I Must Get My Eyes Tested…

September 4, 2011 22 Comments
By

…because only two of the children in this story photo (the two on the left) look even remotely ‘obese’:

‘They picked on us because of our size to start with and they just haven’t let go, despite the fact we’ve done everything to lose weight and meet their demands. We’re going to fight this to the bitter end. It feels like even prisoners have more human rights than we do.’

To the progressives, they probably do…

Although the children’s weight was the major concern, other allegations were included in a report. It showed that social workers were worried when the youngest child was found crawling unsupervised. The parents point out they were never far away and the flat had no stairs.

They also found her ‘attempting to put dangerous objects’ in her mouth. The family say this is natural in toddlers and she was never successful.

I don’t have children, but even I recognise this as perfectly normal toddler behaviour.

Tam Fry, honorary chairman of the Child Growth Foundation, said: ‘This is a disgrace. These parents have clearly attempted to comply. They have, if you like, played Dundee City Council’s game and yet they are still losing their children.’

It’s no good whinging that the rules aren’t ‘fair’, Tam. The rules shouldn’t have been applied in the first place.

Tags: , , , , ,

22 Responses to I Must Get My Eyes Tested…

  1. September 4, 2011 at 3:44 pm

    because only two of the children in this story photo (the two on the left) look even remotely ‘obese’:

    Ah, but Julia as you know, perception does not count, these things are judged on the BMI scale and if the numbers say ‘Obese’ obese they are.

    And as well all know the BMI scale as it applies to individuals (not for groups for which it actually was intended) has been rigorously tested to be as accurate as they want it to be and the bench marks to be set where they want them to be.

    A bit like that other scientific measurement the Alcohol Unit

    :lol:

  2. Tattyfalarr
    September 4, 2011 at 3:53 pm

    They all look very overweight and unhealthy to me so I guess it depends on your personal definition of obese as to whether you agree with BMI guidelines or need glasses.

    This bit pisses me off immensely…

    the family spent two years living in a council-funded ‘Big Brother’ house in which they were constantly supervised and the food they ate monitored.

    But despite subjecting them to intense scrutiny, social workers did not impose rules on what food the children should eat, and there was apparently little or no improvement.

    Two things spring to mind:

    1) Really now…what was the frickin point. If this was supposed “intervention” then it should have been just that. All they did here was pay themselves lots of money for giving the family enough rope to hang themselves.

    2) Whether rules exist and are applied or not once you know you are caught in the game you play to win. Especially if you have children and the outcome is that you may lose them as well as the game.

    When it comes down simply not stuffing your face for a little while then it’s as if this family had a death wish. I don’t understand their mentality.

    • September 4, 2011 at 5:45 pm

      “They all look very overweight and unhealthy to me…”

      I’m just talking about the kids, not the adults…

      • Tattyfalarr
        September 5, 2011 at 1:16 am

        Me too…except maybe the toddler in dad’s arms…can’t see so can’t tell. Oh and maybe the next youngest girl. The youngest girl by the size of her backside…if she’s not actually overweight and just wearing big pants…looks to be still in nappies at age what ? 4 ? 5? Odd.

        • September 5, 2011 at 5:52 am

          I guess it depends on what you imagine by ‘obese’.

          To me, it means ‘the size of a beached whale, struggling to breath, unable to bend over to tie your laces’. To me, a few of those kids are ‘hefty’, none are ‘obese’.

          Of course, as we all know (see PC’s comment above), the BMI scale that makes these kids officially ‘obese’ is totally useless for purpose.

          • Tattyfalarr
            September 5, 2011 at 10:18 am

            Aye well, fat or not…by anyone’s standards…the state has no business taking their children away for it.

  3. September 4, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    We are ruled by monsters… and we are defenceless.

  4. September 4, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    There’s something very peculiar about the idea of the family eating their meals with a social worker standing in the corner taking notes; I’m not sure any of us would be able to behave perfectly normally under the circumstances.

    BTW, given today’s moral climate, there’s a telling little sentence in your source article on the subject of the toddler:

    ‘Social workers were further worried when she crawled through the contents of an upturned ashtray…’

  5. September 4, 2011 at 4:07 pm

    1:- The UK is the ONLY State in the WORLD that gags parents whose children have been taken by social services

    2:- The UK is the ONLY State in Europe (except Croatia and possibly Portugal) to permit the horror of “forced adoption”.

    3:-The UK is the ONLY State in Europe to allow “Punishment without crime” ie the taking of children by social services from parents who have not committed any criminal offence.

