Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Frank Hovis

Being Fat Is Now A Disability

Recommended Posts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11300793/EU-court-rules-that-fatness-can-constitute-a-disability.html

Fatness "can constitute a disability" for the purposes of European Union equality at work legislation, Europe's highest court has ruled.

The judgment means British companies will be required to treat obese workers as "disabled", providing them with larger seats, special parking spaces and other facilities.

“Obesity can constitute a ‘disability’ within the meaning of the Employment Equality Directive,” the European Court of Justice ruled.

“While no general principle of EU law prohibits, in itself, discrimination on grounds of obesity, that condition falls within the concept of ‘disability’ where, under particular conditions, it hinders the full and effective participation of the person concerned in professional life on an equal basis with other workers.”

The EU court ruling, which is binding on British employers, follows a case brought by Karsten Kaltoft, a Danish childminder, who claimed he was sacked by his local authority employer because he was so overweight.

I know there are few militant anti-fattists here but I have to say I agree. There are several fat people at work but one so bad that she has far more trouble getting around than somebody on crutches; she can't do stairs (up or down) or walk more than a couple of hundred yards without having to sit down. So to me she is disabled. She's ok at her job though.

I know it's self-inflicted but so is, say, somebody who loses a leg after doing 120mph on a motorbike.

And the special treatments required (highlighted) hardly count as perks. I can't see anybody saying "I wish I was morbidly obese so I could get a bigger chair".

This links back in with my previous thread about the state paying out for some practical measures to help people to lose weight as it would cost a lot less than the resulting medical bills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11300793/EU-court-rules-that-fatness-can-constitute-a-disability.html

I know there are few militant anti-fattists here but I have to say I agree. There are several fat people at work but one so bad that she has far more trouble getting around than somebody on crutches; she can't do stairs (up or down) or walk more than a couple of hundred yards without having to sit down. So to me she is disabled. She's ok at her job though.

I know it's self-inflicted but so is, say, somebody who loses a leg after doing 120mph on a motorbike.

And the special treatments required (highlighted) hardly count as perks. I can't see anybody saying "I wish I was morbidly obese so I could get a bigger chair".

This links back in with my previous thread about the state paying out for some practical measures to help people to lose weight as it would cost a lot less than the resulting medical bills.

"somebody who loses a leg after doing 120mph on a motorbike" cannot make some simple lifestyle changes to regrow it. Helping morbidly obese people avoid the consequences of their diet/exercise choices is not good for anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me a disability would usually mean something the person can do nothing about. Losing a leg, however caused, would come under this heading. A young relative of Mr B's has multiple sclerosis and his mobility is affected. I would call that a disability, since how ever much he would want to - and I'm sure he would do absolutely anything - there is nothing he can do about it.

Being very fat, on the other hand, is nearly always something the person could do something about, if they really wanted to. Calling it a disability may just encourage the very fat to think there's nothing they should want or need to do.

If that makes me a militant anti-fattist, so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"somebody who loses a leg after doing 120mph on a motorbike" cannot make some simple lifestyle changes to regrow it. Helping morbidly obese people avoid the consequences of their diet/exercise choices is not good for anyone.

Alright - she is disabled at the moment.

It would be good if she wasn't, but she is.

The employer could make life at work uncomfortable for her in which case she would leave and be unable to get another job, so go onto benefits and become a burden on the state as well as the NHS. Hardly a win win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11300793/EU-court-rules-that-fatness-can-constitute-a-disability.html

I know there are few militant anti-fattists here but I have to say I agree. There are several fat people at work but one so bad that she has far more trouble getting around than somebody on crutches; she can't do stairs (up or down) or walk more than a couple of hundred yards without having to sit down. So to me she is disabled. She's ok at her job though.

I know it's self-inflicted but so is, say, somebody who loses a leg after doing 120mph on a motorbike.

And the special treatments required (highlighted) hardly count as perks. I can't see anybody saying "I wish I was morbidly obese so I could get a bigger chair".

This links back in with my previous thread about the state paying out for some practical measures to help people to lose weight as it would cost a lot less than the resulting medical bills.

Is it really that far fetched to think that someone with poor social skills would use the excuse of being over-weight in order to get "special" treatment in the work place? I'm not arguing that there's a connection between being seriously over-weight and having poor social skills, but, based on the behaviour of a couple of family members and several work colleagues in the past, I can totally see how this ruling will be abused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was watching the Val Doonican Christmas show 1986 last night, God knows why, I certainly didn't watch it at the time. Guess it's a window on the past...fashions, celebrities (star guest Jan Leeming, last I heard she was some steward at a cathedral) quite impressed by his smooth performance actually and he got the proverbial rocking chair out too.

