This couple got told, by Leeds City Council, that the bloke is too overweight to adopt a child.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7823707.stm
Didn't the council get a look at his wife??? lol
This couple got told, by Leeds City Council, that the bloke is too overweight to adopt a child.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7823707.stm
Didn't the council get a look at his wife??? lol
so they will leave kid's in home's where they are being abused cos this guy is a fatty....totaly stupid and downright farcicle imho
Jobsworth morons.
This is probably something to do with the Govt's shiny new initiative on family health. That in itself is no bad thing of course, but as usual we have a Local Authority being utterly Jobsworth about the whole thing. Even the Department for Children, Schools and Families said it does not issue guidance on maximum weight for adopters to local authorities so clearly Leeds Council is taking this decision off their own bat, to minimise ANY risk of liability to themselves.
As usual this counci is not thinking further than it's own liability and is failing to take into consideration the benefit that a stable family environment would give an adoptive child.
Yet another classic example of Local Authorities not employing joined-up thinking.
G!ts.
[/exit spleen venting mode]
being a fatty myself i think that is is ludicruss tbh mate....according to the goverment standard i am morbidly obese as i weigh in at 20 stone @ 6ft tall, with a BMI of over 40......i played footy for years and only stopped a few month's ago due to bad knee's i can out run most of the younger lad's that we played agains't...i am in the building game so i need a certain level of fitness........i have 3 kid's 14 - 9 - 2 you telling me i am a danger to them
imho they are being idiotic
Well said ditchp.
I don't think collision/impact risk is the issue here, and if it were to be honest its a pretty lame reason on the part of the LA imho. I simply think the council is on a "healthy" mission and some idiot do-gooders have taken it upon themselves to use the BMI [which is a flawed method to measure health/obesity] as a means of reducing liability for them having to make decisions relating to child welfare for those children in their care.
All LAs are as twitchy as hell atm after the Baby P affair and don't want to be seen to make ANY decisions which could later backfire on them IN ANY WAY. They are spineless pencil pushers for the large part and certainly don't appear to act in the best interests of their charges - only their own interests. [As you may surmise, I have had some contact with this type of issue, albeit not relating to me personally].
Good post anyway. May result in some interesting debate.![]()
cheer's mate, it just get's me how some do-gooder can say ''sorry you are too fat to addopt/foster''.....when there are far too many decent folk out there that can-not have kid's of there own for one reason or another, and there are kid's having kid's and people who deliberatly harm there own/fostered/adopted...just let someone tell me i am not fit to be a father because i like most of the country is ''classed as being overweight''....
It's a Leeds thing - their grass-cutting contractors even recently went out when there was a couple of inches of snow on the ground and 'cut' the lawn, churned it all up into a muddy mess (y'know, instead of clearing the paths of ice, or anything useful).
Don't get me started on the council and its ALMOs like Education Leeds...
BMI doesn't work - it is just a formula to place someone on the height/weight charts, which also are a load of ******** for anyone who's not a stick-thin build (you know, the type who can actually fit in TopMan clothes).
im a fatty same as that guy and i think its bang out of order
so its best to let these kiddies rot then give them a home
soon they will be banning fattys from having children, its a joke![]()
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks