It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Parents Arrested Over Obese 11-Year-Old Son

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 07:43 PM
a reply to: Unity_99

I think this maybe the 1st time this has happened for obesity usually this type of actions are for the opposite end of the spectrum, the malnourished and uncared for. We don't have the full facts of this situation and I think it's more than just that the kid is obese if the CPS have been called in previously.
It was his doctor who called the police and he must know more about the kids situation and felt that there was a form of neglect being administered here.
So don't get all emotional this happened in the UK not Canada and we have strong rules for child neglect and sometimes there are cases where they may have got their decisions wrong but without the full facts on the case then we have to trust that the right decision was made.

posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 10:14 PM
a reply to: mclarenmp4

Seriously - are you seriously saying "I am from the government and I am here to help you"

If these people had evidence of child abuse, the kid would have been taken in care and the parents would have been charged.

What these people are doing is called "bullying" - either your kid loses wieght or this could be what happens to you.

With public health gearing up for the "obesity epidimic", this is a shot across all our bows.

Tired of Control Freaks

posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 10:49 PM
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I get your point truly I do and based on the facts we have at the moment that's how the case appears but what I am saying is that we don't know the full facts of the situation.
The family weren't sent to prison they were given a caution but you are right this is a slippery slope.
We do need to deal with the obesity epidemic but as shown in a recent thread this week, there are many reasons why people get fat, their body type, metabolism, thyroid and chronic inflammation can all contribute to fat build up.
So there is no legislation in the CPS that would target obese people, the doctor called the police because he believed the child was being abused and could have issues that the doctor feels were life threatening and not caused by thyroid or any natural symptom for the child but again that's only an assumption as we don't have the full facts of the case.
I'm in the camp that the rise in obesity is not caused by over-eating of carbs and fats but by chronic inflammation caused by highly acidic diets.
My friend and I are roughly the same age, height, etc.. we both eat the same sort of amounts but because I have a mega metabolism I can eat up to 3000 cals a day without any fat build up, my friend eating the same would gain loads of weight. I'm currently 11 & a 1/2 stone & he is 14 & a 1/2 stone.

The reason is not just metabolism but because I alkalise my body eating higher PH foods and bathing in Sodium bicorbonate so to raise my cellular ph.

It's information like bathing in Bicarb Soda and eating white button mushrooms helping to reduce chronic inflammation that I think can help the obesity epidemic but it's all about educating people. I think if the CPS are going to be the ones that deal with the obesity epidemic then it has to be done through information not by breaking up families.

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:11 AM
a reply to: mclarenmp4

Thank you for recognizing my point. You speak of an obesity crises. I don't believe there is one. My belief is based on the following facts.

1. obesity statistics are based on BMI which do NOT take into account the percentage of fat, bone, muscle and blood in an individuals body. BMIT is a meaningless equation when it comes to evaluating any health risk. Atheletes are often classed obese when they actually have low fat percentages in their bodies and are very healthy.

2. The classifications of BMI that represent normal weight, overwieght and obese was altered in 1998

Under the new guidelines, 97 million adults -- nearly 55 percent of the U.S. population -- would be considered overweight, placing them at increased risk of such health problems as diabetes, elevated blood cholesterol, heart disease, stroke and high blood pressure.

The same approach was used to classify who has normal blood sugar and who is a diabetic

Now I won't discuss or argue on whether or not the changes were needed. It does however, create an instant "epidemic" of obesity and diabetes, now doesn't it?

3. You can't compare current obesity statistics with those from 50 years ago when the diagnostic criteria has been changed. Stating that obesity and diabetes are increasing is really comparing apples to oranges, without letting anyone know what you are doing. Further, people have grown 3 or 4 inches taller in the last 50 years due to better nutrition. They should weigh more!

Remember, this is happening at a time when the public health influence is waning. By the late 1990s, communicable diseases are generally controlled by better water and food sanitation and vaccines. Public health did such a good job that they were starting to put themselves out of business.

With the change in BMI and diabetes criteria, public health now has a whole new way of changing their attention from public health to private health. No public debate on the "mission creep" that is occurring. Just an authoritarian new body whose job is now to lobby government for new laws. Tobacco was the first but obesity was the second. And boy did they get a lot of funding.

Government never met of means of extending their control of the population that they didn't like, now did they?

4. The presence of out and out propaganda

Read this article on the new study published in Lancet about how 1/3 of the worlds population is now obese.

The obesity epidemic is global: 2.1 billion people, or about 29% of the world's population, were either overweight or obese in 2013, and nearly two out of three of the obese live in developing countries, according to a study released Thursday.

