Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/26/2007 2:28:06 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/26/2007 2:31:26 AM EST by 95thFoot]
This raises many questions. Among some of them: does the state have the power to take the kid away from the parents if he's too fat? Should it?

Note: "stone" is a unit of body weight used in Great Britain, A "stone" is fourteen pounds. Therefore the eight-year-old kid weighs....

196 pounds!

Fourteen stone child 'risks care'

Connor prefers to eat processed foods


Video:Connor's mother

An eight-year-old boy who weighs over 14 stone (98.9kg) may be taken into care by a local authority.

Connor McCreaddie, from Wallsend, North Tyneside, has lost a stone and a half in two months, but still prefers processed food to fruit and vegetables.

His mother, Nicola McKeown, has been called to a child protection conference with the local authority on Tuesday.

Family support may be offered, but the last resort would be for North Tyneside officials to place Connor into care.

I can't starve him
-Nicola McKeown, Connor's mother

Connor's pre-Christmas weight of 15 stones and eight pounds (92.5kg) is four times the weight of a healthy child of his age.

He has lost weight after beginning an intensive exercise regime and introducing some healthy food into his diet.

The eight-year-old does have a bike and a trampoline which he uses, but he has to stop after around 10 minutes because he becomes out of breath and can vomit.

He has difficulty dressing and washing himself, misses school regularly because of poor health and is a target for bullies.

Confident

Ms McKeown, 35, told the BBC: "Connor had a mouthful of apple once and he didn't like it.

"He refuses to eat fruit, vegetables and salads - he has processed foods.

"When Connor won't eat anything else, I've got to give him the foods he likes.

"I can't starve him.

"But I'm confident I can get his weight down with a bit of help."

His life expectancy is severely prejudiced.
-Dr Colin Waine, National Obesity Forum

Ms McKeown denied she is neglecting her son, and said he would be "skinny" if she had been.

She said she had seen doctors, but no-one had actually stepped in to offer her help.

She said that taking Connor into care would be "disastrous".

His story will be featured in ITV's Tonight With Trevor McDonald, which followed Connor and his mother for a month.

Child's interests 'paramount'

Dr Colin Waine, chairman of the National Obesity Forum, said that removing a child from their family could be justified.

"The long-term impacts of this child's gross obesity are frightening.

"He has great risk of diabetes and coronary illness.

"His life expectancy is severely prejudiced. So action is required if his health is to be safeguarded."

A spokeswoman for North Tyneside Council and North Tyneside Primary Care Trust, a spokeswoman said on Sunday: "We share the concerns over the child's health and well-being.

"We have been working with the family over a prolonged period of time and will continue to do so.

"The child's interests are paramount."

Link Posted: 2/26/2007 4:01:56 AM EST
At that level of fat, as much as I hate to say it, yes.

The mother is a crazy twit.
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 4:28:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By 2_of_5:
At that level of fat, as much as I hate to say it, yes.

The mother is a crazy twit.


As Teddy Kennedy says, every time he proposes gun control legislation, "We're doing it for the chiiiiildren!"
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 4:34:28 AM EST

mother of the year.
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 4:36:33 AM EST
Just as bad as those who starve their kids IMHO
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 4:41:04 AM EST
I work with a student who is 260 lbs at age 10. This 196 lb limey has nothing on him!


- BG
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 4:54:32 AM EST
Who cares, The mom seems okay and if the kid wants to be a fat fuck then let him. There are alot of parents that beat, lock up and turn there kids into criminals that should be dealt with first.

Link Posted: 2/26/2007 4:55:13 AM EST
A kid like that could feed a family of four for six months.
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 4:59:46 AM EST
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 5:00:44 AM EST
It's both the mother and kid's fault that he's that way. It's not the government's business to intervene - but they always seem to make it their business.
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 5:01:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By 2_of_5:
At that level of fat, as much as I hate to say it, yes.

The mother is a crazy twit.


It's a bad precedent.

Expanding the definition of child abuse into the realm of nutritional choices is just more of the camel coming into the tent.

It is a REALLY bad idea.
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 5:04:46 AM EST
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 5:09:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By shotar:

Originally Posted By Gloftoe:
The State? Take a kid away because he's fat? No.

"When Connor won't eat anything else, I've got to give him the foods he likes." "I can't starve him."

No, you don't, and he won't starve. The kid will eat when he's hungry. Leave nothing but healthy choices, and he'll _have_ to eat them. This kid is fat because crap food is readily available for him. The mother does nothing but allow this behavior, and needs to grow a spine.


That boy is in no danger of starvation if he had nothing but water for two months or more. I have a nephew that is similarly proportioned. If its not coming out of a fryer he won't eat it. My sister in law does nothing to discourage this little porker either. Its so bad that when they come to our house to eat, they stop at Burger King on the way home because the kid says we didn't serve any food. Apparently the steak, Chicken or whatever else wasn't real food because it was not drenched in grease. I feel bad for the kid.


wow talk about spoiled.
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 5:10:53 AM EST
If there is nothing else in the house, he'll eat the healthy stuff.

Get a push mower and let him burn off some of that.
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 5:23:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By 2_of_5:
At that level of fat, as much as I hate to say it, yes.

The mother is a crazy twit.


It's a bad precedent.

Expanding the definition of child abuse into the realm of nutritional choices is just more of the camel coming into the tent.

It is a REALLY bad idea.



Are you allowed to kill your kids?
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 5:40:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By FunYun1983:
Are you allowed to kill your kids?


No....

But there is a BIG difference between intervening because a parent is trying to decapitate their child and allowing the government to intervene because an "expert" thinks that the parenting choices being made are not "healthy" for the child.

That's a line we don't need to let government cross in Western civilization.
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 5:42:47 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/26/2007 5:54:21 AM EST by John_Wayne777]

Originally Posted By shotar:
That boy is in no danger of starvation if he had nothing but water for two months or more. I have a nephew that is similarly proportioned. If its not coming out of a fryer he won't eat it. My sister in law does nothing to discourage this little porker either. Its so bad that when they come to our house to eat, they stop at Burger King on the way home because the kid says we didn't serve any food. Apparently the steak, Chicken or whatever else wasn't real food because it was not drenched in grease. I feel bad for the kid.


What you describe is a classic test of wills that the parents are not willing to win.

Folks, kids are smart enough to figure out how to get what they want from adults who have less willpower than the kid does.

When I was a child if I refused to eat the meal that was served to me at my uncle's house, there would have been no trip to Burger King on the way home. If I complained of being hungry my parents would have told me to live with it.

"But, he needs to eat something!"

Sure he does. And when the rumbling in his tummy gets loud enough he *WILL* eat something, and he will be a LOT less picky about it.
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 5:44:56 AM EST
That IS a tough one. I don't want the state to assume the role of nanny, but then again, the mother clearly is unfit.


Tough call. I won't even pretend to know the answer except that neither option discussed yet is what I'd call an optimal solution.


CJ
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 5:46:43 AM EST
Mommy I want a 3lb can of crisco with vanilla icing and sprinkles.

Fuck.
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 5:51:57 AM EST
Of course the trouble is the damage is done and only getting worse- I will be very surprised if this kid doesn't become a diabetic and develop heart problems by the time he's a teenager. Guess who gets to pay for that? If we didn't have to pay for every little welfare leeches healthcare then I couldn't care less if they wanted to stuff their faces or even off themselves, but forcing everyone else to deal with it is just wrong (and I know this story is in GB but we pay for them here too). No easy answers to these types of questions....

Some people shouldn't be allowed to breed.
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 5:53:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bob1984:
It's not the government's business to intervene - but they always seem to make it their business.


That kid is going to become the government's business...and the taxpayers'...as soon as he becomes 18 and starts living off of disability, and your tax dollars and mine will be paying for his health care for all the heart problems and diabetes supplies and his little scooter to get around, so he can get to the grocery store to use his food stamps to buy chips and snack cakes.

Well, that's if he lives to be 18...
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 5:56:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By Glockgirl26:
That kid is going to become the government's business...and the taxpayers'...as soon as he becomes 18 and starts living off of disability, and your tax dollars and mine will be paying for his health care for all the heart problems and diabetes supplies and his little scooter to get around, so he can get to the grocery store to use his food stamps to buy chips and snack cakes.

Well, that's if he lives to be 18...


And that clearly demonstrates why socialism destroys freedom.

"If my taxes are going to have to pay for the little bastard when he develops diabetes, then get the government to come in there now and get the kid healthy!"

Isn't it marvelous how skillfully the government inserts itself into something and then creates a demand for them to take even MORE freedom away?
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 5:57:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By FunYun1983:
Are you allowed to kill your kids?


No....

But there is a BIG difference between intervening because a parent is trying to decapitate their child and allowing the government to intervene because an "expert" thinks that the parenting choices being made are not "healthy" for the child.

That's a line we don't need to let government cross in Western civilization.


Damn right. I don't want to give them government anymore power than they already have.
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 5:58:38 AM EST
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 6:01:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Glockgirl26:
That kid is going to become the government's business...and the taxpayers'...as soon as he becomes 18 and starts living off of disability, and your tax dollars and mine will be paying for his health care for all the heart problems and diabetes supplies and his little scooter to get around, so he can get to the grocery store to use his food stamps to buy chips and snack cakes.

Well, that's if he lives to be 18...


And that clearly demonstrates why socialism destroys freedom.

"If my taxes are going to have to pay for the little bastard when he develops diabetes, then get the government to come in there now and get the kid healthy!"

