Obese must get treatment or lose benefits says PM:

victorismyhero wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


1) Why should they be given money to continue a habbit that dramatically effects their lungs?
This is about them receiving benefits to get back into work, of which smoking is not a necessity, so I find the view they should use money then  poorly to pay for a bad habbit is utterly wrong on every level.

2) I smoked for many years myself, I do not look down on those who  can afford to smoke, it is their choice, one tthey pay for with their own money, so I fail to see why money for benefits should go towards an uncessary habbit.

3) Coffee is a luxery again, am happy this is also stopped

4) Absurd point about prisons, this is about money as benefits to help people back into work, not feed luxery items they do not need.

5) You forget I come from a very large family that spent very little money well and we all had food on the table. In fact my father used to smoke until he could not afford to do so anymore. Again you are excusing people to continue having items they do not need, which is the point here. Now if people are using these benefits to items they do not need above food, then that isw fundementally wrong on every level.

6) If I had my way people would be given the majority of benefits in food vouchers, with enough to need to any travel expenses. People just on normal benefits normally reside with someone else, otherwise they get other benefits.

So we are only going to "give them what they NEED" eh?

who decides then what is need?

an 8x6 pen with bread and soup once a day perhaps and a couple of hours "volunteering" for some rock breaking, or working on the masters plantation?

when govt starts to involve itself in this sort of thinking...its about time it was closed down.

what next ...enforced celibacy or enforced sterilisation or enforced pill taking to make sure they dont have kids...

when shall we apply this? immediately on becomming redundant.....after 6 months? (ooops thats too late she's already up the duff with another parasite) a year?

korban dallas wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

We vot in a party into power to make policies, if you disagree you vote in someone to change that.
I believe the majority will agree with the policy.

in the uk 70% of population obese or too fat.so i think you will find the opposite

victorismyhero wrote:Tell you what.....


I'll let em do this when the ENTIRE conservative side of the house can survive a week of shooting every day solid with me carrying the same and doing the same mileage, and not be knackered at the end of it......women as well....

Cuchulain wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:

So we are only going to "give them what they NEED" eh?

who decides then what is need?

an 8x6 pen with bread and soup once a day perhaps and a couple of hours "volunteering" for some rock breaking, or working on the masters plantation?

when govt starts to involve itself in this sort of thinking...its about time it was closed down.

what next ...enforced celibacy or enforced sterilisation or enforced pill taking to make sure they dont have kids...

when shall we apply this? immediately on becomming redundant.....after 6 months? (ooops thats too late she's already up the duff with another parasite) a year?

Well do you not think a standard healthy diet is what they need and that is affordable?

At present many by things that are not healthy for them and sometimes people need help in this, so what is better here?

Money being continued to be wasted on things like smoking and drinking or a healthy balanced diet?

The rest of your post is just getting even more abusrd and over the top Victor.

It seems many want a problem to continue, where I am offering something that helps people start to eat healthier and have more money left over from their benefits.

korban dallas wrote:

Eilzel wrote:If they accept medical treatment they wont lose out though.

There is a serious obesity crisis that largely IS caused by bad diet and lack of physical activity in the UK. The government shouldn't be supporting that kind of lifestyle should they?

The condition is accepting treatment, if someone doesn't want to accept help why should they be allowed to accept handouts?

I don't always support the Tory government, but on tjis I fully agree.

and how do you differentiate between a genetic disposition to be over weight and bad diet

and how do you correct a bad diet when the cheap food  is heavy in surger and fats  to make it taste better you can only eat healthy if you can afford it

korban dallas wrote:

Eilzel wrote:If they accept medical treatment they wont lose out though.

There is a serious obesity crisis that largely IS caused by bad diet and lack of physical activity in the UK. The government shouldn't be supporting that kind of lifestyle should they?

The condition is accepting treatment, if someone doesn't want to accept help why should they be allowed to accept handouts?

I don't always support the Tory government, but on tjis I fully agree.

and how do you differentiate between a genetic disposition to be over weight and bad diet

Cuchulain wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:Tell you what.....


