Overweight haters Ltd target tube passengers.

[Chrism20]

Are any men being targeted?

It doesn't look like any men have came forward and reported anything although I suppose it's possible and they just haven't reported it.

It's pretty pathetic full stop and no doubt one of these cards will be handed to the wrong person and they will get walloped!

 

[455driver]

End up being arrested for GBH, probably, and I'm about as far as you can get from being violent.

I noticed from the photo that whichever piece of cancer wrote the cards is obviously of sub-normal intellect, given that they couldn't even spell "beautiful" correctly.

It would be ABH not GBH, unless you went to town on them!
A broken nose or jaw is just ABH.

 

[muz379]

Perhaps forcing patients to pay 20% of the costs (or losing benefits/pension money) of the medication required for self inflicted conditions (excluding occasions when the patient has an exceptional abnormality which makes them more susceptible) would help improve public health and help pay back the national debt.

What would count as self inflicted though

Say I fall of my mountain bike on a day out mountain biking and break my collar bone and result in the air ambulance (charitable i know) having to be called out and significant cost to the NHS in treating me .

Some might say that is self inflicted because there is no need for me to go mountain biking ?

I might have that many accident mountain biking that i actually cost the NHS more than my neighbor who smokes ?

What would the line be ?

 

[Kite159]

And how much do I bet the 'creatures' giving out these cards are overweight themselves (going by Body Mass index). Probably bitter that the NHS turned down their request for something pointless (nose enlargement) citing lack of funds

 

[GatwickDepress]

Perhaps forcing patients to pay 20% of the costs (or losing benefits/pension money) of the medication required for self inflicted conditions (excluding occasions when the patient has an exceptional abnormality which makes them more susceptible) would help improve public health and help pay back the national debt.

To be honest, it would probably cost more for the NHS to actually enforce those additional charges.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Perhaps forcing patients to pay 20% of the costs (or losing benefits/pension money) of the medication required for self inflicted conditions (excluding occasions when the patient has an exceptional abnormality which makes them more susceptible) would help improve public health and help pay back the national debt.

But how do you define self-inflicted?

My late grandfather-in-law died of throat cancer. He never smoked in his life, so you can't blame that, yet he did go to pubs and had friends who smoked. If he hadn't hung around with them or ever visited a pub in his life, perhaps he might not have gotten throat cancer? Should this therefore be considered self-inflicted?

 

[Antman]

But how do you define self-inflicted?

My late grandfather-in-law died of throat cancer. He never smoked in his life, so you can't blame that, yet he did go to pubs and had friends who smoked. If he hadn't hung around with them or ever visited a pub in his life, perhaps he might not have gotten throat cancer? Should this therefore be considered self-inflicted?

Presumably this goes back to before the dangers of passive smoking were known?

 

[Bevan Price]

Some people cannot help being overweight if they have a "slow" food processing body metabolism. It happened to a former work colleague of mine. It could easily happen to me if I ate more than what many people would describe as "tiny" portions of most foods.

 

[JamesRowden]

What would count as self inflicted though

Say I fall of my mountain bike on a day out mountain biking and break my collar bone and result in the air ambulance (charitable i know) having to be called out and significant cost to the NHS in treating me .

Some might say that is self inflicted because there is no need for me to go mountain biking ?

I might have that many accident mountain biking that i actually cost the NHS more than my neighbor who smokes ?

What would the line be ?

The law could apply only to conditions within a list where the doctor can by themselves prove beyond reasonable doubt that a life style choice directly caused the condition. Therefore, your mountain bike example would not be included unless there is proof that the rider was under the influence of drugs which would significantly hinder their control the situation (such as being drunk).

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

From the Report Hate Crime link

Hate crimes can include:

threatening behaviour
assault
robbery
damage to property
inciting others to commit hate crimes
harassment

After careful checking with a serving police officer whom I know very well, the two I have put in bold would, in this case, fall under hate crime

The fifth one might also be such as it might make others do the same too - personally, if I saw that happening, I'd give them buggers a taste of Yorkshire knuckle

 

[Antman]

From the Report Hate Crime link



After careful checking with a serving police officer whom I know very well, the two I have put in bold would, in this case, fall under hate crime

The fifth one might also be such as it might make others do the same too - personally, if I saw that happening, I'd give them buggers a taste of Yorkshire knuckle

And you would be arrested for a so called 'hate crime':roll:

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There is no such thing as hate crime (hating something isn't a crime) it's just a new trendy phrase but this certainly is offensive and I think BTP are quite right to be looking into it. I struggle to understand the mindset of those handing out these cards and what they hope to achieve by doing so.

In moral terms, I would consider a 'hate crime' to be any crime in which the main motivation was hatred for either the victim or a group of people to whom the victim belongs - and hence a specific desire to harm the victim. That's as opposed to many crimes for which the perpetrator is motivated by greed (probably most thefts) or spur-of-the-moment anger (some violent crimes) but didn't have any pre-planned conscious desire to harm the victim. The phrase 'hate crime' is linguistically a bit contorted, but I don't think that should detract from the point that such crimes certainly exist, are particularly repulsive, and there's a good case for arguing that hatred as a motivation for a crime should attract some additional penalty.

It does seem to me that the fact that the law apparently only defines a crime as a hate crime if it's directed based on certain specific hatreds is a problem with the law that ought to be fixed. Hatred and a desire to harm people is just as bad whether it's based on race, sex, weight, choice of clothing, affiliation to some subculture, football team, or whatever other excuse the perpetrator chooses to make for their hatred - and I'd suggest ought to be punished similarly.

 

[Antman]

In moral terms, I would consider a 'hate crime' to be any crime in which the main motivation was hatred for either the victim or a group of people to whom the victim belongs - and hence a specific desire to harm the victim. That's as opposed to many crimes for which the perpetrator is motivated by greed (probably most thefts) or spur-of-the-moment anger (some violent crimes) but didn't have any pre-planned conscious desire to harm the victim. The phrase 'hate crime' is linguistically a bit contorted, but I don't think that should detract from the point that such crimes certainly exist, are particularly repulsive, and there's a good case for arguing that hatred as a motivation for a crime should attract some additional penalty.

It does seem to me that the fact that the law apparently only defines a crime as a hate crime if it's directed based on certain specific hatreds is a problem with the law that ought to be fixed. Hatred and a desire to harm people is just as bad whether it's based on race, sex, weight, choice of clothing, affiliation to some subculture, football team, or whatever other excuse the perpetrator chooses to make for their hatred - and I'd suggest ought to be punished similarly.

Well somebody rarely assaults another person because they like them so on that basis any assault could be deemed a hate crime, it's just a meaningless emotive phrase really. Just call it what it is, assault, GBH or whatever

 

[tony_mac]

From the Report Hate Crime link

You didn't quote the first part:-

Crimes committed against someone because of their disability, gender-identity, race, religion or belief, or sexual orientation are hate crimes

 

[yorksrob]

If that's the list, I don't really see by what logic somebody's physical appearance should be excluded.

 

[tony_mac]

If that's the list, I don't really see by what logic somebody's physical appearance should be excluded.

the aim was to help protect those in society who are most frequently victims of such crimes.
The question of weight was actually brought up in the parliamentary debate

Mr. Greg Knight (East Yorkshire):
Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why he has decided not to include in the new clause the issues of size and age? Is it not just as offensive for someone to be the victim of a hate campaign or a crime on the grounds that they are extremely small, extremely fat or just plain old?
Mr. Heath:
If a class is discriminated against to the extent of criminal behaviour, there is an argument in that respect. That is not a reduction to the absurd—I hope that that is not the right hon. Gentleman's intention. The reason that we have used the words in question is simply that they have proved to be workable in a jurisdiction that has some similarities to ours, which is not an unreasonable suggestion. If it is possible, however, to identify a group in society that is subject to violent crime in particular on the basis of belonging to that class of society and no other reason, they deserve the protection of the laws and the courts of this country.
Let me give two examples of areas that are not covered by the present legislation. First, there are homophobic attacks, which are frequent, as we know, and they are recognised by the police and the courts, but they do not appear in statute at present. Secondly, there are crimes against those who have learning difficulties. In that respect, I am indebted to Mencap for its recent survey on the basis of 900 questionnaires. Of those surveyed, 88 per cent. reported being targeted during the past year, 66 per cent. reported being targeted regularly—more than once a month—32 per cent. reported being targeted on a daily or weekly basis, and 47 per cent. reported name calling as a kind of harassment, but only 17 per cent. told the police about it. That is a huge abuse in our society, which should be dealt with.

