To think this is discrimination and its damn right wrong.

[EvalionAngel]

A Salford woman is 'too fat' to look after children, says council

dailym.ai/2c2xwoB

If this was race it would be wrong if this was a disability it would be wrong if this was gender it would be wrong. So why is fat discrimination allowed. Time for overweight people to be protected under discrimination and hate speech laws. Overweight people have to face daily abuse and thin privilege. The same way black and POC face white privileges and women face make privilege.

I'm so sick of this.

Sorry for the rant.

And if you're fat and fit and healthy, you'd be fitTER and healthIER if you were thinner.
Thats a fact.

She failed her medical,it's also more likely than not that there are other issues at play here as well,so wether someone is healthy or fit and their bmi says their not,the accuracy of it etc it's irrelevant. They didn't say all fat people are unsuitable,they said this woman in particular was.

The gym killed Douglas Adams. Gyms are bad.

Always seems to be an argument made that you can go to the gym, however the impact on the health service of sports and exercise related injuries is significant - arguably comparable to that of obesity.

Now a nice walk with the dog on the other hand.......

Why are so many posters insisting this is about them, their weight, their job? It isn't. It's about the very overweight woman in the article who's been turned down as a foster carer, possibly to do with her weight, possibly not.

I get discriminated against all the time but because I am in the minority of not being in a 'protected group', there is nothing I can do. Its really unfair and is destroying my life chances.

Its time not being in a protected group, is protected, under discrimination and hate speech laws.

And if you're fat and fit and healthy, you'd be fitTER and healthIER if you were thinner.
Thats a fact.

That's an opinion. Health and fitness are based on proper nutrition, sleep quality and stress levels as well. If you have to follow strict diets in order to get to a certain level of accepted "thinness" you may not be healthy. You may compromise your immunity, develop osteoporosis, etc. Also, if you aren't getting enough protein and other nutrients it will affect your performance and your ability to exercise.

I can do far more exercise and I have far more energy, endurance and strength, and I'm less ill at 12 stone than I was at 9 stone.

www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v40/n5/abs/ijo201617a.html
journals.lww.com/nutritiontodayonline/Fulltext/2015/05000/Body_Mass_Index__Obesity,_BMI,_and_Health___A.5.aspx

Whilst all the discussions around BMI are interesting and educational they don't really apply to this woman. I am also very overweight and bluntly I look fitter and healthier than she does.

I agree. The fact that she recently had a perforated bowel and the fact that she went to the Daily Fail with this prove that she is certainly not fit to care for young children.

I think myself, and others, are objecting to the blanket statement that anyone who weighs 20 stone is automatically unfit to be a FC.

There seems to be a attitude with some people "I go to the gym so no need to worry that I am obese" whatever fitness level people are or think they are obesity is a large health risk and no doctors would disagree with that. All this arguments about athletes is just stupid. A few step classes and a gym session or to is not like training as a professional sports person ffs

"some people" and "an entire movement"

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_at_Every_Size

Quote below from link above

The term "Health at Every Size" has been trademarked by the Association for Size Diversity and Health, an international professional organization composed of members committed to the Health At Every Size® (HAES®) Principles. Wikipedia entries can be edited by anyone and as such, this entry can't be protected to accurately represent the Health at Every Size community. Consider visiting sites that are explicitly committed to representing Health at Every Size for other perspective.

Health at Every Size (HAES) is a movement that claims to "support people in adopting health habits for the sake of health and well-being (rather than weight control)."[1] Proponents aim to improve the standard of living for people who are overweight or obese by promoting healthy lifestyles and anti-discrimination efforts. Generally, these efforts do not include weight loss as a direct goal.

HAES advocates are highly skeptical that weight loss directly and controllably improves health.[2] The benefits of lifestyle interventions such as nutritious eating and exercise are presumed to be real, but independent of any weight loss they may cause. At the same time, HAES advocates espouse that sustained, large-scale weight loss is difficult to the point of effective impossibility for the majority of obese people. Evidence to support the view that some obese people eat little yet gain weight due to a slow metabolism is limited, and often false, as studies have shown that obese individuals incorrectly self-report calories consumed;[3] on average, obese people have a greater energy expenditure than their healthy-weight counterparts due to the energy required to maintain an increased body mass.[4][5] HAES proponents believe that health is a result of behaviors that are independent of body weight and that favouring being thin discriminates against the overweight and the obese.[6] Efforts towards such weight loss are instead held to cause rapid swings in size that inflict far worse physical and psychological damage than would fat itself.

As part of the wider fat acceptance movement,[8][9] HAES includes also a significant social and psychological dimension. Proponents view the common wisdom that obesity is unhealthy as part of a general stigmatization of the obese, and especially of obese women; thus, the movement has furthermore strong connections with feminism.

Misshoolie I agree with everything you've said except that I think you've understated it a bit when you say sws weigh up whether it's so bad that the child will be harmed more by staying in that environment than by being removed Actually the child needs to be at serious risk of significant harm.

So it's not whether it would be better for them to be removed - that would apply to lots and lots of children who are left in home situations most of us wouldn't countenance for an animal

The bmi arguments are absurd, she wasn't rejected for her bmi, she was rejected for being twice what she should be, having serious health and mobility problems as a result of that, all caused by a serious compulsive eating disorder.

