Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Malnourishment


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#1 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 17,061 posts

Posted 18 November 2013 - 10:42 AM

Last year 5499 people were treated in England as in-patients in hospital for malnutrition.  In 2008, this was 3161 (Source: MEN)

 

According to the NHS, 3m people in Britain are believed to be malnourished at any one time and many more are at risk (Source: NHS)

 

No need for additional commentary really, those two lines say it all.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#2 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,339 posts

Posted 18 November 2013 - 01:03 PM

Why though? Unless it was mistreated children, there is no actual reason for it.



#3 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,610 posts

Posted 18 November 2013 - 01:11 PM

Last year 5499 people were treated in England as in-patients in hospital for malnutrition.  In 2008, this was 3161 (Source: MEN)

 

According to the NHS, 3m people in Britain are believed to be malnourished at any one time and many more are at risk (Source: NHS)

 

No need for additional commentary really, those two lines say it all.

 

those two lines say it all.     Hardly.  Anyway, go on lets hear it. 

 

From your NHS link -  "Malnutrition is caused by either an inadequate diet or a problem absorbing nutrients from food. There are many reasons why this might happen, including having reduced mobility, a long-term health condition or a low income."



#4 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 17,061 posts

Posted 18 November 2013 - 01:13 PM

Why though? Unless it was mistreated children, there is no actual reason for it.

Some of the stories I've read recently make me really wonder.  Church emergency food supplies being rationed because they're over-subscribed.  Food bank usage going up with the food banks themselves having to make harder checks on eligibility to ensure they have enough stocks.  Adults sanctioned for benefit infractions having to stop paying all bills bar heating and prioritising feeding their kids to the point that they (the adults) are having one meal a day of utmost basic food.  I've seen a few of the begging letters to councils from such charities asking for money because they're on the last bits of their financial reserves.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#5 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,610 posts

Posted 18 November 2013 - 01:17 PM

Hhave a look here:

 

http://www.worldlife...ion/by-country/

 

You'll see the socialist paradise of France has it cracked--- a malnutrition death rate  some 660% WORSE than that in the UK. In fact, the UK record seems to be one of the best in the world.  


Edited by JohnM, 18 November 2013 - 01:18 PM.


#6 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 17,061 posts

Posted 18 November 2013 - 01:17 PM

those two lines say it all.     Hardly.  Anyway, go on lets hear it. 

 

From your NHS link -  "Malnutrition is caused by either an inadequate diet or a problem absorbing nutrients from food. There are many reasons why this might happen, including having reduced mobility, a long-term health condition or a low income."

When was the last time you heard a politician actually addressing such basic needs failures?  Even the Lib Dems are mightily pleased with themselves for their ambush while their owner, Dave Cameron, is out of the country and asking for another tax cut for the lowest paid workers.  What about those who fall below even that lowest level of minimum wage?  They're the least likely to vote and also are unable to donate to political parties therefore aren't that relevant to the vast majority of politicians.

As far as I'm concerned, even the most work-shy scrounger the world has ever seen deserves to be caught by the state safety net sufficiently that they can feed themselves to a point above malnutrition.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#7 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,339 posts

Posted 18 November 2013 - 01:19 PM

Some of the stories I've read recently make me really wonder.  Church emergency food supplies being rationed because they're over-subscribed.  Food bank usage going up with the food banks themselves having to make harder checks on eligibility to ensure they have enough stocks.  Adults sanctioned for benefit infractions having to stop paying all bills bar heating and prioritising feeding their kids to the point that they (the adults) are having one meal a day of utmost basic food.  I've seen a few of the begging letters to councils from such charities asking for money because they're on the last bits of their financial reserves.

I know there are many skint people; I am heading that way myself now. But I can tell you for definite that you can, if you shop wisely and do a little bit of digging, eat very well on a low budget. That some people don't is a problem for themselves and not something the government can do about. 

 

I aren't talking about every single case here obviously and I know there is some people genuinely in need but even someone on the lowest benefits can eat, if not like a king, fairly well using the cheaper supermarkets or markets.



#8 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 17,061 posts

Posted 18 November 2013 - 01:20 PM

Hhave a look here:

 

http://www.worldlife...ion/by-country/

 

You'll see the socialist paradise of France has it cracked--- a malnutrition death rate  some 660% higher than that in the UK. In fact, the UK record seems to be one of the best in the world.  

France is in a bit of a death spiral, they've taxed out all the money generators and they're screwing every penny out of anyone with a penny to spare yet they refuse to stop spending on utterly idiotic state white elephants while at the same time making it harder and harder for employers to get any value for money from actually employing someone.

 

As you'll see, I'm not unaware of the implications of idiot taxation and government policies.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#9 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,610 posts

Posted 18 November 2013 - 01:21 PM

More info from the BBC here:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185



#10 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 10,649 posts

Posted 18 November 2013 - 01:21 PM

I might be at risk, so I've started on a new packet of biscuits.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#11 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 42,194 posts

Posted 18 November 2013 - 01:24 PM

Why though? Unless it was mistreated children, there is no actual reason for it.

How about old people living alone and who aren't mobile?