Notice how the statistics were collected from 1980 to 2013. Look at the graph carefully and notice that the biggest jump in obesity occurred starting from 1998 to 2013. Notice how it doesn't mention the change in BMI classification in 1998?

Further, notice how it is impossible to tell how many people are obese with true risks to health and how many are merely 10 to 20 pounds overwieght with almost no perceptible risk to health. Do you believe that the health risks are the same for a person who is 5 lbs overwieght compared to someone who is 50 lbs overwieght?

This is a link to the actual study published in the Lancet

Read the findings section:

Since 2006, the increase in adult obesity in developed countries has slowed down.

Didn't read that in the article, now did you?

5. Notice how, in general, public health is screaming about child obesity and how it is a crisis that must be tackled immediately

When somebody starts screaming "won't someone think of the children", I smell a scam

Federal health authorities on Tuesday reported a 43 percent drop in the obesity rate among 2- to 5-year-old children over the past decade, the first broad decline in an epidemic that often leads to lifelong struggles with weight and higher risks for cancer, heart disease and stroke.

This isn't about health at all. This is all about teaching us to 'obey our betters"

Tired of Control Freaks

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:32 AM
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Interesting post and no I wasn't aware of the change of BMI in 98, thanks for bring that to my attention and it's good you've explained your stance more clearly so I can understand i better.

I don't take the MSM on their word and almost always there is some sort of agenda behind some of these "epidemics" but I personally see with my own eyes that people and especially with kids that there is a far higher ratio of kids that are fatter than when I was at school. The fat kid was always the kid that would be constantly bullied at school but there was maybe 1 or 2 per class or year at my school, which was horrible for the kid and I would never have taunted anyone personally but kids are cruel and it did happen.
I drive past a school on my way to work each day and the ratio is far higher now than it ever was. So I do believe there is an increase of maybe not obese but of fatter children than there were when I was at school in the 80's and I do think that diet plays a big part but also kids don't do sports half as much as when I was a kid. I was always out playing football or on my bike etc.. but kids are more likely to play Fifa on their Xbox than kick a ball about these days. A lot of this is down to the Tories selling off public playgrounds and the like so there are less open places where you could put down jumpers for goal posts and have a kick about.

There is no fix all for this type of issue but I think a discussion should be had on positive changes we can make to better the health of our kids.

Excellent post though you've enlightened me a little today.

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 01:11 AM
a reply to: Euphem

For a long time I thought I was fat because of genetics, and it played a role. However, I used to work out 7 hours a day and I went from a fat slob to jacked and pretty skinny (like maybe a half inch away from a 6 pack) in just 6 months. Working out and fixing diet does a lot. Situations can change however. I had a TBI in september and I couldnt even walk for a while. Couple that with working nights (drinking coffee with sugar, eating to stay awake because you also work during the day) and I got fat again. There is always more than meets the eye, however for the most part it is a matter of eating bad stuff and being lazy.

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 01:54 AM

edit on 7-6-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 02:52 AM
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Inflammation, Inflammation, Inflammation. Buy 5kg of bicarbonate of soda and start putting 2 cups of it in your bath and this will raise your cellular ph to an alkaline state. This will start to reduce the inflammation but recent research has shown the white button mushrooms are great as an anti inflammatory also, so if you like mushrooms a cup a day will do you a lot of good.

Link to info on mushrooms
edit on 7-6-2014 by mclarenmp4 because: Added link

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 02:55 AM
dup post.
edit on 7-6-2014 by mclarenmp4 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 07:25 AM

originally posted by: Unity_99
Every person posting on this thread is a nazi, narrow minded, judgmental and have no rights in another person's life or family OR WEIGHT ISSUES



Wow, drama queen much? Have a cup of tea.
I am not a nazi, and I'm glad I do not live in a nazi society. Perhaps wherever you are, you consider a medical doctor expressing concerns about a childs health to police and child protection is a bad thing? Perhaps you think the police acting on these concerns by separating the parents from the child in a few hours of arrest to find out what is going on is a bad thing? The parents were released without even an official recorded caution, but with advice that every professional involved in this childs life is concerned that their son is so overweight that he may suffer harm.

Would you be so emotional and crying "nazi" if the parents provided less energy than the child needs and he was suffering from starvation/malnutrition?
I think we both know the answer to that.
The parents in this case provided more energy to their child than he needed so he became fat enough for a doctor to be concerned. A parent not providing enough energy to their child would probably concern the same doctor for similar reasons.
Parents of an 11 year old are responsible for the energy their child consumes and uses. Or do you disagree?

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 07:36 AM

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: grainofsand

"intervention" and "arrest" are two different terms with two different connotations.