 

[Minilad]

If that's the list, I don't really see by what logic somebody's physical appearance should be excluded.

Because it's not a trendy "right on" thing to be hated for I guess.

If any of these jokers want to give me a card I will happily accept it. On the proviso they give me a burger at the same time

But if they give me one without the burger then I will viciously assault them by tapping them on the arm

 

[me123]

The law could apply only to conditions within a list where the doctor can by themselves prove beyond reasonable doubt that a life style choice directly caused the condition. Therefore, your mountain bike example would not be included unless there is proof that the rider was under the influence of drugs which would significantly hinder their control the situation (such as being drunk).

It's not as straightforward as some might think. Take an alcoholic. I can guarantee you that most of the population will claim that it is his/her fault that (s)he is in that position. But if that alcohol was given alcohol by their parents at age 8, was abused, and became addicted as a result of this and the traumatic social circumstances, would you still say that they were to blame? (And, sadly, this kind of thing does happen). Who is to blame? The parents? Social services? The patient tried to stop drinking a few days ago, and has turned up in A&E shaking violently because they've tried to stop their alcohol abruptly as part of a lifestyle change. Unfortunately, they are now in potentially life threatening alcohol withdrawal. Is this the patient's fault? They started drinking, and then they stopped so it's all down to their actions. But they have taken (ill advised) steps to actually stop drinking, so would you still charge them in this instance?

What about an 80 year old smoker with newly diagnosed lung cancer? When they started smoking, it was considered normal and the health risks were not fully understood. We now know that smoking is associated with huge morbidity and mortality, but by this point this patient was already addicted to the product. Who to blame here? The patient? What about the tobacco companies?

Besides, genetics plays a huge role in the development of most diseases, thus blaming patients for things that they can't always control is not moral. Smoking is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, but your genes also play a huge part. How can you blame a fat smoker for getting a heart attack (where their lifestyle has almost certainly played some contributing role), when you don't know that their genetics may have already predisposed them to it?

It's not a doctor's job to apportion blame. It's not a doctor's job to ask patients for a credit card. A doctor's job is to treat the patient, and apportioning blame is so far removed from that job that it compromises the role of the doctor. Policies to charge for "self-inflicted" diseases are nice headline grabbers, but they are completely unworkable in reality. At their worst, they would lead to huge socio-economic division, even beyond what we already have in this country. It is the most deprived who would suffer as a result of this policy, and that will only exacerbate our healthcare burden.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Well somebody rarely assaults another person because they like them so on that basis any assault could be deemed a hate crime, it's just a meaningless emotive phrase really. Just call it what it is, assault, GBH or whatever

I disagree. If you assault another person because you got into an argument with them and the argument became heated and you lost your self-control, but before the argument there was no malicious intent, that's somewhat different from assaulting another person because they are dressed as a goth and you hate goths and want to beat them up whenever you see them. Both are bad crimes which should be treated seriously by the police and the courts, but the second is arguably aggravated because of the underlying motive of hatred.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It would be ABH not GBH, unless you went to town on them!
A broken nose or jaw is just ABH.

Yes, I know, I worked in criminal law for a while. I meant GBH

Perhaps forcing patients to pay 20% of the costs (or losing benefits/pension money) of the medication required for self inflicted conditions (excluding occasions when the patient has an exceptional abnormality which makes them more susceptible) would help improve public health and help pay back the national debt.

As others have also said, how does one define "self inflicted"?

I'm not small, and it's because I like nice food too much. I'm not exactly a triathlete but I'm fit enough to road cycle, go to the gym, and occasionally hill walk and ski. The NHS haven't paid a penny for treatment for issues related to weight. The most recent NHS treatment I've had was for a broken foot which I did on the treadmill at the local gym. Before that it was a sinus problem triggered by heavy pollution where I lived and worked in London.

