It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Seven Obese Children Placed In Care

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Seven Obese Children Placed In Care


www.infowars.com

Obtained under Freedom of Information laws, reports showed one boy aged six in Derby was taken from his home by social workers because he was dangerously obese.

Another boy in London, aged 12, was put into care with a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 28 - 60 per cent above the 17.5 average for his age.

In Cumbria, social services intervened when one girl aged only eight weighed over 9st and wore size 16 clothes.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 29-10-2008 by DimensionalDetective]




posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Well, this is a new one on me---Kids being taken away by protective services for being too fat?

I've certainly seen malnourished kids yanked from neglectful parents, but OVERnourished kids are now being confiscated?

I found the following statement rather interesting:


Earlier this month, Tam Fry, a member of the National Obesity Forum’s board, told a conference that youngster over-fed by their parents should be treated as victims of abuse, as happens with malnourished children.


"Victims of ABUSE"?!?

Agree? Disagree?




www.infowars.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Excellent debating topic. Heart vs Mind. Ultimately, if the obesity presented immediate danger I would advocate a change. A parent who encourages gross negligence doesn't deserve the title of parent.

Obviously, I don't know many of the details. But from afar, I believe my stance would be best.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I think there definitely should be some intervention for these kids. I've seen some stories on shows like Maury Povich that (while sensationalized) are absolutely horrific, as bad as any form of outright abuse or neglect a child in an abusive home suffers. When you have a 10 year old little boy who weighs 250 lbs, is so fat he can't close his hands tightly, and his mother is feeding the kid multiple bags of Doritos, boxes of Ho-Hos, several Big Macs, nothing to drink but soda pop, and this is the kid's every day diet which would be considered unhealthy if distributed amongst 3 or 4 full grown adults, there's a MAJOR problem. The issue, however, is that CPS has lost the peoples' trust by abusing it too often. At it's core, Child Protective Services is a vital component of society... Some children are neglected and mistreated in a manner which absolutely warrants removal from the home. Unfortunately, the CPS have taken too much power and have taken it too far, making us question (rightly so) every move they choose to make.

I'll assume this is the same in the UK as it is here.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Taking these kids away just shows they opted for the cheapest solution. They could instead help parents and their children by having a nutritional educator or something along that line helping at home till a new and healthier way of living is introduced. Schools are educating parents and children on this matter, but as soon they feel ignorance towards their failure to educate they tend to deploy drastic methods of pure stupidity.

How about we take those people away who just have too fat a bank account?

[edit on 29-10-2008 by Benarius]

[edit on 29-10-2008 by Benarius]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
There was an article a year or so ago about this being done in the UK. It sets an extremely dangerous president in my opinion. The state is slowly taking complete control of our lives with the absolute blessings of the extreme left.

The emotional harm is not being weighed against the dangers of obesity. Imagine as a young person being taken away from your loving family and parents because you are overweight.

People who would condone this, scare me far more than the theoretical NWO / Illuminati. They get their rocks off controlling other peoples lives. Now that Racism is no longer in vogue it is being replaced with a new version of control freaks to replace the KKK, Skinheads and the like.

Eventually the crowd with the imaginary red meat in their colons will demand children be taken away from meat-eaters. At some point the majority has to put our foot down. I know this is in the UK but we seem to always be only a couple of years behind them in lost freedoms and control of our lives and children's upbringing.

My guess is that these children will become victimized even worse after being taken. Abused and scorned by those who they end up with. Victimized by the Pedophiles who actively seek custody of others children through events like this. Bullied by the other kids in the foster homes and shelters they end up in, with nobody to turn to who gives a damn. Brainwashed by the certifiable far, far left nut jobs who want control of them.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Kids need to learn proper eating habits from their parents. In the age of endless fast food ads, fat acceptance, and overabundance of cheap, tasty food, there is virtually no way for young children to sort out what they should or should not do on their own.

**Disclaimer: I struggle with my own eating habits daily, so I say this looking from the inside out.

DD, I see a huge difference ebtween "over-nourishing" and simply "over-feeding". A quick peek at dictionary.com lists the definition of nourish as "to sustain with food or nutriment; supply with what is necessary for life, health, and growth". When you are feeding or allowing a child to eat to much as to be almost TWICE the normal size for their age, that is blatant over-eating. My mom is a nurse and has dealt with some of these cases - she tells me some of these children (on extreme cases) are actually suffering from malnutrition on the scale of what a child who is starving suffers.

Now, I odn't know if I agree that the children should be taken away from their family. If this was a "first offense" and these children were just now brought to the visibility of the system, then I think something far less drastic is called for. Make these families go to counselling, see a nutritionist, LEARN and grow into a healthier family. If the family can't afford it, then make it part of the system like any other part of family court. I firmly believe that, armed with proper information on what a child needs, most parents will do whatever is in their power to comply. No one can really think that their kid is healthy being so fat? Can they?



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Benarius
 


OOh! I like! Then we can take their bank account and use it to fund state nutritionists - problem solved!



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective


"Victims of ABUSE"?!?

Agree? Disagree?




www.infowars.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


I agree actually. I freak out and becomem highly offended when ever anyone offers my son any kind of proccessed food or candy (sometimes, mabey once a month some chocolate though I let slide)....

