I see the BBC uncritically reports the suggestion from the health Nazi’s in local government that they be granted the power to take overweight children from their parental homes – if deemed necessary. This outrageous power grab, this further intrusion by the State into the sanctity of the family unit, is a disgrace and yet you will do well to find any BBC reported objections to it. One of the areas where the BBC and the Government have blissful agreement is that they know what is best for us and the ever increasing size of the State is the means of delivering it. First they came for the smokers, then they came for the obese…
GIVE US YOUR CHILDREN.
Bookmark the permalink.
It might all be worth it just to see that fat bastard Charles Clarke hauled out of his mansion by the Fat Gestapo. However, I imagine they wouldn’t target their own side.
We are the fat smokers liberation front when you need them? 🙂
No carbs in our name!
The Nanny State morphs effortlessly into the BULLY STATE.
Next stop Stalin and the Fat Kamps.
Would you also oppose the right to take away children suffering from serious malnutrition?
Lousy parenting, either way.
Surely the problem with fat kids is, in part, due to the government. The selling off of playing fields, plus a non-competative approach to sport (school games where everyone is a winner?)has contributed. On top of that, the poor nutritional value of some inner city school meals (Jamie’s school dinners) must also be a factor. But will the BBC report that?
“Would you also oppose the right to take away children suffering from serious malnutrition?”
Bullshit Iain. Underfeeding is obvious mistreatment. Ever heard of puppyfat? It’s no-one’s “fault” you know.
Most of our politicians are very very fat.
Brown, Prescott, Abbot just for starters.
I bet they were chubbers as kids. Would THEY have been taken into care?
Another example of politicians saying one thing and doing another.
Why is Gordon Brown such a fat bastard? What is Diane Abbott such a fat cow?
Yet they spout on about “health”. Try walking or cycling brown you fat bastard and as for Abbot, stop taking taxi’s and try walking.
Martin:
Most of our politicians are very very fat.
I believe the correct term is… “FAT BASTARDS”
Good point Martin.
Just to uh, expand what I said earlier (a bit brief I think). It’s an observable fact that many young overweight children literally grow out of their problem. Many people I can recall who shot up 10cms and became overnight hits with the ladies. Well, kind of. What they were experiencing, before they grew and their muscles developed was what has commonly been called “puppyfat”. Childhood obesity has not only recently been discovered. I suspect the main problem is that people are less tolerant of others than they were- kids are not taught to respect people regardless of their current state or general appearance. I could see this happening when i was a kid, so it doesn’t surprise me to see it is a growing problem now- but I hate the idea that when kids are bullied we blame them for being different.
Trust the “professionals” to tell the difference between kids about to grow and kids stuffing their faces? I wouldn’t.
I am sorry folks, the lefties are not going to like this – The fact is that the welfare state makes it easy for dumb people to have lots of dumb kids. They do not know anything about nutrition and
are not really interested. In any case they don’t need to care about their health as the NHS will sort them out at no charge.
Who benefits from this army of junk food eating undecerning consumers. The supermarkets, junk/fast food suppliers and the drinks industry. The food and drinks industry has done nicely under labour, 24 hour drinking and the minimum wage (which is a way of giving public money to private business). I wonder why the food / drinks industry supports this foul government.
Sort out the welfare state and the problem will be solved.
The people who do this kind of thing are the same kind of people who forcibly removed the children of unmarried mothers 100 years ago.
In society there is always an element of interferers, who find excuses to do these kinds of things.
200 years ago, they had the backing of the clergy.
100 years ago they started using government power.
Early nazis used morals, colour and race to enable thier particular brand of power.
These approaches are no longer allowed, so nowadays they have to find a new subset of people to hate, they had to create a new class of untermenschen in society.
They’ve settled on lifestyles.
The lifestyle nazis have to be exposed for the threat they represent to people.
Fatties
smokers
drinkers
drivers
dog walkers
And the list will only grow now that these lifestyle zealots are receiving free government handouts.
Like all the free cash for globul warming junk science, more and more snouts will head for this easy cash trough.
Beats actually working for a living.
A seemingly innocent piece headlining BBC News TV and on the website about “swishing”, a new way for women to swap clothes.
For women who love to swap
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7563318.stm
all well & good, but whos behind it?