Anyway, there was choir of young ladies, maybe forty or fifty of them, and basically not a fat person in there. I guess people did stuff back then like walk. God forbid that anybody should walk five miles a day (like everyone used to) when you can do one in the gym on a treadmill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me a disability would usually mean something the person can do nothing about. Losing a leg, however caused, would come under this heading. A young relative of Mr B's has multiple sclerosis and his mobility is affected. I would call that a disability, since how ever much he would want to - and I'm sure he would do absolutely anything - there is nothing he can do about it.

Being very fat, on the other hand, is nearly always something the person could do something about, if they really wanted to. Calling it a disability may just encourage the very fat to think there's nothing they should want or need to do.

If that makes me a militant anti-fattist, so be it.

IMO somebody who is very fat is prima facie disabled.

I don't see how the possibility of being labelled "disabled" woudl ever encourage anybody to put on weight or not lose it, quite the reverse.

I don't want to see this thread rerun the many very interesting debates that we have had on weight loss but i doubt people would disagree with the following two propositions:

  • It is hardest to lose weight when you are very fat in the first place
  • It is harder to lose weight when you are doing a full time vs a part time job or no job

Making life more comfortable at work will IMHO make people happier and more likely to lose weight and to keep working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought locating their parking space the furthest from the entrance and making them use the stairs instead of the lift would be exactly the sorts of little things they need to help them combat their 'disease'.

Probably the reason why fat people become disabled ..fatness equals prizes and benefits........DLA and special dispensation from work, paying parking etc.

Fatness might mean economic sense for the under class at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought locating their parking space the furthest from the entrance and making them use the stairs instead of the lift would be exactly the sorts of little things they need to help them combat their 'disease'.

We are not talking a bit fat. Stairs seems to be a good indicator of general fitness. I, and most people, routinely use the stairs. It doesn't cross my mind to use the lift, how knackered do you have to be to fnd a few flights of stairs a daunting propsect?

There are fat people in the fat and lazy sense who will always use the lift when they could use the stairs, who will wait in their car for ten minutes for a closer parking space. What you say entirely applies to them and I would not in any way call them disabled.

Then there are fat people who would do themselves serious damage if they ran across the car park. These are disabled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are not talking a bit fat. Stairs seems to be a good indicator of general fitness. I, and most people, routinely use the stairs. It doesn't cross my mind to use the lift, how knackered do you have to be to fnd a few flights of stairs a daunting propsect?

There are fat people in the fat and lazy sense who will always use the lift when they could use the stairs, who will wait in their car for ten minutes for a closer parking space. What you say entirely applies to them and I would not in any way call them disabled.

Then there are fat people who would do themselves serious damage if they ran across the car park. These are disabled.

Never understand the need to get a close parking space or for that matter actually fork out big wonga for one in a city. I'd have to be looking at more than a two mile walk before even starting to consider city centre parking. In truth I leave my car at home and walk five miles into Nottingham, actually I'm seven miles away at the moment in West Bridgford, walked the whole way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a reward for being disabled due to your own actions - its ridiculous.

When do those that drink too much get similar rewards for self inflicted 'disabilities' ?

Your brain being half asleep and feeling sick must also class as a 'disability' to being able to work properly ?

Extra holidays and starting times of midday for all the bevvy merchants out there !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never understand the need to get a close parking space or for that matter actually fork out big wonga for one in a city. I'd have to be looking at more than a two mile walk before even starting to consider city centre parking. In truth I leave my car at home and walk five miles into Nottingham, actually I'm seven miles away at the moment in West Bridgford, walked the whole way.

Wow! Impressive.

I'd cycle that and maybe walk it on a fine summer's morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a reward for being disabled due to your own actions - its ridiculous.

When do those that drink too much get similar rewards for self inflicted 'disabilities' ?

Your brain being half asleep and feeling sick must also class as a 'disability' to being able to work properly ?

Extra holidays and starting times of midday for all the bevvy merchants out there !!

Different argument but I used to have similar discussions with my fellow hard-drinking workers when I was in the City in my 20s. We used to drag ourselves in with stinking hangovers and do a full's day work however bad we felt, whereas non-drinkers who didn't feel as bad (but hadn't self-inflcited their injuries) would take a day off sick.