Same with people who are so fat they need a care giver....then get FATTER! What the heck are these people feeding them?

Even if itis a so called "ok" diet, it is obviously NOT working for them and should be adjusted until it does etc...

Of course they should test for metabolic problems or dieases forst, which they probly did.

BUT if these children DON'T get help, even after leaving, then they did a pretty harsh WRONG CALL on the parents.....really, they better be darn SURE it was caused by DIET.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   
i can't see how this is news worthy. children who are being mistreaded by parents are often taken from them, this is to prevent child-abuse. it's wrong that the parents have allowed their children to become dangerously overweight.. but, what i don't like is the media bringing attention to this..

so
what
?



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


I'm curious? You failed to factor in the abuse suffered by children after they are taken. In this case the may well be taken from an otherwise loving family. In foster care they are unlikely to finish school and often abused far worse than they would have been at home. They are raised by people with no emotional stake in them or their futures. It is also a well known vehicle for pedophiles and other abusers to obtain the children they abuse.

Take a look at Florida where CPS literally lost dozens of children that were never accounted for. I'm sure they will show up now and then as their bodies are located but most will end up John and Jane Does in a shoe box at a crematory. Are they really better off?

Trusting the government to take care of children is insane and wanting that is akin to Mau's beliefs.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   
While I don't know the personal situation to say for sure that the children being taken was the best thing, I would 1000% agree that a parent allowing their child to become dangerously or morbidly obese constitutes child abuse.

It's one thing for a parent to have emotional issues that effect his own weight, but there is just no excuse for allowing a child to become 50, 100, 150 pounds overweight, and even more, in some cases.

As I posted in my other thread, obesity is a deadly medical condition. It is not an alternative lifestyle or descriptive of a discriminated portion of society.

We'd come down hard on parents starving their children, or letting them smoke, or provinding them with drugs. Letting a child become so fat that his health, even his life, is compromised is no different.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I disagree with nothing you just posted. Like I said, "At it's core, CPS is vital..." The problem is the system is corrupt and utterly broken. I do believe, however, that if it worked properly and always acted in the child's best interest, the idea behind CPS is a good and moral one. I did a poor job of explaining that, obviously as you seem to think I'm saying CPS is a good outfit. I would like to see the CPS system drug out into the streets and beaten. But if the operated as they should and if the foster care system operated as it should, then I would certainly support them because there are children out there who need to be relocated out of truly abusive homes and environments.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Agree with it. Giving your kid diabetes or taking 30 years off their life and setting them up for guaranteed heart disease later in life is a crime, in my opinion.

BMI of 28 doesn't seem quite extreme enough to warrant it though. I guess I'd want to know exactly how tall the kid was and how much they weighed, or better yet get a look at them before passing any judgement. Once you start talking over 35 BMI you're just being a negligent parent though.

[edit on 10/29/2008 by Yarcofin]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   
My niece was a slender child until pre-adolescent, when she began to put on weight, as she had inherited her mothers build. Then, despite being quite overweight, and still NATURALLY PRETTY, she attempted to try and remake herself so as to appeal to magazine images and attempted dozens of diets. She occasionally enjoyed french fries and pop, but ate more fruit and raw vegetables than most of the naturally lean children. She now accepts herself as she is, and eats a balanced diet with the occasional treat. She reflected many teenagers that I have met. So what police state exists that has this authority over anyone?
There are certainly some overweight junk food addicts, though I have met many thin and lean ones. There is usually a genetic or physical reason for obescity, and this form of prejudice is rampant and ignorant.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by mystiq]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   
For people in the US on food stamps there kids are allmost allways overweight.

Why because to buy enough food to last for a month you have to buy cheap food and this for the most part is all high carb high sugar foods like macaroni and cheese high sugar cereals and soda pop instead of milk

Here in Calif a gal of milk is $3.95 and a 2 liter bottle of soda is only a $1.25

Even the food given away by the USDA is mostly high carb.


this is a clear case of the parents being blamed for a government program mistake.

then you can get into the chemicals in food the air the water and what they do to the endocrine system of the human body and how they can cause weight gain.

or all the kids on antidepressants and other prescription drugs that are well known for there weight gain effects.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   
ANNED:


Why because to buy enough food to last for a month you have to buy cheap food and this for the most part is all high carb high sugar foods like macaroni and cheese high sugar cereals and soda pop instead of milk




That is absolutely false.

It costs far less to buy basic ingredients, and cook healthy meals yourself, than it does to but the "cheap" processed foods.

For example, the ingrediants for a big pot of soup might cost you $5 in total. You can divide that soup into 10, maybe even 15 servings, and eat it 2 days in a row or freeze the extras. That's .50 cents or less per serving!

Same thing for a pot of spaghetti... you might put in $2 for noodles, $3 for sauce, and 2 for some meat. That's a good two or three meals, depending on the size of the family, for $7.

If we could revamp Food Stamps to model WIC, and only allow the purchase of basic ingrediants, that would go so far in curbing obesity.

Edit to add quote.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by asmeone2]




top topics



 
1

log in

join