The two are not mutually exclusive in a society which cares for the health of children when parents are failing them though.

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 08:18 AM
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Oh how I wish I could give you multiple stars and minus/remove stars from other posters. I totally agree with you. The government should have a look at their own obese members (past and present, .. cough...Cyril Smith) before judging others and sending in the Gestapo boot boys to break up a family, causing more anguish and mental harm, and a fair possibility of real abuse within the so called 'care' system.

If they are going to take children for obesity because it is a 'risk factor' to that child, then what about the huge number of under agers who smoke, drink alcohol, drink lots of very sugary soft drinks (Coke/Monster/Red Bull etc), do drugs and spread STDs. Some of these 'risk factors' not only affect the individual but others around them either directly (in the case of smoking or STDs) or indirectly (in the case of stealing money for drugs and alcohol or violence due to being under the influence).

Are obese people more of a burden on society and the health service? Is that the concern? No more so than skinny people who have smoking related illnesses, or liver disease from being an alkie, and there sure are a whole load more people using A&E that are skinny/not obese who have been out being active on things like skateboards, mountain bikes, roller blades, speed skates etc. You just have to see the huge number of youtube 'fail' videos to see just how many casualties that non-obese people burden the health system with by doing deliberately crazy stuff. Should we be breaking up their families too? Arrest parents because their children are trying to skateboard off a roof? That is a hell of a risk factor to the child.

But no, lets pick on the 'fat people'. Why not? Hollywood/TV has been doing it for years with 'fat people' as the comedy element / butt of jokes. Buy that is ok, because obviously fat people have no feelings at all and relish being made fun of or looked down upon by the more self righteous Adonis types. The lack of tolerance and shallowness in our society and in this forum are astounding and shameful.

The government is constantly pushing 'diversity' initiatives to integrate everyone in society, to look beyond the outer shell and recognise we are all people / humans beneath our packaging, but when it comes to fat people, then it is ok to single them out and treat their mum & dad as criminals whilst emotionally hurting a whole family and instilling fear throughout the rest of the country. Hypocrites at best.

Unless there is real physical or mental harm and abuse going on, which would indeed be a criminal matter, then the government should keep it's nose out of other peoples business and family lives. Perhaps they should get on with running the country like they are supposed to, because their serious failures in that department are causing poverty, health issues, mental anguish and anxiety.

edit on 7-6-2014 by CthulhuMythos because: two typos

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 08:27 AM

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: grainofsand

"intervention" and "arrest" are two different terms with two different connotations.

The two are not mutually exclusive in a society which cares for the health of children when parents are failing them though.

I hear what you saying, but it comes out more like, "we feel society as a whole matters more than the individual and their rights"

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 01:09 PM
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
I'm no fan of being governed by anyone but even in a societal collapse situation the largest gang will be in control, right now that is the police and Westminster in the UK. That said, the 'biggest gang' can currently be dealt with in a judicial system which pretty much ticks most of the boxes in my head, rights of appeal etc - we are not in a despotic nazi regime as some drama queens have bleated.

The boy in this case was clearly massive/at risk healthwise. It is a story which is so rare that even though I am not in the loop of details, he must have been shockingly fat for a doctor to be concerned enough to make a police referral.
I am happy for doctors in my society to refer my case to police if they suspect me of physically/sexually abusing my child.
I am happy for doctors in my society to refer my case to police if they suspect me of starving my child.
I am happy for doctors in my society to refer my case to police if they suspect me of overfeeding my child and endangering his health.

It is not about 'society' mattering more than the individual, it is about society recognising when parents are failing their child and intervening when a doctor is concerned for their welfare due to the choices the parents made.
OK, an arrest, a few hours loss of liberty, then released with an unblemished record, not even an official caution, why is anyone bleating about that? Should we just turn a blind eye to child starvation as well? That is also a choice parents can make which also damages health.

The parents in this case chose to ignore how fat their child was and a doctor became concerned for his health.
The parents chose to provide more energy to the child than he needed, and the doctor considered it as abuse so referred it appropriately to the police.
The police investigated and the parents were released without charge or damaged record.

I am actually glad that in extreme cases of crap parenting (when a child is so fat that a medical doctor is worried) my society has a mechanism to identify it and act appropriately in an effort of protecting the welfare of the child.

...I must be a nazi, lol, drama queens on ATS make me chuckle.
edit on 7-6-2014 by grainofsand because: Typo

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 01:35 PM

originally posted by: CthulhuMythos
Are obese people more of a burden on society and the health service?

The cost to the UK economy of overweight and obesity was estimated at £15.8 billion per year in 2007, including £4.2 billion in costs to the NHS.