We all accepted it as the price we paid and didn't want special treatment or to be labelled a problem drinker.

As per my previous on fat disabled people I don't see a big chair and a bigger parking space as much of a reward; nobody would choose to be that size with the health problems and all-round limits to life for those "rewards".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was watching the Val Doonican Christmas show 1986 last night, God knows why, I certainly didn't watch it at the time. Guess it's a window on the past...fashions, celebrities (star guest Jan Leeming, last I heard she was some steward at a cathedral) quite impressed by his smooth performance actually and he got the proverbial rocking chair out too.

Anyway, there was choir of young ladies, maybe forty or fifty of them, and basically not a fat person in there. I guess people did stuff back then like walk. God forbid that anybody should walk five miles a day (like everyone used to) when you can do one in the gym on a treadmill.

I posted this on another thread but when I were a lad (cue Dvorak) there were two fat kids in school, it was so rare that I remember them both now.

They were both put under observation as in-patients in hospital to monitor their diet, weight and metabolism as it was presumed that there must be an underlying health condition that was causing this as children just weren't fat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In truth I leave my car at home and walk five miles into Nottingham, actually I'm seven miles away at the moment in West Bridgford, walked the whole way.

Walking everywhere must be good for you - nothing strange in that ...

Naked-rambler.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Walking everywhere must be good for you - nothing strange in that ...

Why does he need such enormous walking boots?

I used to wear them because everybody did for DofE but I changed to lighter fabric boots and then to lighter fabric (but waterproof / breathable) walking shoes which are much better for walking in, you go faster and your legs are less tired.

If he's such a "natural" obsessive then he shouldn't be wearing shoes at all. Toughen up your feet man!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was watching the Val Doonican Christmas show 1986 last night, God knows why, I certainly didn't watch it at the time. Guess it's a window on the past...fashions, celebrities (star guest Jan Leeming, last I heard she was some steward at a cathedral) quite impressed by his smooth performance actually and he got the proverbial rocking chair out too.

Anyway, there was choir of young ladies, maybe forty or fifty of them, and basically not a fat person in there. I guess people did stuff back then like walk. God forbid that anybody should walk five miles a day (like everyone used to) when you can do one in the gym on a treadmill.

I always find this striking when I see any old documentaries/news footage ,seen a bit of old footage of a Butlins holiday camp in the 70`s the swimming pool was packed and there was not and ounce of fat in sight ,were people hungry then or just more active

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does he need such enormous walking boots?

I used to wear them because everybody did for DofE but I changed to lighter fabric boots and then to lighter fabric (but waterproof / breathable) walking shoes which are much better for walking in, you go faster and your legs are less tired.

If he's such a "natural" obsessive then he shouldn't be wearing shoes at all. Toughen up your feet man!

I have a pair like that...immensely comfortable and make you walk with a better posture...at least thats what it feels like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always find this striking when I see any old documentaries/news footage ,seen a bit of old footage of a Butlins holiday camp in the 70`s the swimming pool was packed and there was not and ounce of fat in sight ,were people hungry then or just more active

nonsense...my mum was huge.....when did weightwatchers start up?...1963

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“What about protection for those who are underweight, short or tall or who simply believe their employer thought they didn't look attractive enough? It could become difficult to know where to draw the line in terms of workplace protection for body shape or physical appearance."

From the Telegraph

Employers should just treat all their empolyees as disabled.

Companies, such as Royal Mail, could give all the staff easy indoor jobs.

Employing 100% disabled staff would be so PC, the left would wet themselves with joy.

If you dont get your Mail and complain about it, then you're a fascist.

George Orwell was so right in1984, he just got the year wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different argument but I used to have similar discussions with my fellow hard-drinking workers when I was in the City in my 20s. We used to drag ourselves in with stinking hangovers and do a full's day work however bad we felt, whereas non-drinkers who didn't feel as bad (but hadn't self-inflcited their injuries) would take a day off sick.

We all accepted it as the price we paid and didn't want special treatment or to be labelled a problem drinker.

As per my previous on fat disabled people I don't see a big chair and a bigger parking space as much of a reward; nobody would choose to be that size with the health problems and all-round limits to life for those "rewards".

Its not just that though - as soon as you have the 'disability badge' it opens up so many other avenues. Getting fired from your job as example - many employers will veer away from firing any 'disabled' people because of the hassle involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   289 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.