Isn't it marvelous how skillfully the government inserts itself into something and then creates a demand for them to take even MORE freedom away?


+1

A huge part of me leaving Canada.

Sadly, we seem to be on the same track here.
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 6:03:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By -RotorDemon-:
Mommy I want a 3lb can of crisco with vanilla icing and sprinkles.

Fuck.


NO SPRINKLES! For every sprinkle I find... I shall kill you.
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 6:18:35 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/26/2007 6:19:46 AM EST by Bob1984]

Originally Posted By Glockgirl26:

Originally Posted By Bob1984:
It's not the government's business to intervene - but they always seem to make it their business.


That kid is going to become the government's business...and the taxpayers'...as soon as he becomes 18 and starts living off of disability, and your tax dollars and mine will be paying for his health care for all the heart problems and diabetes supplies and his little scooter to get around, so he can get to the grocery store to use his food stamps to buy chips and snack cakes.

Well, that's if he lives to be 18...


This is in the UK. Our tax dollars aren't going to be paying for this kid either way. While we're at it, why not just stop paying for people's health care and other expenses alltogether ?

Oh wait - heartless conservative talking again
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 6:41:34 AM EST
worthless trash for parents.
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 6:43:49 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/26/2007 6:46:51 AM EST by WarNerve]
I can't believe the power some people would vest in the state. Some would give the state power to take fat kids from their parents but "don't you dare touch my guns."

Submitting to that kind of power is a slipery slope (though the state already has the power). I'm being a little melodramatic here but, before you know it, the state will take your kids because you teach them to pray and take them to church. Do you think the state is going to "save" this kid? They will bounce him around clinics and foster homes until he finally lands in the lap of a loving gay couple. That will straighten him out - pun intended.

Serving the [state]
Abduction the oath
It lie in wait for the offering

- Philcore
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 7:02:04 AM EST
i like the part where she says " i can't starve him", yeah ok dipshit.

old adage "what you will eat is directly proportional to how hungry you are" get hungry enough and you'll start eating snails and seaweed.
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 7:02:58 AM EST
No, I don't advocate taking every fat child away from their parents. But where do you draw the line? When does it start becoming neglect or abuse? That child isn't merely overweight or fat, he is morbidly obese...WAY morbidly obese...and is at serious risk for some pretty major health issues.

Like I said; where do you draw the line, and who gets to decide where and when to draw it?
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 7:06:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By FunYun1983:
Are you allowed to kill your kids?


No....

But there is a BIG difference between intervening because a parent is trying to decapitate their child and allowing the government to intervene because an "expert" thinks that the parenting choices being made are not "healthy" for the child.

That's a line we don't need to let government cross in Western civilization.


Exactly. Soon enough possessing a weapon in the house will be considered "unhealthy". Do you want your kids to be taken away?

The fat kid just needs to lose weight. Cut the crap food and add some exercise. Control him, he's 10. Be the adult. Send to the military, they'll whip his ass into shape in a matter of weeks.

Link Posted: 2/26/2007 7:59:25 AM EST
Sorry - but I have to say yes. Unless there is a documented medical reason (glands gone screwy) then that parent is neglecting her child and slowly killing him/her. Its sick.
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 8:02:46 AM EST
Seems like I remember a kid that was 5 and weighed 200 lbs right here in the US.

Can't find it on the web though.
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 8:18:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By Glockgirl26:
No, I don't advocate taking every fat child away from their parents. But where do you draw the line? When does it start becoming neglect or abuse? That child isn't merely overweight or fat, he is morbidly obese...WAY morbidly obese...and is at serious risk for some pretty major health issues.

Like I said; where do you draw the line, and who gets to decide where and when to draw it?


It's really a mother of a catch-22.
On one hand, we don't want a massive nanny state (taking the kid away).
The other, to live free, we have to realize there are costs (like in this case, some people really are too stupid to breed).

The other catch-22 is letting the media throw in the bleeding heart routine for the kid, making it a big issue for everybody.

I suppose you just gotta suck it up and realize this shit will happen and you can't stop it.

Link Posted: 2/26/2007 8:22:19 AM EST
it's his body he can put whatever he wants to in it right? Food, crack, meth, pot, what's the difference?
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 8:28:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By phantomghost:
Who cares, The mom seems okay and if the kid wants to be a fat fuck then let him.


Because when he's 18, he'll be "too fat to work", and will wind up costing the state hundreds of thousands or millions of pounds over his lifetime on aid, medical care, etc.

When society is prepared to let fatso starve in a gutter instead of taxing me to keep him fat and sassy, I'll stop worrying about crap like this. But when you're coming to me with your hand out, expecting me to support someone, then yeah, I'm going to want to have a say.
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 8:29:08 AM EST
So, REALLY obese people are healthy and should be treated like a cool minority but obese children set up a red flag on the .gov?

