The Masked Tulip Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 I suppose they were proud in those days to have a chubby baby? Edit: I feel awful posting this now - he could still be alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpectrumFX Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 I feel awful posting this now - he could still be alive. I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 Little did they know 65 years later he would be the deputy PM... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkman Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 I suppose they were proud in those days to have a chubby baby? There isn't any background on the Pathe story. He's 3 years old, and hugely obese. I'm guessing some health problem has caused the weight gain. If not then his parents would have to be feeding him food all day. I doubt they'd do that. Was fast food even around at that time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StainlessSteelCat Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 Either way, he'd have to be eating a lot of food. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 From a daily wail story I see. http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/58750915 says that his condition is due to dys pituitarism. Both parents and the other children are small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkman Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 Impressive you found that Sunday Times article dated 10th Feb 1935! I'm guessing the DM article is a more recent one? Definition of DYSPITUITARISM: any abnormal condition caused by dysfunction of the pituitary gland The article says he's healthy, yet also says he has this condition. I don't know much about it, but the kid doesn't look healthy to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichB Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 Impressive you found that Sunday Times article dated 10th Feb 1935! I'm guessing the DM article is a more recent one? The article says he's healthy, yet also says he has this condition. I don't know much about it, but the kid doesn't look healthy to me. Healthy being a relative term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted April 26, 2013 Author Share Posted April 26, 2013 From a daily wail story I see. http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/58750915 says that his condition is due to dys pituitarism. Both parents and the other children are small. Very impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack's Creation Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 Very impressive. For those of you filled with guilt riddled concern about what became of the child:- "Leslie Bowles (the child in question) lived a full life as a foreman in the Welton-le-Wold Old Gravel Pits. He died in an unfortunate crane accident shortly after his 42nd birthday." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted April 26, 2013 Author Share Posted April 26, 2013 For those of you filled with guilt riddled concern about what became of the child:- "Leslie Bowles (the child in question) lived a full life as a foreman in the Welton-le-Wold Old Gravel Pits. He died in an unfortunate crane accident shortly after his 42nd birthday." Ah, God bless Leslie Bowles. I wonder if he ever grew out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reck B Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 For those of you filled with guilt riddled concern about what became of the child:- "Leslie Bowles (the child in question) lived a full life as a foreman in the Welton-le-Wold Old Gravel Pits. He died in an unfortunate crane accident shortly after his 42nd birthday." Is the word 'unfortunate' completely necessary in that sentence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cashinmattress Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 Nobody felt bad for freaks back then. It was entertainment. Too politically correct now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errol Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 Parents should have been arrested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turned Out Nice Again Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 Nobody felt bad for freaks back then. It was entertainment. Too politically correct now. not quite, for instance Todd Browning's 1932 movie 'Freaks' (a cult classic now) ended up being banned in the UK for 30 years and effectively ended the director's career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cashinmattress Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 not quite, for instance Todd Browning's 1932 movie 'Freaks' (a cult classic now) ended up being banned in the UK for 30 years and effectively ended the director's career. Not sure if it was the mutations or the sexual innuendos that got it banned. OTS: I've met Jim Rose before, probably near 20 years ago during the Toronto film festival, he was in a bar with some 'interesting' ladies. He had a lot of stuff to say about the business. There's still good money in freaks and plenty of people like it. Just now everybody is a closeted admirer, though if folk were forced to put their internet histories out it there for all to see... EDIT: and oh yeah, also consider UK's penchant for midget/dwarf tossing before pulling the morality card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted April 27, 2013 Share Posted April 27, 2013 not quite, for instance Todd Browning's 1932 movie 'Freaks' (a cult classic now) ended up being banned in the UK for 30 years and effectively ended the director's career. That was actually broadcast on British television once, and I watched it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bootsox Posted April 27, 2013 Share Posted April 27, 2013 not quite, for instance Todd Browning's 1932 movie 'Freaks' (a cult classic now) ended up being banned in the UK for 30 years and effectively ended the director's career. gooble goggle one of us, gooble goggle one of us..catchy lyrics or what? Hang on, Erranta moment, gooble + goggle = google! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheBlueCat Posted April 27, 2013 Share Posted April 27, 2013 Little did they know 65 years later he would be the deputy PM... You're thinking of the last lot surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guillotine Posted April 27, 2013 Share Posted April 27, 2013 not quite, for instance Todd Browning's 1932 movie 'Freaks' (a cult classic now) ended up being banned in the UK for 30 years and effectively ended the director's career. Has that little bloke got a fluffy white tail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted April 27, 2013 Share Posted April 27, 2013 I saw an interesting documentary a few years back. A man, who himself had no arms, due to thalidomide, was researching a US performer who called himself 'Sealo', as he had no arms, just 'flippers' (his hands). People would pay good money to see him do a variety of things, like roll cigarettes and light them, etc. As a consequence, Sealo made a good living, marrying and raising a family. Then the early days of politicall correctness came along in the late 50's/ early 60's. Such shows were no longer considered acceptable. Sealo was out of work and, I believe, died destitute. Nowadays, we aren't allowed to watch freak shows, so we just watch documentaries about freaks and freak shows instead. Nothing voyeuristic in that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.