now they are floating the idea to prosecute parents of fat kids for "cruelty"

[Christians4LessGvt]

Katie Hopkins speaks out on childhood obesity:
"Parents of fat children should be prosecuted for child cruelty"

"Somehow in this horrible society of ours, being fat is seen as kind of acceptable"

By HEATHER SAUL 
Thursday 25 December 2014

The ever-controversial Katie Hopkins has incurred the wrath of her critics once again after claiming parents of obese children should be prosecuted for "child cruelty".

The comments were made in an interview ahead of her upcoming TLC documentary My Fat Story, which is due to air in January.

The former Apprentice star gained almost four stone in weight for the film, to "prove" that overweight people should "stop blaming everyone else for problems they can control".

In footage from it, she was seen crying as she recited what she had eaten in a day, before saying: "This is a stupid project. I hate fat people for making me do this."

In another vitriolic rant released by TLC on Christmas Eve, Hopkins said: "If I see the parents of fat children, I have no inhibitions about pointing them, telling them, looking them in the eye and saying: "You've got a fat kid, it is your fault, you are miss-treating your child, this is child cruelty."

"Somehow in this horrible society of ours, being fat is seen as kind of "chubby" or "acceptable" or kind of "cuddly".

"Well, it's none of those things, that is child cruelty right there. The fact that we are now selling plus-sized uniforms for kids in schools is absolutely abhorrent to me.

"That is child cruelty and you should be prosecuted".

   http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/katie-hopkins-speaks-out-on-childhood-obesity-parents-of-fat-children-should-be-prosecuted-for-child-cruelty-9944975.html
   
   
   
   

[kimba1]

As a persom abit on the plus size. I'm saying this bit$& is nuts. Saying fat people are making her do this is. I got doubt it's beyond her power to put down that kfc bucket.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Children are told to eat what is put in front of them, and most of them do as they are told, especially with sweet and oily foods. Some obesity is genetic, most is not.
It is not possible to charge parents for making their kids fat. There is certainly nothing wrong with an information campaign to prevent childhood obesity, which can lead to diabetes.

The fact that someone suggests a law is no reason to get your bowels in an uproar about it.

[sirs]

The fact that someone suggests a law, where I can keep my health insurance and doctor, if I like them, and then following the passage of the law, I can't, should get everyone's bowels in an uproar

[Xavier_Onassis]

Your bowels are always in an uproar. That explains the massive quantities of virtually flung poo around here.

[sirs]

Since you brought up bowels, I must have learned it from the master, Dr Deflection....or in this case, Dr Defecation

[Xavier_Onassis]

The miracle seems to be that no matter how much you fling, you are still full of it.

[kimba1]

I came from a perspective that being overweight is a luxury. I had some lean times in my life . I also see the difficulty of losing weight. I presently eat much less food than most of my life and that layer simply is not going away. so I got no sympathy for this person on the matter.

[sirs]

The miracle seems to be that no matter how much you fling, you are still full of it.

And yet again, so much energy, and so little substance to show for it.  Sad, although consistent.  Bravo, Deflection master

[sirs]

I came from a perspective that being overweight is a luxury. I had some lean times in my life . I also see the difficulty of losing weight. I presently eat much less food than most of my life and that layer simply is not going away. so I got no sympathy for this person on the matter.

So many perspectives, though I think its safe to say, obesity falls into 2 categories.  Those who are prone to it, biologically, and those who chose to enjoy eating.......alot.  parents definately can influence both, especially if they're aware of the former.  But to even entertain the notion that...GOVERNMENT...needs to step in, and punish parents, because some twit of a liberal thinks they know better, just again demonstates an utter contempt for the freedoms associated with what our Constitution clearly establishes

[Xavier_Onassis]

At present, under Obamacare, the people with the lowest incomes pay the least for medical care, and the right wing is upset over this, perhaps because they believe that poverty always a person's own fault for being unproductive, ignoring the fact that many jobs are both productive and ill paid, and unproductive and  well paid.

People are probably much more responsible for their own health than for their wealth, though there is not a absolute correlation.  I do not hear right wingers complaining that people who use tobacco are unjustly taxed, even though they clearly were before any national health insurance. Tobacco is clearly to blame for health problems, and it seems to me to be fair to spend the taxes on tobacco entirely on health problems related to tobacco and to programs to end and prevent tobacco addition.

There are a number of foods that cause obesity far more than others. In Florida, sometimes the sales tax is applied to candy, and sometimes it is applied to stuff like potato chips. Items to depend on the store. It does no good at all to ask the cashier, and arguing over a 7¢ tax on a $1.00 bag of chips or candy. It would seem to be in the public interest to tax candy and other foods that cause poor health just as tobacco and alcohol are taxed. I do not see how this is a liberal or conservative issue, since it revolves around people being responsible for their own health. Why should a government tax tobacco and alcohol, and not tax other products that can lead to poor health?