£4.2 billion in NHS costs, as a result of people choosing to consume more energy than they need, or from parents choosing to provide their child with more energy than they need. For the 30 million income tax payers in the UK (myself included) that works out at a good £140 per year.
...or put another way, over 800,000 elderly hip replacement operations could be carried out for the same price.

Aw, the poor victim crap parents, let's all cry for them, but would you feel the same if they had chosen to provide less food for their child to the point he was starving? No? ...didn't think so.
edit on 7-6-2014 by grainofsand because: Typo

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 01:58 PM
Anybody think of asking the kid if he feels "abused"? Unless the fridge is full of nothing but snacks, junk food, and they have chocolate cake for dinner I don't think you can call it child abuse. The skeleton starving kids ARE abused, unless there just isn't enough money for food (and not because the dope is too expensive). Calling the kid fat, yelling at him that he needs to diet is closer to abuse. Making a kid eat EVERY scrap of beef liver, kidneys, head cheese, tongue, Tripe, sweetbreads, pig heart or some of the other disgusting regurgitory organ meat on his plate before he can leave the table ( till 11pm) would be considered abuse. Now the kid thinks it's HIS fault his parents are arrested. REALLY helps with the self esteem of an overweight kid. Probably going to eat to feel better. All from the moron idiot govt that can't seem to resist f*ing with people.

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 02:56 PM
a reply to: grainofsand

Well thank goodness - we are at least talking about the issue instead of how morally superior everyone is because they know how to eat "right" and maintain a lower BMI

So lets talk about the issue - you support a government that interferes with the family. Tthere is absolutely no mistaking that this family has been harmed (parents terrified of false arrest and losing the kid, kid terrified of being taken away from his family and being the cause of his parents going to jail).

Now your support of this horrendous interference is that you think someone should take action if the child is being put at "risk" of poor health or injury

So how do you justify not taking a similar action if parents allow their kids to leave the house without supervision and (oh the horror) of riding a bike.

In each case, the child is at risk of injury - he could be abducted by a stranger, he could get hit by a car - or he could fall off his bike and break a bone.

You see - the thing is that you have ASSUMED that because the kid is overwieght, he will get diabetes or have a heart attack because everybody just knows that obesity is the CAUSE of these things.

But, if this was true, then why do normal weight people get diabetes and have heart attacks.

You have ASSUMED that the kid will have future health effects because of propaganda produced by "studies" based on epidimiology. But as I have already demonstrated, these "studies" are pretty much all hokum. It is political based science intended to further a government agenda.

So - Do you also agree that parents who allow their child to undertake the risks to their health by riding a bike should be subjected to false arrest and threats of losing custody of their kids?

Tired of Control Freaks

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 03:02 PM
a reply to: supamang
Choosing not to intervene in issues regarding the health of ones child is crap parenting.
Do you not agree that in exceptional circumstances of rare, but dangerously fat kids, our society should intervene?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

edit on 7-6-2014 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 03:10 PM
a reply to: grainofsand

If you don't like that people who could potentially get sick can receive benefits that they pay for and are a burden to society, then you wouldn't mind if we all stopped paying for your health care?

Or are you saying that health care should only be available to the worried well and those who aren't sick

So it costs the NHS $4.2 billion to treat obesity? Lets not argue about the numbers here, but let me put this in perspective.

That would be $2 billion spent on people who aren't sick but are worried that they might not be at optimal health. This includes blood testing to ensure they have enough vitamin d.

The Department of Health accepted the reasoning that SEM practitioners would be ideally placed not only to provide timely and expert treatment of musculoskeletal injuries which were estimated to cost the NHS some £590 million per year, but also to coordinate a range of initiatives that would promote physical activity as an effective intervention and prevention tool for a wide spectrum of health problems.

And why should I have to spend 590 million for people who think they are week-end warriors.

Injuries caused by flip-flops are costing the NHS an astonishing £40million every year.

Why can't people wear good shoes.

And why exactly am i paying for people to get infertility treatments. How is this my problem?

Sorry buddy - but you don't get to choose who gets health care and you don't get to deny anyone else. We all pay for health care (not the government). Why should I give the government control over my personal life to be eligable for something I PAY FOR~

What you are advocating here is that we charge everyone to be eligible for health care but only provide health care to those whom people like you "deem worthy"

if you can put limits on who gets health care then no-one should have to pay until they see if they are actually going to get what they paid for.

Tired of Control Freaks

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 03:14 PM
a reply to: CthulhuMythos

Thank you - I am glad SOMEONE is getting the implications of the OP

Tired of Control Freaks

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in