it comes to taking children into care it really is the very last option for under staffed and under funded 'safeguarding children' teams.

I agree that oppressive use of arrest tactics is something which is not desirable for any society, but if I was forced to make a call I would bet all my money that all the people involved in this case made their decisions with the best intentions for the child, not as tyranical overlords.

Our system is not perfect and there is plenty of shady unnofficial stuff that goes on in UK 'administration' which I've been involved in myself. Information sharing by the Civil Service to the police for example is only 'legal' if there is serious risk of harm to an individual or the public, but 'off the record' exchanges of information happened regularly when local police wanted to find some low-level scumbag who was wanted for theft or whatever. Not legal at all, but morally defensible.

On an off-topic note, but relevant and supportive to your wider distrust of 'authority', I remember earning £££thousands in weekend overtime shifts in the 90's during the 6 months prior to the UK 'formally' signing up to the European freedom of information act. The government at the time declared every citizen would have access to their records/files to see what was written about them. Tony Blair, the then prime minister, explained that government departments needed time to set the process in motion - that was just a crock of lies as the reason for the delay was tens of thousands of 'cleared' civil servants needed to go through every file and clean them up to a solely factual/impartial standard.

I share equal distrust of authority with you, but in this case of an eleven year old weighing 210 pounds at 5'1" I am drawn to the belief that everyone working on that case had the intentions of the child in mind and rightly or wrongly a decision was made that an arrest/intervention could be useful to finding a solution.
Again though, it is a child protection case and we will never know the details due to strict rules regarding anonymity of the child and its family, so anything we on ATS think about it is always going to be pure conjecture.
edit on 14-6-2014 by grainofsand because: Typo





 
13
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join