The best role of a government is to inform people of the consequences of their usage of these products, which we partially do with food labeling, and to discourage the overuse of those things that are bad for health. Cigarette and alcohol taxes and taxes on candy and snack foods do not seem to be used to benefit the people who specifically choose to use these things, though cigarette taxes have caused a lot of people to stop using tobacco.

[sirs]

I think I can appreciate the Professor a bit more, in how he has to continuously correct his students mispellings, since here in the saloon, we seem to have to keep correcting his apparent endless erroneous assumptions and claims, when it comes to what "the right wing" thinks, believes, and more importantly, is "upset over".  Here's a hint, it has nothing to do with like or dislike of poor people. 

Speaking as a once dirt poor person, and now solidly middle class, I can see how both classes are being so screwed by would be, well intended, know-it-alls, that are either firmly entrenched in government, or buy their politicians, like Unions do.  Those who push Government to produce more and more tax payer payed programs that enable the status quo of ever expanding government......to produce more and more tax payer payed programs that enable the status quo of ever expanding government......to produce....you can see the pattern here.  The only one getting "helped" are those that support and/or are directly a part of an ever expanding level of control by our Federal Government. 

My class is getting economically/financially killed with taxes and mandates to enable an ever growing poor class, that in turn looks to bigger and bigger government.  That "help" also removes the bulk of any incentive to better one's self, since why put so much effort into it, if we can simply rely on the Government....(read taxpayers).  There is no where near enough of "the rich" to support this unsustainable path.  Nor is it morally appropriate to punish "the rich" and middle classes, with higher and higher taxes, in order to grow an ever expanding poor class, just to create an endless need for more political power and make jealous leftists feel better about themselves.  There is no right to equal outcomes.  There is no right to health insurance.  There are going to be folks who make bad decisions.  There are going to be those who practice bad judgement.  It is not the role of Government or the tax payer to enable such a pattern, without repercussions

Bottom line is that the best role of government is the role it was specifically designed to perform, as clearly layed out in the Constitution.  Including the mechanisms to change that role, if self proclaim know-it-alls, think the Government should take a more parental role, including punishing those who stray from what "they" have decided you should be doing/acting, like getting your child 2 scoops of ice cream instead of the preferred 8 oz portion of  non-fat yogurt. 

And don't even think there's not a desire to turn this into actual legislation.  The rationalizations are already well established in supporting the 'good intentions" of such laws, already pushed and passed

[Plane]

  The very caricature of a modern "Liberal" attitude is that the government ought to be used to solve every problem that there is.

    When a conservative perceives a problem he might or might not want a government solution, but a conservative is more liable to try to solve the problem himself than a liberal is.

     This relates directly to Conservatives giving half again as much to charities as Liberals do.

    I think that conservatives have a higher opinion of their own ability and that of their fellowman , while Liberals seem to have an exaggerated estimate of the ability of government and a dismissive attitude twards the ability of individuals and NGOs.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Yeah, God wrote the Constitution and any attempt to change it would be heresy.

Human society never changes, and a Constitution written for a society largely consisting of subsistence yeoman farmers should never be altered in any way, shape of form.

I don't believe in punishing be parents who stuff their kids with junk food should be prosecuted, nor do I believe that such a law has any chance of passing. But there is a role for government to encourage people voluntarily to cause their children to live as healthy lives as possible. We alw=ready do this by taxing cigarettes and booze, and think that this has resulted in fewer people dying of tobacco and alcohol caused illnesses,

[Plane]

Yeah, God wrote the Constitution and any attempt to change it would be heresy.

Not pertinent to the point is this?

Human society never changes, and a Constitution written for a society largely consisting of subsistence yeoman farmers should never be altered in any way, shape of form..

Wow misses the point of the whole constitutional government thing and slides wide of the point.

I don't believe in punishing be parents who stuff their kids with junk food should be prosecuted, nor do I believe that such a law has any chance of passing. But there is a role for government to encourage people voluntarily to cause their children to live as healthy lives as possible. We alw=ready do this by taxing cigarettes and booze, and think that this has resulted in fewer people dying of tobacco and alcohol caused illnesses,

  What is the governments interest in this?

   
    The Temperance Movement should have taught us something about using government to improve the moral state and welfare of the populace. Is there no limit to the good the government can do?

      I am a civil servant myself , would you really like me to monitor your behavior in deeeetail?