Parents arrested for cruelty over obese son.

[Workingman]

He is 11 years old, 5ft 1in (1.5m) tall and weighs 15 stone (95kg) and has a body mass index (BMI) of 41.8, but is arrest the answer?

Will social services now take him away from his parents and put him into care? What psychological damage will be (has been) done to him by him being told his parents were cruel? Will a maximum BMI be set so that anyone over it is deemed to be a victim of cruelty? What about a minimum BMI?

I agree that something needs to be done about child obesity, but arresting parents/carers seems a step too far.

[debih]

I think it's difficult to comment as I'm sure there is probably more to it than just his weight.

All we know is what the media are telling us - social services refused to comment I think.

[Kaz]

There has to be to it than just his weight, but we won't hear that as Social Services will want to respect the family's privacy.....

[Workingman]

I agree about this individual case, but I was wondering more about arresting people for similar things in the general sense. Thin end of the wedge, and all that.

[Kaz]

Oh well yes, I suppose. Unless the parents were unwilling or unable to tackle the problem, with some support. That degree of obesity so young is child abuse really

[cromwell]

I share WM's thin end of the wedge worries.

[Suff]

Whilst this case may, or may not, have some other dimension, the problem is precedent. The stated reason is BMI. BMI goes on record. A precedent is set.

Now consider this.

Child wants more. Parent says NO.

Child screams the place down. Parent is accused of abuse if the child continues to do this
Parent smacks child. Parent is accused of abuse
Parent gives in, child eats like an idiot, child's BMI becomes huge. Parent is accused of abuse.

Answer? Don't have children. Well unless you are an ethnic minority....

Not all children are reasonable, can be reasoned with or have any logic whatsoever. All the tools for dealing with said children have been removed.

Were I starting out as a married partner in the UK today, I would only marry someone who agreed not to have children. This is dire as I _love_ my 6 children and sundry grandchildren. But I would not bring up a child in this society today. Society has gone mad. It's time to leave it to the lunatics.

[Kaz]

Slight over-exaggeration there Suff I've managed to raise three without either beating them or having Social Services breathing down my neck

[Suff]

During the debate on Section28 repeal in Scotland I was roundly condemned for being "alarmist", "wrong", not knowing what I was talking about.

My statement was this.

"If Section28 is repealed, then the 5 - 14 age group would have to be specifically targeted with Homosexual media as part of 'equality'. It would have to be represented in all media that children would be taught with, starting with mummy and mummy and daddy and daddy in 5 year old literature". Even more, I stated that it would become illegal to market any school literature which did not have this "equal" bias in it.

Roll forward 10 years after the yes idiots got their way and parents and activists are decrying the "pornographic" nature of so called "equal opportunities" literature which, quite literally, has to define the difference between heterosexual and homosexual acts.

The problem is that over-exaggeration is required in some cases. Just to make those who can't see for themselves understand what they are doing.

I've brought up 6. I have many Grandchildren. I stand by what I said. My advice to all my offspring, today, is don't have any more. We can no longer trust our government or our so called "social" services, to make the correct decisions. As such we should give them nothing to take power from.

Otherwise, eventually, we will see social upheaval on an unprecedented scale and it won't be pretty.

[cromwell]

Essentially, it comes down to the fact that the state thinks that it has the perfect right to tell everyone how to live their life, down to the smallest detail.