Be Excellent To Each Other

I feel a sketch coming on!!

By "fuck things up" do you mean "make things better"?

In some ways, but if there were extremely stringent checks on who could give birth naturally, then you could argue it's getting close to eugenics territory.

She's been legal for a couple of years now.

I think he means there might be an uprising* if you tried to enforce it.

*Poor choice of wording there perhaps.

According to the article he has a BMI of 42, and the limit is 40. So he's got a bit of work to do to reduce his BMI, but it's not like they've said "Fuck off, you've never got a chance".

It might be her chuff that's duff though.

Or due to poor visibility of his undercarriage he's been missing the target.

Not that, really; more a situation where we haven't got any refuse collectors or supermarket cashiers anymore.

Get orf my laaaaand!
\

Yeah but to a point, fewer people would mean a lower requirement for refuse collectors and supermarket cashiers...

And fewer social workers needed to miss fewer killed and abused babies.

supermarket cashiers: already got robo-cashiers thx
refuse collectors: I for one welcome our robo-garbage-truck overlords

Also, applying more stringent controls to prospective parents doesn't mean only allowing the rich and intelligent to breed, it means preventing the abusive and drug-addled from breeding.

Yes, we could end up dangerously short of "freelance" journalists.

It is the rich and intelligent that are abusive and drug addled.

Heh. I wasn't implying that they were in any way mutually exclusive.

But you've already said that you want stricter checks placed on would-be natural parents than there are on prospective adoptive ones.

Actually, I'm misremembering, I think it was me that said that, sometime back.

So should we have a limit on the number of children that one family can naturally conceive or adopt?

How many is too many?

Yeah. Because it should be easier to give a home to a child that already exists than it is to create a whole new one.

No, you shouldn't.

Those are a couple of pretty massive "if"s there, man. They're thirty foot high ifs hewn from living rock of Easter Island, to be honest.

1) How do you objectively say that the child would be better off with different parents? Even taking as read that someone with a high BMI is more likely to die prematurely than someone with a lower BMI (which is a loooooooooong way from cut-and-dried) I don't see how do you can objectively judge the quality of life a kid will have with any prospective family, once you get above a certain minimum standard of common sense and material comforts.

2) To the best of my knowledge, there are always far more kids needing adoption than there are people looking to adopt. How does this policy look if the choice is beween fat parents and no parents?

So would you relax the adoption checks or make it insanely hard for naturals to get a licence to sprog?

Quick request: can the topic say "Fat Man Too Fat to Adopt" because that's how I keep reading it. kthxbye.

I sometimes wonder whether layering messages in humour manages to get my point across.

I think the "waiting list" as it were is always really skewed for adoption. New-borns get snapped up straight away, but I think older siblings are much more likely to be stuck in foster homes.

I'm somewhere between the two camps here. I remember hearing a probably apocryphal tale that adopting is an extremely hard process and they can at times make you jump through all sorts of crazy hoops, even if you're a upstanding, thin, non-smoking teetotaller with no points on your license and a full head of hair.

If he is serious about wanting to adopt, and genuinely wants a child that much, moving his weight from 'morbidly obese' down to 'obese' should be that much of a challenge for him, would it? I'm not saying it is right to discriminate on weight, but if he doesn't want a child enough to get fractionally less unhealthy then, well, does he really want one that much?

That said, Dimmers has a point about getting too strict and refusing everyone. It's a hard line to tread.

Just like with kittens.

Actually I have one spare kitten to get rid of find a loving home for. Anyone want?

It'd eat my gippies.

"Well Mr Reaper, you're a lithe sprightly thin character with a steady job of... *reads papers*.. harvesting souls. How interesting, my father was a farmer too. Anyway, yes. According to your forms you enjoy sitting in a dim greyscale room listening to a clock tick for hours and hours and hours. that speaks of a man with lots of patience, we like that. I'm pleased to inform you that we have approved you for adoption of little Timmy here."
*next day*
"Fuck off Santa, you fat fuck. And stop fucking laughing you cunt."

So what did social services and the police say when you told them?


/edit also, as far as this salad-dodger goes - he's ruled himself out of being allowed to adopt for me by running to the gutter press as soon as someone asked him to run round the fucking park.

Why the fuck should he?

"Being fat" isn't the same as "being unhealthy". Getting someone to crash-diet down to some arbitrary target weight (and it is arbitrary - by the BMI, George Clooney is obese) is almost definitely worse for them than staying at the weight they were at, and will almost definitely see them put the weight back on within a year. Poor nutrition and lack of exercise are bad for you, but that's got sod-all to do with your weight.

If you're interested, here's a good piece on the subject, with some very good links.

Just out of interest, if a black couple had been refused the right to adopt and suspected that their race was an issue, would they be ruling themselves out of being allowed to adopt by going to the press?

In the first instance, yes, most definitely. Because if their race isn't an issue, the press will tarnish that council's hard working adoption panel (and many are unpaid volunteer panel members) reputation regardless. If they can prove it, then go to the press by all means.

Besides, black people don't get less black by eating fewer pies.

So, since this guy was definitively told his weight was the stumbling block, he's perfectly entitled to raise the issue?

Also: the BBC is the gutter press now?


And a lot of fat people don't get thinner by dieting. And even those that do don't necessarily get healthier. Read the article. He doesn't gorge on junk food, he's got a relatively active and healthy lifestyle, why the fuck should he be struggling to get down to some arbitrary target weight?