Typical BS.
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 8:32:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By jnojr:
But when you're coming to me with your hand out, expecting me to support someone, then yeah, I'm going to want to have a say.


...and that is exactly the instinct that socialists want to exploit.

It is natural and understandable...and will be the death of our freedom if we are not careful.
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 8:33:31 AM EST
I'd starve that kid for a day, then we'll see if he refuses to eat fruit and vegetables.
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 8:34:57 AM EST
Give the kid a couple of years. If he's still a fatty no one will serve him PIE. To get some PIE, he'll have to lose a few pounds. No pie means he'll never pass on the bad parenting to the future fat bastards.

*PIE: saving the world one fatty at a time.*

-JTP
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 8:38:27 AM EST
Just leave only healthy food around the house. When he gets hungry enough he will eat it. The mother needs to grow a spine and stand up to her fatass kid. It is her fault that he gets ridiculed at school. Fatasses make easy targets.
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 8:43:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By JakeThePimp:
Give the kid a couple of years. If he's still a fatty no one will serve him PIE. To get some PIE, he'll have to lose a few pounds. No pie means he'll never pass on the bad parenting to the future fat bastards.

*PIE: saving the world one fatty at a time.*

-JTP

Or become one of those moody loners with assault rifles...
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 9:09:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By jnojr:
When society is prepared to let fatso starve in a gutter instead of taxing me to keep him fat and sassy, I'll stop worrying about crap like this. But when you're coming to me with your hand out, expecting me to support someone, then yeah, I'm going to want to have a say.


It's about enough to piss you straight off, isn't it?

I better just exit the thread before I go off about personal choices and taking responsibility for one's own actions and piss poor parenting...
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 9:11:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By California_Kid:
A kid like that could eat a family of four in six hours.


Link Posted: 2/26/2007 9:19:02 AM EST
When I was in grade school we used to viciously beat the shit out of kids who were that fat. I used to love beating the shit out of kids who were 3-4 times my size. I remember there was this one giant who was like 6'6 and probably 400 pounds and this little guy about 5'5 110 beat him bloody.
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 9:21:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By 95thFoot:
Video:Connor's mother


That poor poor trampoline.......
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 9:24:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By jnojr:
But when you're coming to me with your hand out, expecting me to support someone, then yeah, I'm going to want to have a say.


...and that is exactly the instinct that socialists want to exploit.

It is natural and understandable...and will be the death of our freedom if we are not careful.


The answer isn't to just hand out my money willy-nilly... it's to stop expecting me to pay up in the first place.

If I support you, I get to decide how you live. If the decisions I make for you are too onerous, then you're free to tell me to fuck off... but then I stop giving you money. That isn't Socialism, it's a free market at it's best. everyone has freedom of choice.
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 9:25:57 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/26/2007 9:26:33 AM EST by 95thFoot]

Originally Posted By opti12206:
Just leave only healthy food around the house. When he gets hungry enough he will eat it. The mother needs to grow a spine and stand up to her fatass kid. It is her fault that he gets ridiculed at school. Fatasses make easy targets.


Did you see the video? She's a porker, too. Probably makes her feel better to say, "It's not my fault." Probably eats the same stuff he does. No mention of a dad or husband, though. Who's surprised....

He's a fat, spoilt, bastard. The system is set up to enable him to be that way, too. If she really tried to change him, such as starving him for a day, or having only healthy food in the house (wonder if she'd eat it- probably NOT)he'd run to a neighbor and tell them to call the Old Bill, cry child abuse, and she'd get arrested. The truth is the state owns these kids, and not the parents, her poor parenting notwithstanding. Parents are basically night and weekend care for these kids. they have nowhere near the rights they used to, neither in the UK nor in the USA.

Just try doing the same thing here. Not only would the police show up, so would the lawyers, and whatever lobby felt it had an axe to grind on this one.
Link Posted: 2/26/2007 9:26:44 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/26/2007 9:28:21 AM EST by pv74]

Originally Posted By crozomatic69:
When I was in grade school we used to viciously beat the shit out of kids who were that fat. I used to love beating the shit out of kids who were 3-4 times my size. I remember there was this one giant who was like 6'6 and probably 400 pounds and this little guy about 5'5 110 beat him bloody.



Glad your so proud of being a bully


Anyhow, why should I care about this fat fuck kid and his parents. There are to many other things to worry about.


Link Posted: 2/26/2007 9:28:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By pv74:

Originally Posted By crozomatic69:
When I was in grade school we used to viciously beat the shit out of kids who were that fat. I used to love beating the shit out of kids who were 3-4 times my size. I remember there was this one giant who was like 6'6 and probably 400 pounds and this little guy about 5'5 110 beat him bloody.



Glad your so proud of being a bully


Hahaha, fuck bullys.

But +1 for the little guy kicking ass. Big guys always fall harder.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top