Be Excellent To Each Other

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7823707.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7823707.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7823707.stm

Wary as I am of posting this in light of the KFC parking woman's thread, what's everyone's opinion on this? The council have said it's because he's morbidly obese and may become ill or die, but the couple are saying they judged them solely on their weight and not any other factors.

So are the council prejudiced, or have they made a good judgement call? After all, a morbidly obese man might not live long enough to take proper care of the child.

I don't know really, I guess they have to factor health into the decisions, I assume from this that smokers can't adopt either. I don't see a problem really so long as it's consistent and they're not just having a go at fatties.

I think it's a good idea. Now that unloved lonely child can go back to the holding cage at the local orphanage and be rendered down for soup stock when it goes past the cute stage.

This is the only thing I can find on smokers, and it's 18 months old. I don't know what the current state of play is.

i agree with them really. There's no reason for PC here, it's just common sense. Yes, this couple can have qualities that others haven't, but how can the council can be sure of that? Weight is an objective criteria.

it's not like there aren't lots of couples who want to adopt children.

Are they worried he'll eat the kids?

"I just feel as though we were only judged on my weight and not all the other good things about us. We don't drink or smoke and we could give a child a happy and safe home."

Which is cruel tbf. If he doesn't drink or smoke either, that's kind of a blessing in this day and age.

It's very difficult to try and explain my views on this...but you know me-I'll give it a go
What age is the child going to be that they are adopting? If it is a 10 year old then that may be not as bad as having a newborn to look after, purely because the life expectancy for him will be shorter than most, if the kid is older already then it's not too bad.*
Remember, he can't run around and play sports and things, but then not a lot of dads do that either nowdays

It's very very hard to see why it's a problem for them to adopt. Would they not let a disabled person and their partner adopt? Say I was in a wheelchair and couldn't walk, but otherwise I was perfectly healthy and so was my partner-would they do the same and not let me adopt because I am disabled?

This'll open up a huge can'o'worms this will...

*This part reads in a very morbid tone -_-; sorry!

Exactly. Why go through the arduous process of intercourse to make a baby when you can go and get a thorough battery of health tests to get an unwanted one from the council? It's the colonoscopy for me! I hope they skewer my balls to measure the fecundity.

but unlike the person on the wheelchair, he can actually loose weight. (People on wheelchairs can't loose weight apparently)

I'm sorry but i really don't understood your point.

My probably rare opinion leads me to state that in the case of adoption, the wishes and desires of the prospective parents shouldn't really matter at all. There shouldn't be any "we should be allowed to adopt because XXXX wahwahwah" - the child is all that's important, so if it's objectively possible to say that the child would be better off with different parents, and there are sufficient different prospective parents available, then they should just put up with it.

couldn't agree more.

Just heavy sarcasm to imply that the council are fucking retarded to refuse a child a loving home just because one of the prospective parents is a little portly. The FUCKING retards. I hear only immortals like Connor MacLeod are allowed to adopt nowadays.

Surely that's irrelevant though. The consideration here isn't what's fair to the prospective adoptive parents but what is best for the child. If it has always been the case that their life expectancy is a factor then if he really wants to adopt then this guy just needs to lose a bit of weight (and it is just a bit, they aren't demanding he be thin or anything) and stop fucking whinging about it to the news people.

In this case I'd be interested to see whether they have a list of objective criteria - 24st for a 6'1" man isn't unbelievable massive, after all, even if it is most certainly on the large side.

Put yourself in the kids position though. You have a potential couple who want you and they seem nice/normal people and then it's a case of 'sorry kid, they are too fat to have you,' I wouldn't care if they were nice people and I had a home to go to!

No kid would know anything about it. They were registering to be adopters, it's not like they'd already been to the kennels and picked out their kid.

I do know how it works, thank you. I meant more like the kid was a hairs length away froma home. I don't know-anyway I'll leave this now as I'm not sure whether it's right or wrong

'Lol'

I think I almost completely agree with this, but I was having problems finding the words (plus I had some berk sat next to me thinking it'd be a good idea for us to have a conversation).