I'll let em do this when the ENTIRE conservative side of the house can survive a week of shooting every day solid with me carrying the same and doing the same mileage, and not be knackered at the end of it......women as well....

Moot reasoning as they do not have to when food is ready avialable.

you mean whats sauce for the goose ISNT sauce for the gander then....the rich can do as they like while the poor can do as they are told eh?
sorry didge...thats rather stalinist to me

like the song says..."its the rich what get the pleasure...its the poor what get the blame"

Again I ask what is better here.

People who in most cases do not eat healthy and waste more money than is needed on food or that expert help is given to provide them with less money being spent on a healthy diet?

They then actually have more money left over with their benefits.

Again what I am saying is that benefits should not go to luxeries, maybe you can explain why they should and that why they should not learn some responsibility that they cannot afford to whilst claiming benefits?

Original Quill wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
and how do you differentiate between a genetic disposition to be over weight and bad diet

"The more you eat, the more you shit."

If Woody Guthrie said it, it must be true.

It's the same problem as with smoking.  Rock and a hard place: serious addiction meets serious health concerns, and derivative economic levies on all.  We've had it in California with internal combustion emission control, smoking (not allowed anywhere in public place now), soft drinks and candy, and most recently vaccines (should one have to take them, contrary to religious beliefs, for the good of all?).

How far do the rights of one go before they offend the rights of many?  How far does the science go?  Well, now they are attacking the science.  Nicotine nazies, and taxes on Coke and Pepsi.  Now, enter Marijuana and Cocaine.  Alcohol (we tried prohibition in this country)?

Is there one rule that fits all?

victorismyhero wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Well do you not think a standard healthy diet is what they need and that is affordable?

At present many by things that are not healthy for them and sometimes people need help in this, so what is better here?

Money being continued to be wasted on things like smoking and drinking or a healthy balanced diet?

The rest of your post is just getting even more abusrd and over the top Victor.

It seems many want a problem to continue, where I am offering something that helps people start to eat healthier and have more money left over from their benefits.

firstly a standard healthy diet doesnt exist....

a healthy diet isn NOT affordable on JSA cheap produce is NOT healthy, especially cheap meat....

as to not smoking...well lets take all the other "unnecessary" pleasures of life away as well shall we...books, tv, any form of travel and most certainly any form of "break" away from home


see what you are missing didge is the "mission creep"

last week it was the depressed and alchoholics

this week its the obese (at what level does this kick in....i'd start a riot if they reckoned I needed "treatmment" for the level the disreputable test put on me...mildly obese pffffft...)

what or who next...

like i said what about compulsary cleibacy etc so the parasites dont breed more parasites???


when will we see job center employees saying right I think youre a fat bastard...sanction time....lets face it they would love the number of sherrifs badges that got em wouldnt they....

Raggamuffin wrote:This isn't about taking benefits from people just because they're obese, it's about those who have obesity-related conditions for which they they claim benefits. It makes sense to me that they should make every effort to improve their condition by losing weight. After all, JSA claimants are expected to make every effort to find a job aren't they?

I would say that if an obese person is too ill to work, they are also too ill to do anything else, so why would they not want to try to lose weight?

victorismyhero wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Moot reasoning as they do not have to when food is ready avialable.

you mean whats sauce for the goose ISNT sauce for the gander then....the rich can do as they like while the poor can do as they are told eh?
sorry didge...thats rather stalinist to me

like the song says..."its the rich what get the pleasure...its the poor what get the blame"

Again I ask what is better here.

People who in most cases do not eat healthy and waste more money than is needed on food or that expert help is given to provide them with less money being spent on a healthy diet?

They then actually have more money left over with their benefits.