Is running at the gym "self inflicted"? Is living in London "self inflicted"? Is a broken leg done skiing, or a broken arm from coming off the bike, "self inflicted"?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well somebody rarely assaults another person because they like them so on that basis any assault could be deemed a hate crime, it's just a meaningless emotive phrase really. Just call it what it is, assault, GBH or whatever

They do, but the law quite rightly recognises that assaulting someone because of their gender, ethnicity or disability is more serious then assaulting someone because you got into a drunken brawl. The law recognises this by calling it xx aggravated assault, for instance. They still call it assault. The shorthand is "hate crime" but that's all it is: shorthand.

 

[Antman]

I disagree. If you assault another person because you got into an argument with them and the argument became heated and you lost your self-control, but before the argument there was no malicious intent, that's somewhat different from assaulting another person because they are dressed as a goth and you hate goths and want to beat them up whenever you see them. Both are bad crimes which should be treated seriously by the police and the courts, but the second is arguably aggravated because of the underlying motive of hatred.

Heat of the moment might be accepted in mitigation but I still don't accept this hate crime nonsense

 

[Bletchleyite]

And how much do I bet the 'creatures' giving out these cards are overweight themselves (going by Body Mass index).

The problem with BMI is that a bodybuilder or rugby player with a very low body fat percentage is highly likely to show as "obese" because muscle weighs more than fat.

Body fat percentage is a much better measure of if you're fat or not. It's just not as easy to measure accurately.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As others have also said, how does one define "self inflicted"?

I wonder if it has ever been thought that obesity is, in some people, potentially a form of (mild) mental illness? As in that, like a smoker, they may want to cut down on food but not feel able to for whatever reason?

That turns around the "self inflicted" thing slightly.

Is running at the gym "self inflicted"? Is living in London "self inflicted"? Is a broken leg done skiing, or a broken arm from coming off the bike, "self inflicted"?

Therein lies the problem with the "self inflicted" thing. Once you start, the only logical end is to abolish the NHS and replace with a private, insurance-based system where what you pay is based entirely on your risk. Such a system could still receive a per-head subsidy, of course, or even based on risk factors you can't control e.g. age or long-term illnesses.

Otherwise, you get complicated ones. Let's say you have a runner who runs 50 miles a week and needs a knee replacement on the NHS at 50, say. The knee replacement need is self-inflicted, however the fact that he has run 50 miles a week for his adult life probably means he has optimal blood pressure, low body fat etc and thus has avoided a need for other[1] expensive treatments.

([1] Actually there is also a condition called "athlete's heart" in which the heart gets stronger and so the resting pulse rate drops very low, which *can* require a pacemaker...but I digress )

But I prefer the idea of us just coughing up in proportion to ability to pay for an NHS free at the point of use, to be honest, even if I would probably be financially better off in a US-style totally private system because I've generally been lucky enough not to have any major health problems. It's just too complicated otherwise, and there will always be genuine cases that lose out compared with a broad NHS.

 

[muz379]

The law could apply only to conditions within a list where the doctor can by themselves prove beyond reasonable doubt that a life style choice directly caused the condition. Therefore, your mountain bike example would not be included unless there is proof that the rider was under the influence of drugs which would significantly hinder their control the situation (such as being drunk).

Do Dr's not already have enough to do ?


As for lifestyle choices , some things like alcoholism whilst on the face of it appear the persons fault are actually sometimes outside of their control . I have spoken to an AA member who goes round giving talks to groups of people before and his experience was that he could never consume alcohol in moderation it was all or nothing so in his younger years what started as normal social drinking spiraled out of control because he did not have this ability to moderate it that other people have . The only solution for him is no alcohol at all . Which is easier said than done when your body is craving that because you have become addicted to it

Heat of the moment might be accepted in mitigation but I still don't accept this hate crime nonsense

So if a group of Muslims surrounded your house and torched it because they knew a white british christian man lived in there you would be happy that they just got charged with the same offence as a kid messing around with a box of matches ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do Dr's not already have enough to do ?