    4:- The UK is the ONLY State in Europe taking children for “emotional abuse” and worse still “risk of emotional abuse” (on the basis of predictions from overpaid charlatans that one day parents just might harm their children)

    5:- The UK is the ONLY State in Europe to censor conversation between parents and children in care.Children are left wondering what they have done wrong as parents are forbidden to explain the situation, or discuss the court case in any way. Phrases such as “I love you and I miss you” are also forbidden under the threat of contact beeing stopped immediately if the parents “transgress.” Children naturally begin to think their parents might not love them or want them back anymore.

    link to forced-adoption.com

    • September 4, 2011 at 7:37 pm

      Wasn’t it Alexei Sayle who uttered the immortal line ‘Save a London child. Kill a social worker’…? :razz:

  6. September 4, 2011 at 7:36 pm

    Had a quick look at the photo and haven’t read any comments yet because I didn’t want it to bias the judgment. Of all those in the photo, the only one not really obese was the kid second from the right and she [?] was getting towards it. Now I’ll look at what everyone else said.

    • September 4, 2011 at 7:39 pm

      The problem with kids that young is they are supposed to be a bit ‘chunky’. It’s called ‘puppyfat’ for a reason.

      If they don’t grow out of it, it can be a problem. But not the sort of problem that should lead to this, not by a long chalk.

      • September 4, 2011 at 9:05 pm

        I’ve a post based on yours coming up tomorrow early.

        • September 5, 2011 at 5:55 am

          I’ll look out for that!

  7. Lord T
    September 4, 2011 at 7:41 pm

    They must choose their ‘victims’ very carefully. None appear to have snapped yet. I doubt I would have the same restraint.

  8. ivan
    September 4, 2011 at 8:20 pm

    The SS must be in training for what they expect to come in the near future. The only thing missing are the camps.

  9. September 5, 2011 at 7:39 am

    WOAH!

    The Mr Tam Fry who pops up at the end, would that be the same Mr Tam Fry as is in charge of whipping up the anti-fattie hysteria in the first place in his capacity as head of the National Obesity Forum?

    B4stard.

    • September 5, 2011 at 9:55 am

      Yip, that’s the grinning little homunculus himself.

  10. nisakiman
    September 5, 2011 at 9:21 am

    The problem as I see it is that being overweight is seen officially as being inherently wrong. Why? What about people with skinny kids? Will they face the loss of their children unless they fatten them up to conform to some “expert’s” arbitrary definition of “normal”?

    Throughout my life I’ve known people who are fat, and people who are thin. That’s how people are, and those traits tend to run in families. Are we now to believe that everyone on earth must conform to a mean average? This is where the medical establishment gets it so horribly wrong. They calculate an average (for weight, for blood pressure, and for a host of other things), and then base all their judgements on that figure. So you end up with situations like the one you’ve highlighted, or of someone with naturally higher-than-average blood pressure being given drugs and a dietary regimen to take his blood pressure down to the “normal” level, which for him personally is dangerously low.

    It’s about time these “experts” came to realise that one size does not fit all. And more importantly, it’s time they took their interfering, busybody noses out of our lives.

    • September 5, 2011 at 4:38 pm

      Is there a numeracy requirement for the people who enforce the results of these calculations?

      I ask because a petite friend of mine – 5′ 1″ on tiptoe – gave birth to healthy baby who is rapidly turning into the image of her slightly-built mother. All went well until our local health visitor got involved:

      “This baby is underweight!” she trumpeted “Look at the charts! She’s below average!”

      My friend tried in vain to argue; the woman insisted that ‘below average’ meant ‘underweight’. The baby was put on a ‘watching brief’ as potentially undernourished and my friend was the unwilling object of constant scrutiny by the authorities for the next three years.

      • nisakiman
        September 5, 2011 at 6:20 pm

        It’s a sad indictment of how the UK system has evolved.

        We are now policed by an army of box-tickers, jobsworths and social engineers (“but it’s for your own good…”), who invariably espouse (and inflict) their failed socialist ideology on those over whom they have power.

        I’m out of it, and I have no intention of jumping back in that foetid pool of petty strictures that is the UK today.

  11. LJH
    September 5, 2011 at 10:36 am

    Time the state was whipped back into its cage. To traumatise 4 children by snatching them from a secure homelife for ever, because they are loved tubs of lard, just exposes how mad the deputies of the state have become. And if the newly adopted ones then comfort eat for all they’re worth will the SS be held liable? Are the SS offended by the fact that all the offspring have the same father and mother and that despite all their supervised interferences have stayed together, that they believe fat is a greater evil than love and security? Evil, evil, evil.

United Kingdom Time

Subscribe

Email us at contact orphans of liberty [all one word] at gmail dot com

Authors

For more about these renegades, click on the name to go to a short profile:

AK Haart
Churchmouse
James Higham
JuliaM
The Quiet Man

Orphans logo


Feel free to take this for your sidebar.