Again what I am saying is that benefits should not go to luxeries, maybe you can explain why they should and that why they should not learn some responsibility that they cannot afford to whilst claiming benefits?

not go to luxuries eh....ok

lets condemn the unwaged to a grey drab meaningless existance...that will teach em, especially since the situation they find themselves in is the fault of the rich anyway...
(and I thought this was 2015 , not 1815)

victorismyhero wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:This isn't about taking benefits from people just because they're obese, it's about those who have obesity-related conditions for which they they claim benefits. It makes sense to me that they should make every effort to improve their condition by losing weight. After all, JSA claimants are expected to make every effort to find a job aren't they?

I would say that if an obese person is too ill to work, they are also too ill to do anything else, so why would they not want to try to lose weight?

hjow about we have jobs for people first


and I mean JOBS....not "pretend" jobs like zero hours and non contract jobs, not agency jobs but proper jobs in proper industries.....

I agree that help should be made available and those who need it encouraged by all REASONABLE means to take up on that help, but obesity isnt always just about being overweight is it....Its not that simple....

this nonsense will either cost more than it gets back OR not be run properly and merely be used as an excuse to not pay out to some...
obesity goes hand in hand with and is CAUSED BY NOT THE CAUSE OF

depression
poor education
lack of oppertunity (for excercise)

other conditions like

diabetes
physical injuries
heart problems
breathing problems

though in some cases of course the revers IS true

BUT the point is that to deal with the obesity, they underlying cause has to be treated as well..
the costs will be enormous....except of course this will just be a game of finding blame and sanctioning....NOT the honest "want to help" it should be.

Cuchulain wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:

firstly a standard healthy diet doesnt exist....

a healthy diet isn NOT affordable on JSA cheap produce is NOT healthy, especially cheap meat....

as to not smoking...well lets take all the other "unnecessary" pleasures of life away as well shall we...books, tv, any form of travel and most certainly any form of "break" away from home


see what you are missing didge is the "mission creep"

last week it was the depressed and alchoholics

this week its the obese (at what level does this kick in....i'd start a riot if they reckoned I needed "treatmment" for the level the disreputable test put on me...mildly obese pffffft...)

what or who next...

like i said what about compulsary cleibacy etc so the parasites dont breed more parasites???


when will we see job center employees saying right I think youre a fat bastard...sanction time....lets face it they would love the number of sherrifs badges that got em wouldnt they....

Okay lets start with the basics Victor.


Why is it children and adults were far healthier on the rations given in WW2 in the UK?
I am telling you for a fact such a diet is affordable and even cheaper if people use the money wisely.

Do you see the crap that now people feed on and the calories and salt within their intake of food today compared to when people were on rations?

You are on the road to a loss here Victor because we are just contining to allow people to be irresponible and what is wrose is that children are growing up on bad diets, which is then causing many to then be overweight in adult life.


There is no two ways about this, if people cannot be responsible with their money on benefits, then you help them and in fact may end up prolonging their lives

Cuchulain wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:

firstly a standard healthy diet doesnt exist....

a healthy diet isn NOT affordable on JSA cheap produce is NOT healthy, especially cheap meat....

as to not smoking...well lets take all the other "unnecessary" pleasures of life away as well shall we...books, tv, any form of travel and most certainly any form of "break" away from home


see what you are missing didge is the "mission creep"

last week it was the depressed and alchoholics

this week its the obese (at what level does this kick in....i'd start a riot if they reckoned I needed "treatmment" for the level the disreputable test put on me...mildly obese pffffft...)

what or who next...

like i said what about compulsary cleibacy etc so the parasites dont breed more parasites???


when will we see job center employees saying right I think youre a fat bastard...sanction time....lets face it they would love the number of sherrifs badges that got em wouldnt they....

Okay lets start with the basics Victor.


Why is it children and adults were far healthier on the rations given in WW2 in the UK?
I am telling you for a fact such a diet is affordable and even cheaper if people use the money wisely.

Yeah sure didge folks were healthier then (through your rose tinted specs)
of course the fact that rickets (vit D deficiency) preventable childhood blindness (Vit A deficiency) the neurological consequences of vit B deficiency etc were rife, poor health was common, resistance to disease was low and of course the commoners usually managed to expire conveniently at retirement age isnt ANYTHING to do with teh fact that in reality the diet was shite.....why do you think it was made LAW that cereals and margerine HAD to have vitamins added by the manufaturer???????????