And in any case mountain biking, whether under the influence or not, *is* a relatively dangerous pastime compared with other cycling. Breaks, sprains etc are very common compared with road cycling, for instance.

It's a can of worms that can only end in a US-style system of insurance with payment based on risk. And I'd rather a few people got money they perhaps didn't entirely deserve than that we went there. A properly funded public health system is in my view the mark of a civilised society.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'd rather a few people got money they perhaps didn't entirely deserve than that we went there.

And lets face it, they've already paid more into the system. Alcohol and tobacco have huge taxes- nearly 40% of the cost of a pint of beer is tax- and "fatty foods" such as biscuits, pop and takeaway food are already taxed at 20%.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And here's the Daily Mash's take on it

A MAN who gave an insulting weight-based card to a tough coach driver is currently pinned against a wall.

Snide 46-year-old Wayne Hayes handed a note saying ‘You’re fat and disgusting’ to passerby Nikki Hollis.

Hollis, who drives coaches full of annoying kids across Europe and doesn’t take any ****, pinned Hayes against a wall as he unconvincingly explained that it was all about highlighting the health risks of obesity rather than his own malicious, weirdly self-righteous amusement.

At that point Hollis’s boyfriend Norman Steele, who works the door at local fighting-type nightclubs and has a thick muscular neck, emerged from a shop and asked Hollis what was going on.

She handed him the note and his face darkened.

Onlooker Susan Traherne said: “The small man is trying to wheedle his way out of it. It’s not looking good though. I think they’re going to make him eat the card and then see how it goes from there.

“I hope hospital food isn’t too fattening because he may be getting some of that soon.”

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/fat-shaming-leads-to-arse-kicking-20151202104374

 

[muz379]

And lets face it, they've already paid more into the system. Alcohol and tobacco have huge taxes- nearly 40% of the cost of a pint of beer is tax- and "fatty foods" such as biscuits, pop and takeaway food are already taxed at 20%.

But cakes are not subject to vat and in my personal experience they have a superior fattening effect

Being serious though studies have shown smoking costs the economy more than it contributes through taxes .


That Said I personally still agree with Neil in that I would rather a few people recieved treatment for self inflicted injuries than have a litigious system with insurers arguing over who deserves what .

I am reasonably sure you could look at every aspect of every persons life and find things that they have done which are unnecessary which place them at an additional risk of developing certain diseases .Some are more obvious than others of course .

 

[Antman]

Do Dr's not already have enough to do ?


As for lifestyle choices , some things like alcoholism whilst on the face of it appear the persons fault are actually sometimes outside of their control . I have spoken to an AA member who goes round giving talks to groups of people before and his experience was that he could never consume alcohol in moderation it was all or nothing so in his younger years what started as normal social drinking spiraled out of control because he did not have this ability to moderate it that other people have . The only solution for him is no alcohol at all . Which is easier said than done when your body is craving that because you have become addicted to it



So if a group of Muslims surrounded your house and torched it because they knew a white british christian man lived in there you would be happy that they just got charged with the same offence as a kid messing around with a box of matches ?

Oh what, so calling it a hate crime would make me feel so much better about it?

 

[muz379]

Oh what, so calling it a hate crime would make me feel so much better about it?

No but the extra severity the offence would be treated with by the courts when passing sentence might make you feel better about things .

Not to mention understanding why the offender has done what they have done could then give us better ways to address or understand their behavior .

Obviously someone who has burnt down a house because the occupants are a different race or religion to them needs different treatment than someone who burnt down a house because playing with fire is fun .

 

[Bletchleyite]

Obviously someone who has burnt down a house because the occupants are a different race or religion to them needs different treatment than someone who burnt down a house because playing with fire is fun .

I think I would keep that simply to someone who burns a house down because they wished to cause harm (physical or mental) to the occupants is more serious than someone who burns a house down because they like playing with fire but had no harmful intent against its owners/occupiers, and not bring the reason why into it at all (other than possibly premeditation/revenge issues).

If someone died in such a fire, I'd see that as the difference between murder (intent to kill) and manslaughter (killing without intent nor reasonable expectation of it).

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

And you would be arrested for a so called 'hate crime':roll:

Yorkshire knuckle is a sandwich :roll: