Englishman Arrested For Obesity

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Not_Whistlin_Dixie, Feb 23, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. 23 year old Chris Leppard, of Hastings, East Sussex, has a neurologic ailment, Prader-Willi Syndrome. This interferes with transmission of signals of satiety from his stomach to his brain.

    Mr. Leppard was arrested and sent to "a specialist eating disorder unit" where he will be confined for 28 days.

    The government justified his arrest on the basis of laws allowing involuntary commitment of the mentally ill.

    "Fat Police Lock Up Chris"

    Innovation makes the world go 'round. Here, the authorities have come up with an innovative expansion of the concept of mental illness. They've extended it to cover an organic illness afflicting a man who plainly did not want the government's coercively imposed help.

    In days gone by, the mental health professionals of the USSR took a similarly expansive view of mental illness. People who suffered from the delusion that the USSR was a one party dictatorship controlled by gangsters were found to suffer from "schizophrenia" and were confined in psychiatric "hospitals."
  2. Hopefully , this type of thinking does not cross the Atlantic or we could see a new growth industry , LOCKING UP MORBIDLY OBESE SPECTICS> The mind bogles 8O
  3. The article stated he is 31 stones which is 434 pound...now that is one fat fcuker...stand me next to him and it would look like I'm starving and he is the reason for it
  4. Inaccurate reporting by the Scum - well up to their usual standard.

    This man was not arrested, but detained under the Mental Health Act. For the septics, this means that he can be detained in hospital against his will for up to 28 days. The procedure is known as 'sectioning', and the procedure is fairly complicated, requiring approved and experienced doctors and social workers to agree before it can be implemented. It is used where a patient is considered to be a danger to himself or others.

    In this case, it seems that once assessed in hospital he was discharged. The fuss is because his mother is talking about suing. Presumably the obese one is working out how many pies he can buy with his compensation...

    The concept of people being arrested for being overweight is really quite interesting. Would they be charged with 'possession of an offensive body'?
  5. What a brillant idea rounding up fatties if you take up more than one
    seat on the bus jail :lol:
    should introduce it in the the states you know you need it :lol: . Oh
    and those idiots for the right of fat people should be killed. he says reaching for a slimfast :D
  6. DAMN ...... I thought my "fantasy law" had finally been passed , and i could laugh and throw rotten apples (only to watch some fat c*nt eat them) as processions of "uber-scoffers" are marched off to fat camp.

    i've seen pictures of this bloke , in america , he'd just be classed as big boned.
  7. By the same rationale that has been applied in the tubster's case, does that mean that I will be sectioned on Friday night when I consume over the suggested safe limit of Wife Beater? I will certainly be a danger to myself after about 7 pints.

    It is a crazy rule. You could argue that every time I light a cigarette I am being a danger to myself.

    Good old nanny state.
  8. It's an adequate rule as it applies to everyone who is likely to cause themselves serious injury in the near future thru acts which they cannot control. And it covers anorexics, those suffering from obsessive compulsive disorders, depressives and, apparently, folk who can't stop eating.

    Without the existing legislation there would be nothing to stop suicide cases from topping themselves, or to stop some people from washing themselves to death etc.

    You can call it a nanny state. But if people have no control over their actions then help should be made available, however in many cases, due to the nature of their illness, they would not accept that help voluntarily, which is why they are detained.
  9. his ma could do with losing a few pounds as well.

    Lock em all up.

    (decided previous post was too rational so have opted for some mindless bigotry and prejudice to balance it out)
  10. My theory still holds true. I will have no control of myself on Friday and certainly will not accept anyones help. If a man has an illness and wants to eat himself to death then fine. Freedom of choice. He's not harming anyone but himself. We don't detain all smokers, heavy drinkers, etc.
  11. The Mental Health Act states that people must not be deemed to have a form of Mental Disorder "by reason only of promiscuity or other immoral conduct, sexual deviancy or dependence on alcohol or drugs". Use of alcohol and other substances might sometimes cause a Mental Disorder which is within the scope of the Act, but use of these substances in itself cannot be within the scope of the Act.

    So there!
  12. That's a comprehensive rebuttal.

    But I am surprised that this chuffer was detained under it as his condition appears more physiological than psychological. Surely a medical more than a mental condition. As far as I'm aware there is no legislation requiring someone to receive medical treatment if they are of sound mind. Is there?
  13. Passive Smoking - Lock him up

    Cancer Risk - Sue him

    Fire Hazard - Put him out
  14. His disease is real and documented as much as i will laughat fat people
    in his case he cant help himself because he is mad
  15. Would not a lockable "Count of Monte Cristo" style mask have been cheaper?
    They could keep the key at the local Police station, and each day, he could turn up with his coolbox, they unlock it for a couple of minutes, and he shovels in as many Ginsters as he can. Seems obvious to me!