Do you see the crap that now people feed on and the calories and salt within their intake of food today compared to when people were on rations?

swap one crap for another...

You are on the road to a loss here Victor because we are just contining to allow people to be irresponible and what is wrose is that children are growing up on bad diets, which is then causing many to then be overweight in adult life.


There is no two ways about this, if people cannot be responsible with their money on benefits, then you help them and in fact may end up prolonging their lives

korban dallas wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Okay lets start with the basics Victor.


Why is it children and adults were far healthier on the rations given in WW2 in the UK?
I am telling you for a fact such a diet is affordable and even cheaper if people use the money wisely.

Do you see the crap that now people feed on and the calories and salt within their intake of food today compared to when people were on rations?

You are on the road to a loss here Victor because we are just contining to allow people to be irresponible and what is wrose is that children are growing up on bad diets, which is then causing many to then be overweight in adult life.


There is no two ways about this, if people cannot be responsible with their money on benefits, then you help them and in fact may end up prolonging their lives

but that was because many of the foodstuffs that bring about obesity were in short supply today we have foods from all over the world are we going to go back to ww2 produce i am sure the food manufactures will love that ....not
not to mention the import exporter industry  yea!! less jobs  

victorismyhero wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Okay lets start with the basics Victor.


Why is it children and adults were far healthier on the rations given in WW2 in the UK?
I am telling you for a fact such a diet is affordable and even cheaper if people use the money wisely.

Yeah sure didge folks were healthier then (through your rose tinted specs)
of course the fact that rickets (vit D deficiency) preventable childhood blindness (Vit A deficiency) the neurological consequences of vit B deficiency etc were rife, poor health was common, resistance to disease was low and of course the commoners usually managed to expire conveniently at retirement age isnt ANYTHING to do with teh fact that in reality the diet was shite.....why do you think it was made LAW that cereals and margerine HAD to have vitamins added  by the manufaturer???????????


Do you see the crap that now people feed on and the calories and salt within their intake of food today compared to when people were on rations?

swap one crap for another...

You are on the road to a loss here Victor because we are just contining to allow people to be irresponible and what is wrose is that children are growing up on bad diets, which is then causing many to then be overweight in adult life.


There is no two ways about this, if people cannot be responsible with their money on benefits, then you help them and in fact may end up prolonging their lives

korban dallas wrote:Obesity in the main is caused by eating too much and doing too little. ?

not always true i eat loads of the wrong types of food sweets by the bucket load and mac donalds twice a week on average chips meat cakes i don`t do any exercise and am very thin not a ounce of fat on me a lot is to do with the persons metabolism  

korban dallas wrote:Obesity in the main is caused by eating too much and doing too little. ?

not always true i eat loads of the wrong types of food sweets by the bucket load and mac donalds twice a week on average chips meat cakes i don`t do any exercise and am very thin not a ounce of fat on me a lot is to do with the persons metabolism  

Cuchulain wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
but that was because many of the foodstuffs that bring about obesity were in short supply today we have foods from all over the world are we going to go back to ww2 produce i am sure the food manufactures will love that ....not
not to mention the import exporter industry  yea!! less jobs  

I would rather see many food companies go out of buisness and see a return to sanity of healthier eating.
This is the point today we have so much bad food avaiable Korben and it is making people unfit and unhealthy, but it puts paid to any claim that people cannot live on such a diet, where in fact they can and would be far healthier for it.
We import most of our foods, so would it not be a good thing to return to so home grown food and increase the industry here?

victorismyhero wrote:anyway gotta go cook tea....


