Carl Thompson – A Matter of Neglect?

By Max Musson:

Carl Thompson 2Carl Thompson, dubbed ‘Britain’s fattest man’, weighed 65 stones when he died and had been appealing for dietary and psychological help in order to overcome his addiction to eating.

It would appear that Carl had an eating disorder for more than a decade as by his own admission, his relationship with his last girlfriend ended approximately ten years ago as a result of his overweight. Carl reputedly weighed approximately 20 stones at that time, but his overeating worsened significantly following the death of his mother three years ago, leading to him becoming unable to work then housebound, and finally unable to move from his bed as his weight escalated.

According to various newspaper articles, Carl ate a diet with a calorific value of 10,000 calories per day – a daily diet consisting of: four sausages, five fried eggs, fried bread, a pan of mushrooms fried in butter, and a bowl of cereal with full fat milk for his breakfast; followed by a bowl of pasta, chips, bacon, pork pies, crisps, pasties, sandwiches, and chocolate for his lunch; followed by £25 worth of takeaway food for his dinner, interspersed with snacks consisting of £10 worth of chocolate bars per day. He was apparently able to buy all of this food with the money provided for him in state benefits.

This tragic case clearly raises some serious issues, as anyone with any common sense would question how it was that a man who was unable to stand, let alone walk, could obtain all of this food, enough to eat himself to death?

Carl was apparently undergoing medical treatment for his eating disorder, he also had two carers who used to visit him twice a day to wash him and prepare his food, and he had given a key to his home to at least one of the proprietors of a local fast food outlet, so that food could be delivered to his bedside.

It would appear therefore that Carl’s carers and the proprietors of the local takeaway food establishments were responsible for continually placing food in front of him — food that he was unable to stop himself from eating. Not just a little too much food, mind you, but four or five times the amount of food that any normal person would eat! And we are expected to believe that they didn’t realise what they were doing was wrong?

It was not simply a matter that Carl was slightly overweight and could therefore still be regarded as capable to looking after his own affairs, it was not even a matter of him being a grossly obese person with a serious eating disorder but who could still be relied upon to draw the line before actually gorging himself to death. No, Carl was ‘Britain’s fattest man’, a man so grotesquely obese that he had become a hideous mountain of fat and flab, unable to care for himself and reduced to wallowing helplessly in his bed. Clearly he had lost mental capacity and matters should have been taken out of his hands. Carl Thompson had himself appealed for psychiatric help and had asked to be taken into hospital!

It appears however that Carl’s requests were rejected on the grounds there were insufficient hospital facilities available. Apparently a man with an obviously morbid psychiatric illness, who routinely abused his body to such an extent that imminent death was inevitable without urgent medical and psychiatric intervention, was not a high enough priority for today’s National Health Service!

He had clearly lost the capacity to make rational decisions regarding his food intake and others responsible for his care should have taken the appropriate action. It cannot possibly be argued that those responsible didn’t notice how dire his situation had become. No-one can claim they didn’t realise this man, who weighed as much as the combined weight of five normal men, had become so morbidly obese that he was clearly incapable of making rational decisions.

He should have been sectioned under the Mental Health Act and admitted to hospital as a matter of urgency, just as anyone found trying to overdose on any other kind of lethal substance would have been. The police have stated that they do not suspect foul-play regarding his death, but one must ask the question why no-one is considering levying charges of criminal negligence against those responsible for his care?

If it is not tantamount to criminal negligence to fail to place in protective custody someone in Carl Thompson’s condition, we must ask ourselves, why it isn’t? And if it is not criminal negligence to keep placing four or five times the normal amount of food in front of someone who is a compulsive eater, we must again ask why?

By Max Musson © 2015

# # # #


10 thoughts on “Carl Thompson – A Matter of Neglect?

  1. I agree with this article — taking the piss out of this guy really isn’t on. If he had had any real friends they would’ve stepped in and made sure he wasn’t getting anymore food, and the takeaway, probably non-White, would’ve been warned to keep away from him. At 32, he should’ve been looking towards a great future but instead he died – at 65 stone – in his bed. He was a product of this decadent culture; this would never, never happen in an nationalist society.