Also, this isn't about size, it's about his personal morbidity rate (I believe, I've not read the article and I'm not here I'm doing my assignment - bye).

My opinion is, I wish they'd be as choosy about letting people have children through other means than getting them off the council. Whatever those are.

Me neither, it all depends upon whether the policies are being correctly applied I guess. But in your scenario assume there are two sets of equally lovely prospective parents only one of the men has an excellent chance of not even living to see sixty, I can see why that could at least be a factor.

My opinion is that I agree with Kalmar. Only replace 'as choosy' with 'more choosy'.

x1 000 000

What about the wife though? Don't they let single people adopt? I know they can foster.



(yes, yes, I'm going)

That would fuck things up a bit in the real world, though. However, I do agree with your sentiments.

His lifestyle choice is likely to adversely affect the kid.

Therefore fine.

My cousin *spits* has just had her 7th kid! Most of her adult life she's been pregnant. She is on drugs and drinks, I mean wtf is wrong with people?! Get those kids OUT of there and away-I'm sure they'd be glad to go to the overweight guy instead! They should have my cousin steralised or something, she never cares for those kids

GJ-I thought that aswell! It doesn't say there's a problem with her so why not?

What about smokers? I've found nothing on the net to suggest that they can't adopt over-5s.

It's a good point. Therefore all prospective adopters should be scrupulously vetted and inspected prior to a sprog being thrown at them. Their computer should be impounded and searched for other lifestyle choices that may affect a child growing up. If Doom is installed then he is obviously a child killer and should be locked up as one. Then we can move on to his credit report, highlighting times he missed payments as untrustworthy, therefore no sprog for you. Surveillance footage on his way to work picked him up buying a Sun newspaper, meaning he likes to look at the tits on page 3 and is therefore a pervert. No sprog. Then this lifestyle choice of having a bath instead of a shower means he's not eco-friendly and is eating up more of the earth's resources than he should, the greedy bastard. GOD I HATE HIM! FUCKING RPICK WANTING A FUCKINGC HILD FUCKING PEAOD FUCKING CVUNT!

Yes. Mmm! Well argued. So, bit over-zealous maybe

They haven't been told they can't adopt, they've been told if they're serious about adoption he'll need to make some changes. Seems fair enough to be honest and he'd obviously benefit from these changes.

Dimrill has an excellent point in that it's incredibly arbitrary - hence my earlier comment about wondering whether there's a defined list of criteria they work to - or whether the social worker had just got dumped by her fat boyfriend.

"Hello Timmy. We almost had a new Daddy for you today, but the mind log chip everyone has installed at birth just in case they want to adopt in the future, revealed he once wondered if the pink wigged girl on Lazy Town was legal yet. So close. Now now, dry those tears... he's dead now."

Because they get that one wrong doesn't mean they shouldn't get this one right, my views on parents, adopted or otherwise, smoking in the house are not moderate.

'Smokers' and 'smoking in the house' aren't necessarily the same thing, of course.

There's nothing to suggest that if this bloke had been a smoker it wouldn't have gone against him in just the same way, I strongly suspect that it would. The only difference is that such an occurrence wouldn't be news.

Last time I looked, non smoking thin people die everyday. I'm pretty sure they're not immortal.

Perkies is dead?

SHUT UP TIMMY! GET BACK TO YOUR CAGE!

You keep taking your stats from Zimbabwe, that's your problem.

Course not, but given a lack of knowledge of the future judging the likelyhood of premature death based on well-established risk factors doesn't seem all that unreasonable.

*sucks teeth* Ooh, so you're a driver eh? Dangerous business is driving. We have no love for your sort.

There is of course the other point that if he dropped six stone his clackers might start working again.

Well yes.

Please can Dimrill stop making me laugh when I'm trying to read this thread seriously

At the very least he'd have a much better chance of tesselating with ladies.