August 2, 2009

Mysterious cause of obesity identified

Following in depth research by a single journalist, into the life of a never-employed, 25 year old obese British lass, the cause of obesity has been proven: it's the government's fault.

"A 25-year-old unemployed woman who was given an £8,000 operation to help her lose 16 stone is complaining because, as well as her weight loss, her benefits have been reduced."

Laura Ripley, who has never worked, was given the operation on the NHS to help her slim down from 38 to 22 stone.

But the 25-year-old, who receives £600 a month in benefits, is unhappy because as a result of losing weight she can no longer claim disability allowance amounting to an extra £340 a month.

This, she says, means she cannot afford to eat healthily - causing her to pile the weight back on.

'I can't afford to buy WeightWatchers crisps and cereal bars any more so I eat Tesco's chocolate bars and packets of Space Invaders crisps, sometimes four of each a day', says Laura, who spends seven hours a day watching TV.

'People ask why I don't snack on an apple - they're cheap, but emotionally I don't always feel like an apple.'

Indeed, one does not, emotionally, always feel like an apple.

Sometimes, emotionally, one wants chocolates and crisps.

"Since the extra allowance stopped Laura has put on a stone in just three weeks and claims she is being treated unfairly."

'It's heartbreaking that after all my hard work losing this weight someone's come along and ruined it.'

Gastric bypass surgery, gifted by surgeons and taxpayers is, by any measure, extremely hard work for a young lass.

"Laura has been offered another operation on the NHS, which would normally cost £12,000, to remove the saggy skin left behind after the dramatic weight loss, but only if she sheds a further five stone, and until then she has no plans to find a job.

'I'm not even applying for work at the moment because I'm only going to have to have lots of time off when I have more surgery.'"

Let's take a flying guess that Laura won't be losing that five stone any time soon, at least not while she can still claim some benefits, sufficient to cover the crisps and chocolates bill.

"I sometimes feel guilty about all the taxpayers' money that's been spent on me but I only want an extra £100 a month, that's all', says Laura."

Sometimes? Clearly not frequently enough.

"I can't afford to eat healthily" says £600-a-month benefits woman who weighs 22 stone


  1. Obesity epidemic yada yada yada, waste of taxpayers money blah blah blah.

    The really interesting thing in the article is that a person has again allowed themselves to be the subject of public ridicule.

    I would love to know how the media manages this. Do they put out an advertisement that reads;

    "Wanted: Self confessed loser who wants to be made to look foolish and is prepared to lose any last tattered shreds of self-esteem for the purpose of public entertainment. You must be either overweight, anorexic, unemployed, unattractive and have good whinging skills. Remuneration will be commensurate with level of self loathing."

    Please don't tell me it's just a 15 minutes of fame thing. It couldn't be, could it?

  2. Danny, Danny, Danny - the young lady is convinced that by having her sad tale published the public will protest her shoddy treatment & measly allowance and the government, in fear of losing seats at the next election, will direct social services to provide the lass with an additional one hundred pounds per month, which is currently her only aspiration in life - whether that's in cash or weight will be at the discretion of the government officials managing her case, of course.

  3. Try this guy for a good explanation of the whole pathology.

  4. LOL BoaB, I misread that as "whale pathology"... oops.

    Danny, she's a VICTIM and it's everyone else's fault.

    She can not see that she is to blame.

    Worked so hard after the gastric bypass... oh puhleese!

  5. My word Caz, your giving Laura Ripley a great deal of credit. How could Ripley, who is so obviously a bloody fool, come up with the clever scheme you suggest all on her own?

    Nah, me thinks an unscrupulous journo has won Laura's trust and then shafted her for a saleable story.

    Not convinced? Click on the authors name (Eleanor Glover) in the article, which will neatly present all of her previous articles. Not exactly a collection of hard-hitting, thought provoking articles that demonstrate outstanding jornalistic credibility.

    BOAB... very sad story. Awful situation.

    Kae... I don't feel any pity for her self inflicted situation. She's a fool. I just wonder at what point does the exhibition of a human oddity become exploitative.

  6. "I just wonder at what point does the exhibition of a human oddity become exploitative."

    Probably around the time it's intended to demean, insult, humiliate, ridicule the person.

    Kae - it's damned hard having to pick the low fat or the high fat brand of crisps. You try doing that on a stingy budget!

    Dan, you so have it in for journalists!!!


    I don't know. I think a lot of people, of all ages, willingly walk into these things, and then they're astonished that their view of themselves, the purity of their little beings, doesn't shine through when filtered by a journo, or a camera lens and an editing suite.

    I mean, truly, how stupid do you have to be?

    These people must read trash mags and believe what's written as gospel truth.

    Once was a time when church and community had tight control over social norms and sanctions for digressions. That's no longer the case. Patrolling community norms is now a more diffuse, and often ineffective, task, frequently played out by the tabloids and the television equivalent, and lapped up by the baying masses. Despite the breakdown of traditional community standards, the masses still like to draw a very wide line between themselves and the "other" - the transgressor.

    Journalists now offer that distinction up on a pre-digested platter for public consumption.

    Some would call it cheap entertainment, but mostly it's delineating acceptable (albeit getting lower by the day) social standards and behaviors. The dumbest and easiest way to do that is to point at what's unacceptable, mostly exemplified with extreme cases, which then taint all people within the target group, even those who do not resemble the extreme at all.

    Call it crowd control.

    At least the churches didn't muck about or pretend: either you were a witch or not, and they sure had a cure waiting for you!

    The days of yore look almost dignified compared to our era.

  7. I'm baffled that anyone would consider anything labelled Weight Watchers as healthy.

    I'd love to mock her for being a fatty and for being so pathetic but she is so pathetic that I just can't.

  8. Nails - yeah, her concern over the different brands of sugar loaded junk food was, err, touching in its stupidity.

  9. The last thing this girl wants is a job. She is lazy and has a very high sense of entitlement. Woe to any government that fosters that kind of citizen because eventually there just isn't enough money in the world to support a country full of freeloaders.