I'll be BAAACK

korban dallas wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


I would rather see many food companies go out of buisness and see a return to sanity of healthier eating.
This is the point today we have so much bad food avaiable Korben and it is making people unfit and unhealthy, but it puts paid to any claim that people cannot live on such a diet, where in fact they can and would be far healthier for it.
We import most of our foods, so would it not be a good thing to return to so home grown food and increase the industry here?

and there you have it bad food, additives and the like yet we have idiots like tommy claiming that you can live of £75 a week maybe
but only if you buy the cheap bad foods, healthy food costs more catch 22

korban dallas wrote:

and there you have it bad food additives and the like yet we have idiots like tommy claiming that you can live of £75 a week maybe
but only if you buy the cheap bad foods, healthy food costs more catch 22

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:Obesity in the main is caused by eating too much and doing too little. ?

not always true i eat loads of the wrong types of food sweets by the bucket load and mac donalds twice a week on average chips meat cakes i don`t do any exercise and am very thin not a ounce of fat on me a lot is to do with the persons metabolism  

In the main, it is caused by eating too much and doing too little. Come on Korban - you know that's true.

If it is caused by something else, then treatment can be sought for that cause. If it doesn't work, and they really are too fat to work - or do much else - fair enough.

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

In the main, it is caused by eating too much and doing too little. Come on Korban - you know that's true.

If it is caused by something else, then treatment can be sought for that cause. If it doesn't work, and they really are too fat to work - or do much else - fair enough.

No its not all ways true as i have pointed out in 3 places on this thread, with what i eat i should be well over weight but i am not i don`t do any exersize what so ever
i literally cant put on weight and loose it rapidly if i don`t eat a lot explain that

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
No its not all ways true as i have pointed out in 3 places on this thread, with what i eat i should be well over weight but i am not i don`t do any exersize what so ever
i literally cant put on weight and loose it rapidly if i don`t eat a lot explain that

I think you're one of those rare very annoying people then Korban.

I have a friend who says she eats what she likes, but her idea of eating what she likes is to have one or two chocolate hobnobs instead of one or two packets.

eddie wrote:BMI is bullshit is it? Hahahaha not surprised

And you lot wonder why I have no faith in scientists

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think you're one of those rare very annoying people then Korban.

I have a friend who says she eats what she likes, but her idea of eating what she likes is to have one or two chocolate hobnobs instead of one or two packets.

lol so i have been told but that my point raggs i am one end of the scale some people are at the other
my mother in law eats like a sparrow yet she is huge her other kids are all fat but my wife is not and weighs less than i do
simply saying fat people eat to much and that`s why there are fat is like saying all Irish are thick ,or all blacks are stupid or homosexuals are paedophiles as has been claimed on hear
its ridiculous stereotyping  

Ben_Reilly wrote:Would anybody think this plan is fair when you take into consideration that among dieters, only 3 percent are able to lose weight and keep it off for more than three years?

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2015/03/diets_do_not_work_the_thin_evidence_that_losing_weight_makes_you_healthier.html

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
lol so i have been told but that my point raggs i am one end of the scale some people are at the other
my mother in law eats like a sparrow yet she is huge her other kids are all fat but my wife is not and weighs less than i do
simply saying fat people eat to much and that`s why there are fat is like saying all Irish are thick ,or all blacks are stupid or homosexuals are paedophiles as has been claimed on hear
its ridiculous stereotyping  

Hmmmm, do you see what they're eating all the time Korban? People have a habit of underestimating how much they eat, and they tend to forget some things - like two spoons of sugar in their ten cups of tea a day or whatever.

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Hmmmm, do you see what they're eating all the time Korban? People have a habit of underestimating how much they eat, and they tend to forget some things - like two spoons of sugar in their ten cups of tea a day or whatever.

well i know what my mother in-law eats yes and i have seen her cupboards  

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
well i know what my mother in-law eats yes and i have seen her cupboards  

What about the secret stash of Galaxy? You know, like in the advert?