She can't move. That's not comparable to a big boned, stocky rugby player or wrestler who weighs 20 stone. She is that way because she is obviously inactive and overeating junk. That is a dangerous mentality and not one you want passed down to a child.

I wouldn't want her feeding my child or in charge of her safety. Foster children are much more vulnerable and often have special needs, they need someone who can care for them properly. She can't even care for herself.

Health at EVERY Size is idiotic, you can tell just from the name. You won't be healthy at every size. If you're severely under or overweight it isn't possible to be properly healthy. If you weight 30 stone you cannot be properly healthy.

Fat acceptance model...what a joke!

That's an opinion. Health and fitness are based on proper nutrition, sleep quality and stress levels as well. If you have to follow strict diets in order to get to a certain level of accepted "thinness" you may not be healthy. You may compromise your immunity, develop osteoporosis, etc. Also, if you aren't getting enough protein and other nutrients it will affect your performance and your ability to exercise

No, its not an opinion. All other things being equal, a person of, say 5 foot 6 will be significantly healther and better off at 10 stone, for example, than 25 stone. FACT, not opinion.

No, its not an opinion. All other things being equal, a person of, say 5 foot 6 will be significantly healther and better off at 10 stone, for example, than 25 stone. FACT, not opinion.

Healthier at 10 stone than 25 stone, I'll give you that. But healthier than they would be at 11, 12, 13 or 14 stone. Maybe not. It's dependent on activity levels, frame size, where there fat goes...Better to be an active, stress free 14 stone person who eats well than someone who has to do too much exercise, eat too little and stress constantly to stay 10 stone.

The weight at which the potential carer in question is too fat to walk past the line could be a good cutoff

Health at EVERY Size is idiotic, you can tell just from the name. You won't be healthy at every size.

It's not saying that everyone is healthy at every size. If you read official sites, it's about stopping yo-yo dieting and self hatred and engaging in healthy activities and choices because you love yourself and your body.

Yo-yo dieting and self hatred can cause major health problems over the long term. HAES is trying to stop that and just get people to engage in exercise and eat healthy food, while encouraging them to love their body as is. Rather than hate themselves for not being an ideal.

But she's not 14 stone, thefit; she's 21 stone. They're not even in the same ballpark.
21 stone is the weight of two or two and a half people; not just "a couple of stone overweight".
Absolutely no comparison.

I don't think it would be possible to be healthy at 5'6 and 21 stone

It's not saying that everyone is healthy at every size

You're telling me that a movement called HEALTHY AT EVERY SIZE is not trying to say that you can be healthy at every size?
Like I said, idiotic.

HAES is trying to stop that and just get people to engage in exercise and eat healthy food, while encouraging them to love their body as is. Rather than hate themselves for not being an ideal

If they are, as they seem to be, telling people that you don't need to lose weight no matter how heavy you are, and you should just be yourself, they aren't helping anyone.

As someone who recently underwent a health medical for approval as a carer. Once your BMI is over 30 they take your waist measurement. The health assessment covers fertility issues, mental health and medical history. Her BMI was not the reason she was turned down from reading this article her recent illness, her attitude would have gone against her health report. Her ambition is good but she is not at the right place healthwise to be a foster carer without the other checks done (dbs, references, several visits, home assessment (size) check, home health and safety check, knowledge of local facilities) the list goes on. You can also be turned down because you work as they wish a person to be at home full time

If they are, as they seem to be, telling people that you don't need to lose weight no matter how heavy you are

IMO there is an extremely seductive, received message of :

You can't lose weight

It is dangerous to lose weight

Losing weight isn't an effective way to get healthier/happier

HAEScommunity haescommunity.com

We’ve lost the war on obesity. Fighting fat hasn’t made the fat go away. And being thinner, even if we knew how to successfully accomplish it, will not necessarily make us healthier or happier. The war on obesity has taken its toll. Extensive “collateral damage” has resulted: Food and body preoccupation, self-hatred, eating disorders, discrimination, poor health, etc. Few of us are at peace with our bodies, whether because we’re fat or because we fear becoming fat.

Health at Every Size is the new peace movement.

It supports people of all sizes in addressing health directly by adopting healthy behaviors. It is an inclusive movement, recognizing that our social characteristics, such as our size, race, national origin, sexuality, gender, disability status, and other attributes, are assets, and acknowledges and challenges the structural and systemic forces that impinge on living well.

An edited excerpt from Health at Every Size: The Surprising Truth About Your Weight by Linda Bacon, PhD.

Time for overweight people to be protected under discrimination

That's the second time this has been suggested on MN today; god help us all

Good to see the overall sheer common sense on here, though ...

Fatness should be a protected characteristic?? What sort of halfwit suggested that?

How about ugliness, and crooked teeth? They could be protected characteristics, too.

I'd campaign for ginger protection 1st, myself.

Ugliness should definitely be a protected characteristic. I can't help looking like I do. :(

My stbxh is morbidly obese and couldn't (wouldn't) do much with our children at all, which led to some quite serious situations. It's quite hard on the other partner to have to carry so much of the parenting load plus care for the other partner. I guess that applies to lots of things, not just obesity but I think the physical affects of being that big aren't really something people are aware of unless they have lived with it. It's a really hard situation for everyone.