Reply to: Littlejohn sticks the boot into the fatties

[Gittins Gal]

ps: GG, your "everyone hates fat people" rant is unmerited here. Again (as in the other thread) we're not talking people with a spare tyre rather than the washboard stomach magazines parade in front of us, but those fat enough to be in medical danger. That IS unequivocally bad.

Why does it have to be bad? Perhaps our hypothetical fatty thoroughly enjoys stuffing his face and is aware of the fact he probably won't see 60. Maybe he doesn't want to live to 90 by leading the life of a monk.

[Gittins Gal]

Free compulsory gym sessions, that will kill me and free low fat food that will also kill me, thanks so much.

I am fat because I obviously chose it - or is it because of a not so rare medical condition thanks, which has also ****ed my heart and knackered my digestive system.

Why not go the whole hog and euthanise anyone who doesn't fit the ideal.

Once the 'fatties' are done and the smokers and drinkers then we can start measuring faces and heads for those who don't conform to the 'ideal'.

Your tax might unexpectedly go up though - personally I contribute about 5 times what I get from the exchequer.

And it gives me no pleasure to do a WHS here but your post sums up what I've been saying all along.

[Bacchus]

Littlejohn is still a cu** though.

not really helping the debate, but:

definition of countryside? killing Richard Littlejohn...

[bfg]

Yes but the problem is you just have to get a bit fat go see your doctor who will then tell you you are obese (and you do not need to be that 'fat' to be clinically obese) and there you go a free fat scooter and a blue badge.

Now I have no problems if this also included free compulsory gym sessions and free compulsory low fat food.

Or ok you can have these for 1 year but you have to loose x stone as the country is not going to fund your obesity

however as it it just means you can park nearer to the entrance to Mcdonalds.

and to an extent you could argue similar for extreme sports people - you made that choice why should the tax payer pick up the bill?

Free compulsory gym sessions, that will kill me and free low fat food that will also kill me, thanks so much.

I am fat because I obviously chose it - or is it because of a not so rare medical condition thanks, which has also ****ed my heart and knackered my digestive system.

Why not go the whole hog and euthanise anyone who doesn't fit the ideal.

Once the 'fatties' are done and the smokers and drinkers then we can start measuring faces and heads for those who don't conform to the 'ideal'.

Your tax might unexpectedly go up though - personally I contribute about 5 times what I get from the exchequer.

[mudskipper]

Of course they could have had mobility issues, which in turn have led to them getting fat.

[d000hg]

thing is for me if you are fat n lazy now then giving you a free fat scooter and a blue badge is giving you no incentive to loose weight

in fact it is helping you not to loose weight by not making you do exercise.

people are often fat because they are lazy and for no other reason

giving them devices which helps them be lazy is not going to achieve a postive result.

Cars help lazy people be lazy. So do telephones you can order delivery pizza and internet you can order Tesco shopping.

You haven't answered the question - what DO you do with people who have got themselves in this state and cannot walk very far, etc? Without disabled badge, even getting to the hospital or gym might be difficult

[mudskipper]

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

and to an extent you could argue similar for extreme sports people - you made that choice why should the tax payer pick up the bill?

Because provision of health or health-related services on the basis of whether or not it was self-inflicted would be the start of a very slippery slope...where do you want to draw that line?

[original PM]

As somebody has already pointed out, as crazy as it sounds if you are that obese that you have genuine mobility issues, then by that definition you are "disabled".

The thrust of his argument is that they brought it on themselves and it's their fault so they shouldn't be entitled to anything. How far do you want to take that argument? If you like extreme sports and have an accident whilst say, base jumping or parachuting, and end up crippled and in a wheelchair, under Littlejohn's regime would we say "no blue badge for you, you brought it on yourself"?

Typical Daily Mail nonsense...how many people are *that* obese that they can genuinely claim to have mobility issues anyway.

Yes but the problem is you just have to get a bit fat go see your doctor who will then tell you you are obese (and you do not need to be that 'fat' to be clinically obese) and there you go a free fat scooter and a blue badge.

Now I have no problems if this also included free compulsory gym sessions and free compulsory low fat food.

Or ok you can have these for 1 year but you have to loose x stone as the country is not going to fund your obesity

however as it it just means you can park nearer to the entrance to Mcdonalds.

and to an extent you could argue similar for extreme sports people - you made that choice why should the tax payer pick up the bill?

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

As somebody has already pointed out, as crazy as it sounds if you are that obese that you have genuine mobility issues, then by that definition you are "disabled".

The thrust of his argument is that they brought it on themselves and it's their fault so they shouldn't be entitled to anything. How far do you want to take that argument? If you like extreme sports and have an accident whilst say, base jumping or parachuting, and end up crippled and in a wheelchair, under Littlejohn's regime would we say "no blue badge for you, you brought it on yourself"?

Typical Daily Mail nonsense...how many people are *that* obese that they can genuinely claim to have mobility issues anyway.

[original PM]

thing is for me if you are fat n lazy now then giving you a free fat scooter and a blue badge is giving you no incentive to loose weight

in fact it is helping you not to loose weight by not making you do exercise.

people are often fat because they are lazy and for no other reason

giving them devices which helps them be lazy is not going to achieve a postive result.

[d000hg]

As with all addictions, it's not as easy as it sounds. Most very fat people have tried and failed numerous times.

I know, but I'm saying even with the "they can lose weight" argument, the fact is they are fat NOW.

[mudskipper]

They can lose weight, but the point is until they do, they are legitimately disabled.

As with all addictions, it's not as easy as it sounds. Most very fat people have tried and failed numerous times.

[d000hg]

I'd be interested to know whether the second idea works in reducing drunkenness and disorder; if it does, why not?

I can see where the idea comes from. But some figures would be nice.

[d000hg]

All people who develop Emphysema and cannot breath properly are entitled to Blue badges, some of them may smoke, some may be fat some may be both.

There is a difference here because fat people can loose weight - can emphysema be cured?

They can lose weight, but the point is until they do, they are legitimately disabled.