People with mental health problems who omit to care fir themselves?

Parents who can't afford to feed themselves able their children as well able so feed their children and also without themselves?

People who eat but eat is deficient diet?

Those with bulimia and anorexia nervosa?

Those with issues regarding metabolism and/or assimilation of nutrients?


Edited by l'angelo mysterioso, 18 November 2013 - 01:25 PM.

WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#12 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 17,061 posts

Posted 18 November 2013 - 01:30 PM

I know there are many skint people; I am heading that way myself now. But I can tell you for definite that you can, if you shop wisely and do a little bit of digging, eat very well on a low budget. That some people don't is a problem for themselves and not something the government can do about. 

 

I aren't talking about every single case here obviously and I know there is some people genuinely in need but even someone on the lowest benefits can eat, if not like a king, fairly well using the cheaper supermarkets or markets.

I actually worked out that I could feed myself, pure food costs alone, to a very good and close to excellent standard for about £30 a week if I planned it appropriately.  If I reduced that to a merely "good" standard I'm sure I could cut it even further, maybe £20-£25 or even less if I really thought about it.

 

How about an innovative benefits review that worked on a minimum food value per head and gave that as food stamps/debit card instead of cash as part of an overall benefits package?  Just a suggestion, probably many more clever people out there working in the appropriate field that could come up with better ideas.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#13 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,339 posts

Posted 18 November 2013 - 01:33 PM

How about old people living alone and who aren't mobile?

People with mental health problems who omit to care fir themselves?

Parents who can't afford to feed themselves able their children as well able so feed their children and also without themselves?

People who eat but eat is deficient diet?

Those with bulimia and anorexia nervosa?

Those with issues regarding metabolism and/or assimilation of nutrients?

The bits in bold.... the latter must be an absolutely miniscule percentage, and even if it were true surely you would be on medication? Ditto bulimia or anorexia -and that's a totally different case anyway.

 

As for the rest, I am telling you that you can afford to feed your kids on the benefits given. Not the life of Riley, nor can you afford to run a car but in terms of getting cheap nutritious fruit and veg, there are umpteen options for getting enough. I aren't saying nobody is not getting enough, I am saying that , in most cases, there is adequate but basic provision. A mate of mine is malnourished but it's because he is a total passhead and nobody else's fault.



#14 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,339 posts

Posted 18 November 2013 - 01:36 PM

I actually worked out that I could feed myself, pure food costs alone, to a very good and close to excellent standard for about £30 a week if I planned it appropriately.  If I reduced that to a merely "good" standard I'm sure I could cut it even further, maybe £20-£25 or even less if I really thought about it.

 

How about an innovative benefits review that worked on a minimum food value per head and gave that as food stamps/debit card instead of cash as part of an overall benefits package?  Just a suggestion, probably many more clever people out there working in the appropriate field that could come up with better ideas.

Since I lost my job, I have gone from going to the supermarket and wandering round throwing stuff in, a lot of which ended up getting wasted, to planning meals and spending approximately half what I used to. Not to mention popping in during the week to get a pint of milk and spending £30-40. Farmfoods and Aldi -it's the future.



#15 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 42,194 posts

Posted 18 November 2013 - 01:36 PM

The bits in bold.... the latter must be an absolutely miniscule percentage, and even if it were true surely you would be on medication? Ditto bulimia or anorexia -and that's a totally different case anyway.

 

As for the rest, I am telling you that you can afford to feed your kids on the benefits given. Not the life of Riley, nor can you afford to run a car but in terms of getting cheap nutritious fruit and veg, there are umpteen options for getting enough. I aren't saying nobody is not getting enough, I am saying that , in most cases, there is adequate but basic provision. A mate of mine is malnourished but it's because he is a total passhead and nobody else's fault.

You said that unless it was mistreated children there was no reason for it


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#16 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,339 posts

Posted 18 November 2013 - 01:39 PM

You said that unless it was mistreated children there was no reason for it

There isn't. Adults can look after themselves, those that are unable to are looked after by other adults. That's the theory anyway



#17 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 42,194 posts

Posted 18 November 2013 - 01:42 PM

There isn't. Adults can look after themselves, those that are unable to are looked after by other adults. That's the theory anyway


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#18 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 42,194 posts

Posted 18 November 2013 - 01:43 PM

That's right it's the theory


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#19 Griff9of13

Griff9of13
  • Coach
  • 6,051 posts

Posted 18 November 2013 - 02:02 PM

There are lots of elderly people who regularly fail to eat sufficiently. I have seen them myself when I was last an in patient in hospital and I have a friend who works in a care home and she tells me one of their main problems is to get their residents to eat properly. Those who've been alone for a while seem to just get out of the habit for one reason or another. 


"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

#20 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 18 November 2013 - 02:12 PM

There are lots of elderly people who regularly fail to eat sufficiently. I have seen them myself when I was last an in patient in hospital and I have a friend who works in a care home and she tells me one of their main problems is to get their residents to eat properly. Those who've been alone for a while seem to just get out of the habit for one reason or another. 

It's pretty difficult with small children too.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users