Ah Ha! Lucy Shea, founder of green PR firm Futerra
Futera? who they?
http://www.futerra.co.uk/about_us/
Oh ok, so they are a GREEN PR outfit who list as one of thier clients……………………………er……………………………………..well, look for yourself but it begins with B……..then another B……………………… http://www.futerra.co.uk/clients/
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
Various BBC teams have enjoyed training sessions on communicating sustainable development. Participants have ranged from producers for EastEnders to researchers on the CBeebies channel.
Well that is a cozy little arrangement isnt it. I wonder just how much The BBC paid thier GREEN advocacy PR outfit Futerra?
…………and dont you just love that Futerra, LOOK FOLKS! We combined Future and Terra! it only cost four hundred grand!
Guys, its your cash.
Surely the most blatant bit about the BBC report is the invitation to leave a comment, which is purely of the “Have you stopped beating your wife?” variety:
——————-
Are you concerned about your child’s weight? Are you a health worker dealing with problems caused by childhood obesity? Send us your comments using the form below.
——————-
Indeed, nary an opportunity to dissdent from the “correct” opinion.
Ed at 11:34 “Bullshit Iain. Underfeeding is obvious mistreatment. Ever heard of puppyfat? It’s no-one’s “fault” you know.”
It’s a pity you have to be rude about an opposing point of view. However..
Children have always been prone to puppyfat but the excessive weights we are seeing now are in a different league. In my opinion, allowing a child to put on excessive weight is a form of mistreatment because of the effect on the child’s long term health – specifically, cardiovascular and endocrine complications as well as psychological distress in some instances.
Iain, what you say may or may not be true. The question is rather, do you think that taking more children into council care will help? I don’t think there’s a good track record.
riddler at 12:57 “Iain, what you say may or may not be true. The question is rather, do you think that taking more children into council care will help? I don’t think there’s a good track record.”
I agree entirely. I was making the point that, in my opinion, excessive obesity should be as unacceptable as malnutrition.
If adults want to eat themselves to death, that’s their ‘lifestyle’ choice, but to inflict it on children is cruel.
And just what the f*** are councils gong to do exactly?
Iain- here we have health fascists on the march. The only defence society has is the “bullshit” defence. Sorry but it’s true- and we’re losing it, as your comments demonstrate.
If a child refuses to eat properly for a time, is that the state’s business?
No, clearly no. Any child can become fat or thin for a time through childish excesses. It’s natural, almost. What this is about is the right for the state to interfere in families they don’t like the look of.
So you continue to be a bullshitter in my book, sorry to say.
I`m against this form of nannying but just wonder about the priorities. Nothing is even said against woman who smoke when pregnant.
If they are going to take these children into care, are they going to prosecute the parents for neglect or cruelty?
Ed: “If a child refuses to eat properly for a time, is that the state’s business?”
Two things. Firstly, children are children and adults are adults. I don’t happen to think that children should be allowed to eat to excess.
Secondly, there is solid evidence that obese children are more likely to have a range of serious health problems in later life. That will be yet another drain on the NHS, if it survives that long.
It is not so much the state’s business as my business, as the state does not have any money of its own.
To repeat, I’m talking about obesity here, not puppy fat.
If children should not be allowed to eat to excess, then they should not be allowed to eat too little.
You should also define “excess” (as well as “too little”)- I have known plenty of boys who eat like pigs and never show it physically. Is it really fair to single out the ones whom it effects? Aren’t they already singled out enough? Moreover, in the light of the above complexity, is it fair to single out their parents? It’s difficult to tell if your son is going to have a growth spurt or not.
“The fact is that the welfare state makes it easy for dumb people to have lots of dumb kids.”
“Sort out the welfare state and the problem will be solved.”
Yes: but unfortunately the welfare state if it is ever ‘sorted out’ at all, will NOT be allowed to be ‘sorted out’ in a way that is good for ordinary people.
The ESTABLISHMENT established the welfare state for a reason. That reason NEVER was for the medium or long term welfare of the people. Which is why the welfare state has not acted for the benefit of the people. The welfare state is NOT an example of unforeseen consequences, quite the opposite. All of the problems of the welfare state where predicted way before it began. These voices where deliberately ignored, because problems is what drives the system. Answers must never be left for the people to find, otherwise the people may start to believe they do not need the establishment or their corrupt murderous system.
THE ESTABLISHMENT wanted a dumbed down, subservient, dependently enslaved population. With the added bonus of an underclass of unemployable voting cannon fodder. So that is what the establishment have now got.
The ESTABLISHMENT always did want to take your children away, so the excuses for doing so, will now come thick and fast. FAT today, tomorrow just about any reason they can come up with.
The BBC and The ESTABLISHMENT are one of the same thing. The former is now and always has been a acutely dishonest propaganda mouthpiece for the later.
The BBC is run by university brainwashed automatons who still live under the illusion that they have minds of their own. When in reality virtually every thought and opinion in their confused elitist minds has been implanted and nurtured within them since nursery school.
Our middle management classes have been consigned to the role of glorified KAPO’s. The most well paid, closeted and known ones are employees of the BBC.
The word Nazi is often overused. When the state starts taking ever increasing ownership of future generations, for ANY REASON. The word Nazi can not be used enough.
For those still not paying proper attention to my comments.
This is now, and has long since been, a FASCIST country. However it is over the next 5 years or so we are going to see just quite how FASCIST it really is.
Why is it that, what is so completely obvious to myself, is not at all to so many?
IMO
It is a testament to the sublime competence of the BBC, that commentators on this site, can not see, or do not want to see, the unstoppable 30 ton lorry now baring so viciously down on them. However ignoring my comments will not make it simply go away. The establishment will just push even harder on the gas peddle.
The establishment is now in a serious hurry. Which means they do not have the time or the inclination to cover their tracks in the same way they have in the past. Least of all pay proper attention to the road ahead.
The establishments / aunty’s slip is therefore showing like never before. But still the ordinary people either refuse to notice or make a serious effort to understand the real reasons WHY.
Which is sad to say the least, but not unexpected. The BBC is obviously VERY good at its job.
The problem here is liberalism.
We’ll start with that slogan: The Freedom of the Individual.
Welfare state? How can someone be allowed to die of a curable disease, what freedom do the unemployed have? We must establish the Welfare state to guarantee a basic standard of living. Why? The Freedom of the Individual.
What about feminism and the destruction of the family and the creation of millions of single mothers dependant on the Welfare state, voting for Labour? The Freedom of the Individual.
And what about PC thought control and non-discrimination on the basis of religion, race, gender and sexuality? We must treat all people as individuals, not as stereotypes and not make any inquiry into group attributes because of The Freedom of the Individual.
What about social worker’s who steal dependant children from abusive parents? The Freedom of the Individual.
What about sovereign government nation states? We’ll do away with them because they can make decisions that are harmful to The Freedom of the Individual. For this reason we shall create and gigantic global governmental bureaucracy to arbitrate the rights of The Citizens of the World. Why? The Freedom of the Individual.
You’d better believe this is liberalism, because if you don’t the consequences will be too severe to ignore.
Atlas shrugged; You have managed to put it across far more eloquently than I ever could. Couldn’t agree more.
They didn’t ‘come for the smokers’. They stopped smokers destroying the health of everybody else.
“All of the problems of the welfare state where predicted way before it began. These voices where deliberately ignored, because problems is what drives the system.”
Evidence for this paranoid nonsense, please?
We are WAY past the “welfare” state.
That morphed into the “Nanny” state, which thanks to 11 years of the neocomms, has now morphed into the “Bully” state.
It’ll be gulags next for thought crime.
Whatever the BBC Ministry of Truth’s line on this, and I always expect them to go with the propaganda of their Trot entryists, I predict the following:
This policy will not help fat kids taken into care lose a single pound, but it will ensure that their parents are subjected to diversity training, anti-islamophobia education, cultural awareness programmes, and all the other politicized leftist bullshit promoted by our essentially SWP-staffed public services.
Always remember that one of the tools of marxists is to destroy the family, a project well advanced in this country.
Meanwhile, the fat kids will be feeling rather glad they’re fat, as it will make them a little less attractive to the many paedophiles who infest our care-homes.
“Nearly Oxfordian:
They didn’t ‘come for the smokers’. They stopped smokers destroying the health of everybody else.
Nearly Oxfordian | 16.08.08 – 3:12 pm | #
Nearly Oxfordian:
“All of the problems of the welfare state where predicted way before it began. These voices where deliberately ignored, because problems is what drives the system.”
Evidence for this paranoid nonsense, please?
Nearly Oxfordian | 16.08.08 – 3:14 pm | #
And?????
Atlas Shrugged,
You are correct that the ‘state’ is pushing all the time against the boundaries of public tolerance of social control and its acceptance of a totalitarian state monolith, little laws here and petty regulations there, bit by bit taking away liberty and personal responsibility and replacing it with an unthinking trust then obedience to those in authority!
I heard a econutcase on a BBC report saying that the citizen should be ‘re educated’ where appropriate and that the citizen should be told by the state that freedom of travel within the state should not be viewed as a right but as a privilige!
That little snippet reminded me of the USSR internal passport. BTW this little gem would fit very snuggly with Milliblands ‘carbon ration card’ scheme like a charm wouldnt it?
Whats on the menu for the UK?
It looks and feels like the state is testing how far it can go before its stopped by a population rebellion? Are all the thousands of petty laws that NuLabour have enacted going to be repealed by the Tories? I would hope so but I feel uneasy about the ‘blue saviour of liberty’ I hope I am proved wrong!
I feel the people behind this AGW/MMCC scam are linked to the groups trying to strip us of our democracy and they are in a hurry because proof positive that C02 has nothing to do with natural climate variation is close and these forces although they control the media cannot hide the reality for long! Once freedoms have been taken away they are rarely given back by the state(like taxes) and I suppose these forces only have to project the fear and lies long enough to be able to strip enough of our freedoms so that the exposure of the lies wont matter to them and they will win?
The BBC would be a perfect fit for a big brother state I suppose.
Rob santiago,
Very good point and well made, the marxist state can only exist by destroying the traditional family unit and the state must assume the role of the head of the family performing an authoritarian role, I suppose they see family loyalty as its biggest threat.
Marxist/socialist(I see little difference)ideology is clear and simple in its aims and that is to divert all loyalty toward the state. seen in this light the actions of the NuLabour regime and its fellow common purpose travellers becomes crystal clear!
“We should not ask the people what they want, rather decide what is best for them and then give it to them”
H.G.Wells , “The shape of things to come” , 1930
Seems he predicted the rise of the “bully state” as well as space travel and atomic weapons
atlas shruged, this is not a fascist country.
I think there are a lot of people who would like it to be though.
“Nearly Oxfordian | 16.08.08 – 3:12 pm”
there is not a single shred of evidence that second hand smoke has harmed ANYONE.
you clearly have fallen for the big lie.
repeat the big lie enough times, and people will believe it.
“Original Robin | 16.08.08 – 1:34 pm ”
we truely live in a society with a strange sense of moral priorities – where its seen as “normal” that fat kids should be taken into care, whilst nothing at all is said about the thousands of unborn children who are killed every year.
“geoffrey sturdy | 16.08.08 – 8:33 pm ”
its actually well documented that HG Wells supported fascism – he even went on a lecture tour around the States supporting it.
albeit – Mussolini’s form of fascism, as that was closely tied to the futurist movement, of which HG Wells was a major influence.
that is not to say that he was an evil person – because if you lived during the depression , then i would guess that a fair number of us would have thought that free market capitalism was on its way to scrapheap of history.
“archduke | 16.08.08 – 11:26 pm”
also note how nothing is said about the thousands of older people who die of MRSA and C-DIFF in NHS hospitals every year.
no rolling counters of death totals for them from the BBC. they prefer to tot up British military deaths. (whilst saying zero about the amount of enemy we are killing…)
ArchDuke,
The double standards and hypocracy are stunning, the needless killing of healthy children by the tens of thousand despite the fact that they could all be found loving homes,despite the fact that the native population is declining and the wholly preventable deaths of thousands of old people by hospital aquired infections each year.
These are scandals yet the BBC are not covering these horror stories, you can bet your bottom dollar that if the Tories were in power the BBC would be mounting undercover operations in hospitals and the body count would be a daily theme.
“And just what the f*** are councils gong to do exactly?”
Comprehensively ruin these childrens’ lives. Councils cannot be trusted to dispose of rubbish efficiently and safely, let alone ‘care for’ (in reality, abduct and abuse) children.
It is a shocking indictment of our society’s decline that this can be suggested as a serious policy.
I don’t see this happening. If it did, white children would most certainly be disproportionally affected, and that would be hard to defend after a while.
What I mean is, does anyone seriously believe that the council is going to send the local shire reeve around to Muslim communities and grab fatties – including females – from their homes and families? What about other immigrant families with darker skin? Never in a million years, I say. The moment white policemen are shown on camera hauling a non-white child away from his mother, it would be all over.
Atlas Shrugged and ady have good points. Should a plan like this come to pass, it will most certainly include an attempt at re-education on other beloved Leftoid issues besides diet and health. I don’t believe the government toads have this in mind right now; they’re mostly not that bright or far-sighted. However, this little scheme will open a great big barn door for other schemes, and the toads will definitely see and seize those opportunities.
Seems he predicted the rise of the “bully state” as well as space travel and atomic weapons.
You credit HG Wells with more foresight then he deserves. Wells predicted little, he was told what to expect from the people who were not only planning the future, but also promoting and publishing his books.
The same is true about George Orwell.
These two were part of, and worked for the British Establishment, often for the BBC no less.
Its called predictive programming. In other words, another form of ‘mind control’.
David Preiser (USA) | Homepage | 18.08.08 – 3:56 pm
does anyone seriously believe that the council is going to send the local shire reeve around to Muslim communities and grab fatties – including females – from their homes and families? What about other immigrant families with darker skin? Never in a million years, I say.
Of the children already in the ‘care’ of local authorities, 21% are from ethnic minorities or mixed-race.
Ethnic minorities make up 8 % of the general population. So no sign of any particular cultural squeamishness on the part of the state’s baby-snatchers.
Anonymous | 19.08.08 – 10:49 am |
What source are you quoting? Why are these children already in the “care” of local authorities? Crime? Or some Nanny State rules? Unless I know why these ethnic kiddies are in “care”, I don’t know what to do with the numbers you quote.
If they’re in “care” for crime or foster homes or borstals or something, and not due to some Nanny State stuff like this anti-fatty scheme, then I have to say that those numbers are irrelevant.
OK, let’s see the Lefties seizing children who ‘do drugs’, watch trash TV, spend half the day in bed, fail their exams, are crap at sports, have children outside marriage, talk in street slang, abuse their neighbours, spray graffiti…
Oh, I forgot – the Left rather likes those kind of children.
You know “Ian” we don’t like the way you have too much salt on your food and you don’t exercise enough. I think we should take YOU into care. iT’s time to drag you away from your family for your own good. Us in the nanny state now know what’s good for u….
why stop at fatties? If the arguement is so good then lets arrest anyone who’s lifestyle we don’t agree with – the smokers,druggies, those who are ugly etc etc and put them in camps until they are “reeducated”. Why bother with parents at all when the state can do it all in a preapproved way? All children could now be seperated from their parents at birth and raised in a government approved care centre. Lets also round up anyone who disagrees wth your left wing view of the world – after all you’re only “helping them”. You scum left wingers just inflict misery. It used to be becuase peoples politics differed to yours – now you’;ve started on the road to mass oppression as long as you justify to yourself as being for your victims own good. Lust for power and pathetic excuses like that didn’t work in Germany from 1933-45 or Russia under Stalin and it won’t work now.
David Preiser (USA) | Homepage | 19.08.08 – 5:33 pm
Many -probably most – are in ‘care’ because their parent (the singular is intended) has been found to be unfit/unable to cope. Often through alcoholism or drug addiction. Occasionally through plain stupidity.
Sometimes the State will make this determination – for instance after Police have found a hungry, ill-kempt child in a crack house raid. Or when alerted by social workers that children are at risk because they have feckless parents.
Sometimes the mother will make the decision herself – a few weeks ago a neighbour of ours found an abandoned baby in a cardboard box left at a public telephone.
In a high profile recent case, a social worker was criticized for failing to remove a child from an African couple who were maltreating her. The excuse was ‘cultural sensitivity’. The child died. Since then social service departments have largely ditched the ‘cultural sensitivity’ stuff.