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What about the secret stash of Galaxy? You know, like in the advert?

well she is 67 and no secret stashes of chocolate or anything else for that matter i ate two bars of cadburys chocolate yesterday the one with the strawberry.loads of sweets coffee about 16 cups with two sugars,four cheese rolls ,some weetabix with sugar and milk  and that was before dinner 6 pints of milk ,giant bag of onion rings crisps
i have a high metabolic rate and burn it of just sitting hear i don`t do exersize at all

fuck now i am hungry again

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
well she is 67 and no secret stashes of chocolate or anything else for that matter i ate two bars of cadburys chocolate yesterday the one with the strawberry.loads of sweets coffee about 16 cups with two sugars,four cheese rolls ,some weetabix with sugar and milk  and that was before dinner 6 pints of milk ,giant bag of onion rings crisps
i have a high metabolic rate and burn it of just sitting hear i don`t do exersize at all

fuck now i am hungry again

Oh shush!

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh shush!

Sorry but that`s my point some people look at a cake and put on weight and no amount of sanctions of benefit  will change that

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
Sorry but that`s my point some people look at a cake and put on weight and no amount of sanctions of benefit  will change that

Well then they need to avert their eyes when passing a bakery.

Anyway, this is about obesity-related illness for which people claim some kind of sickness benefit or disability benefit. If they have genuinely made best efforts to lose the weight, and if they literally can't do much at all because they're obese, or because they now have a medical condition related to that obesity, that's a different matter, but we know it's not the case for a lot of people.

victorismyhero wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well then they need to avert their eyes when passing a bakery.

Anyway, this is about obesity-related illness for which people claim some kind of sickness benefit or disability benefit. If they have genuinely made best efforts to lose the weight, and if they literally can't do much at all because they're obese, or because they now have a medical condition related to that obesity, that's a different matter, but we know it's not the case for a lot of people.

hyperbolic nonsense...there are NOT a LOT of obese people...hell there arent even a LOT of people who are disabled...

\if you include ALL disabilities

mobility
sight
hearing impaired
mental disabilities and
learning problems

its 9.6 million or 18%

when it comes down to mobility problems alone its only around

557,000 who are on benefits due to mobility problems. of these the obese are a small fraction


also relevant to this forum ....



   38 per cent of people believe disabled people are a burden on society
   28 per cent of people believe there is Ill feeling around the perceived extra support given to disabled people (28 per cent
   More than a quarter (27 per cent) of people think disabled people are treated differently because there is a lack of knowledge around disability
   Nearly two-thirds (65 per cent) of people have admitted they avoid disabled people because they don't know how to act around them
   More than half (52 per cent) of people  assume disabilities are physical
   Only 7 per cent  of people would consider mental disability when told that a person is disabled
   Only 26 per cent of people class facial disfigurement as a disability
   More than a third (34 per cnt) don't consider hearing loss to be a disability.

and as a consequence of that sort of primitive, uncaring and vile mind set


   One hundred and eighty disability hate crimes are committed every day in this country.
   Fear and loss of confidence are the most common consequences of disability harassment.
   Prosecutions and convictions for disability hate crime fell in 2011/12 after rising three years in a row – only partly due to fewer referrals from the police

as a consequence of which it is clear that the tory pogrom of hatred is beginning to work and disabled people are not reporting these crimes as much and or courts are becoming sympathetic to the haters

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Would anybody think this plan is fair when you take into consideration that among dieters, only 3 percent are able to lose weight and keep it off for more than three years?

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2015/03/diets_do_not_work_the_thin_evidence_that_losing_weight_makes_you_healthier.html

Yes. It's my opinion that they put the fat back on because they start to eat too many calories again.

victorismyhero wrote:I'll tell you the best idea,

except for those suffering true mobility problems (like a couple of missing legs or severe arthritis or a crippled back)

stop anyone (except residents of course ) parking anywhere within 1 mile of a school

make the fat buggers waslk a couple of miles a day...

seriously. I'm not against te ideas proposed....

I'm just absolutely against the idea of the giovt taking upon itself the power to order around a small and therefor voiceless group of people, as I keep saying...mission creep...

Just what is there to stop them ordering that the unemployed shall not breed.

like I said one small step down the road to internment camps for the benefit claimant

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes. It's my opinion that they put the fat back on because they start to eat too many calories again.

Did you read the article?