Yes they are. Especially local BBC, from where this is clearly culled. Man phones local rag, local Beeb read rag, ask on air if anyone knows him to call, etc.

This guy was told his weight was a stumbling block, which is a valid criticism, certainly compared to being black. You aren't even remotely comparing like for like.


And a lot of fat people don't get thinner by dieting. And even those that do don't necessarily get healthier. Read the article. He doesn't gorge on junk food, he's got a relatively active and healthy lifestyle, why the fuck should he be struggling to get down to some arbitrary target weight?[/quote]

True, but fat people can often get thinner by jogging, dieting or whtever - he can at least try before getting Auntie Beeb involved. . He doesn't live that healthy a lifestyle, he works in a callcentre. Even with an hour's excercise in the evening, he's still sat on his arse(s) for eight hours and there's unlikely to be anything approaching a healthy meal available to him, no tthta he'd be burning any of it off during the day anyway.

Oh goodness, yes - the ifs were the entire point. But they aren't moaning about the fact that little kiddies won't have parents, they're moaning about the fact that they don't get a puppy child to look after. It's the job of the relevant agencies in this case to look at who would be the best people to raise these kids. They've done that here - assuming that the kid will now spend its life in a home because there are no suitable parents is no different to assuming that there are suitable parents out there that will be more capable.

It wouldn't need to be insanely hard. Still, I'd certainly like to see all the spare ones handed out before people started making new ones.

On this one I'm in complete agreement with you, and this would be my first personal choice (I wouldn't want to propogate my faulty genes unless I really have to). However, I suspect adoption is a dirty word for a lot of women whose biological clocks are ticking.

Push them down stairs. Repeatedly. Problem solved.

Fair enough, I'll take your word for it. That wasn't really the thrust of my point, anyhow.

How's it a valid criticism? As mentioned upthread, fat people aren't inherently more unhealthy than thin people. And BMI is an incredibly flawed way of judging someone's health or otherwise. Your man there doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, gets regular exercise and doesn't gorge on junk food - why the hell should he have to do anything else? If a gay couple were given a note saying they should try fucking someone from the opposite sex before they'd be considered for adoption, should they have to do that before going to the press?

Man, I was a fat fuck even when I was playing rugby twice a week and walking eight miles every day. So don't kid yourself that anyone overweight just isn't eating right or putting the effort in. Look at any international prop forward. Sometimes, genetics doesn't give a toss how active you are. Often you're the size you're made, and trying to change that's only going to make you less healthy, not more.

No, of course I'm not seriously comparing fat acceptance to racism or homophobia. I'm just using them as examples to highlight how bonkers your "going to the press = unfit parent" statement seems to me.

[edit]Mind-meltingly obvious error corrected.[/edit]

But they haven't done that. They've told him they won't start assessing the couple's suitability 'till he drops from BMI 42 to 40.

So, anyone know if councils/adoption agencies discount people for smoking, drinking, mountain biking, surfing, rock climbing, eating lots of unpasteurised cheese, being a long distance truck driver, having MS/ME/a history of heart disease or cancer in the family etc etc etc? All things that increase your risk of getting ill or dying. There are of course thousands more that we could list.

I sometimes wonder whether layering messages in humour manages to get my point across.

You're assuming I read anything beyond the first post before feeling COMPELLED BY MY RIGHTEOUS OPINIONATEDNESS to set my INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT thoughts down.

He's hardly going to be the most reliable witness, is he? I can't exactly imagine him being questioned on his weight and saying, "Well actually, I laze around watching the television eating pies, and occasionally drag a dog slowly around the estate a few times."

The letter even agrees with you Roda on sensible weight loss - "I have discussed this with our medical adviser... who considers that it is important to alter lifestyle, diet and exercise in a sustainable way so that any weight reduction can be maintained in the long term."

However, I do think that BMI is a horrifically blunt instrument to use to sort 'good' from 'bad', and cases should be looked at with regards to their overall merit, not just because an 'indicator' scale says he's the wrong size. I do, however, think the council should reserve the right of veto. Just possibly not in this case.

What happens if Santa loses the weight, adopts the sprog, then puts it back on again? Do the social turn up and wrench the nipper out of his hands screaming "YOU SICKEN US!! FUCKING LET GO OF THE BASTARD! YOU'RE TOO FAT TO FUCKING LIVE!!" into his face?

I sometimes wonder whether layering messages in humourlessness manages to get my point across.

They then take away all of Santa's elves as well, as although he and Mrs Santa made them themselves he's now clearly a threat to them. All paedos are fat, trufax. It's for the little Santalets' own good.

Hang on. So two people want to adopt a kid but one is apparently too fat and might die.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE WOMAN??!?!?

My dad died when I was 7, he was 35. He wasn't fat and literally dropped dead with no pre warning. My mother coped perfectly well with TWO of us.

So I don't get it at all. So the guy's fat? and? They don't want to consider that the woman could cope alone then? even with the kid?

Personally I think it's BS. There's equal chance of anyone in this world dying, being fat may up the risk 'on paper' but next thing they'll say "oh shit this guy is a mechanic.. He might go to work one day and a car fall off the axle stand and crush his head so he can't adopt" or "Oh shit this woman is a nurse. She may go to work one day and slip and fall on a needle that's just had HIV blood in it" I'm sure you see my point. Everyone alive faces the risk of dying. If it was just him I would consider it more, but it's not and thus I think it's also a bit sexist.

Just wanted to say one more thing. So the kid atm has no parents. And they won't give him to two because one has the chance of dying.

That's fucking insane. Absolutely fucking insane.