  2. A rather sorry tale, and not one which would normally reach consideration on a nationalist website. However, I am glad that it did. I see it as a part of getting back in touch with ourselves as a people and questioning the wider malaise that can be found in this ‘modern society’ that has been allowed to develop.
    I cannot begin to know what has really allowed this situation to develop all along the way, but perhaps the emotions of liberals have once again paved the way for hell to arrive?
    For example, maybe they have, at times, mistaken compassion (giving in to his hunger driven pangs or demands) for help. Maybe they saw it as “his rights” to order what he wanted (even though they knew he was pleading for psychological treatment)? Maybe they just could not stop him without sectioning him (which they claimed they could not or would not do)? Who knows, but something has gone seriously wrong and from here, going off this article, it sure looks like neglect to me.
    I am not a dietitian, but it does not seem like rocket science to create a situation where you can forcibly (and slowly) reduce not only the amount of intake but the kind of intake, over the space of weeks, months or years in a controlled environment. (As I doubt you could change such weight overnight!) It is astonishing that he was left to stagnate in this cycle for so long.
    As for the fast food outlets, well, we can all imagine what might have happened there. They were probably on good first name terms with the man, probably chummy with them as their ‘friend’, awkwardly laughing and joking over trivialities to cover up the obvious wrongness of the situation they were taking part in.
    The delivery driver was no doubt ‘just doing his job’ – after all, he must have ordered it, and well, they are not going to turn away their best customer (if he is spending that amount every single day). Their profit margins will come first, rather than refusing to deliver in the name of compassion.
    They will probably all just tell themselves/comfort themselves that if they don’t deliver it, somebody else would…. Yet, If he had been in the care of others, professionals, this situation would not have even been possible.
    It is disturbing that Carl had sought psychiatric help (and to be taken to a hospital) for treatment. It is bad enough / hard enough when it is somebody who does not want to stop, somebody who does not want to change…..but Carl had seemingly realised that he needed professional treatment, that he did not want to carry on as he was – and he had thus showed the first step to getting better. He seems to have been tragically denied this chance.
    As for lack of resources, I am sure we all know were a lot of resources could be saved, but they go without mentioning really.
    In regards to the police statement that there was “no foul play”, it is quite typical of the myopia that grips so much of society. I suppose we can all tend to pass on by and not give much of a thought to these kinds of statements or situations. Max has now brought this angle to it to the forefront.
    I guess in the view of the police, as long as Carl was not brutally murdered in a frenzy of violence, then there must have been no foul play. As we now see, it is not always so simple.
    I am sure people will say the same about Britain as a whole in the future. You know, that it has all “just happened”. It was a “natural death”. That things just ‘escalated’. That “nobody was responsible”….despite the keys being left at the door and despite people who are supposed to look after us allowing people to take advantage of a sick citizenry who, a bit like Carl, had lost their faculties.

  3. Michael Woodbridge

    - Edit

    I would fully endorse Shaun’s comments and the general tenure of the article. Our society has become so atomised, due to the immigrant invasion and the destruction of our previous sense of community, that no one, it would seem, had the common sense, decency or initiative to save this poor man’s life. Incredibly, he died despite the fact that his predicament had been broadcast on television for all the world to see, a kind of freak show for the dumbed down masses! He didn’t choose to be addicted to over-eating, it was obviously a mental illness beyond his control.

    A very serious question remains..Could it not be said that a society of such callousness, which would allow Carl Johnson to die in such a humiliating way, is every bit as mentally ill as he was?

  4. A Daily Telegraph article: We’re all responsible for the death of Britain’s fattest man.

    Thanks for that. I suppose we are all responsible for immigrants, too. Out of historical interest, there’s an account somewhere of the death of a fat man in I think 18th century England. With gruesome accounts of odour noticeable for miles.

  5. The problem is where to draw the line. Is there any difference between someone who over eats and a drug addict? I have known a few heroine addicts and they had not set out to be addicted. What about an addict who has become addicted to prescription drugs?

    1. When someone becomes an addict, whatever the substance involved, they also lose mental capacity and should be treated as such. This does not mean they can never regain mental capacity, but the matter should be taken out of their hands until they prove their ability to cope with the addiction and resist the temptation to abuse themselves.

  6. I accept the conclusions that most of the people here have come to but is this a case of focusing on the feckless White man as happens with the stories about benefit claimants?
    What about fat non Whites on benefits or disability, is it a case of the media saying look at this, don’t look at that?
    I don’t think things would be perfect in a White society but they would be a whole letter better than they are now.
    We would still probably have “Carls” but it would be manageable, very much a minority thing.

  7. Michael Woodbridge

    - Edit

    As individuals we’re only tiny markers on a long evolutionary process, as a race we’ll reached the stars. Those of our own blood should be cared for as we would care for our own family. That is the meaning of National Socialism. Who is to say that Carl wouldn’t have played a valuable part in our community had we still got a viable community? But, Mrs.Thatcher said there is no such thing as Society!

  8. Dear Mr Musson,

    A good and sympathetic article. But I am not sure if your statement re drug addicts lacking mental capacity is correct. The mental capacity act has a four part test to determine capacity: can the person understand the potential consequences of their action, weigh them up, retain the necessary information, and communicate their decision. Most addicts I have come across(I am an ex mental health worker) would pass the test and are in treatment not as a result of the mental capacity act but either because they recognise the need for change or because of a court order.

    Mr Thompson would also presumably passed the test and should have revived psychiatric / psychological treatment as someone with a serious life threatening disorder.

    It is yet another sad reflection on the lack of mental health services.

    1. Hi Dr John, you are right about the four stage test of mental capacity, however, there are additional provisions relating to the effects of a physical or mental illness which might ’cause you to make a decision that you would not make if you were well’. Drug addiction is a form of physical and/or mental illness that causes you to make decisions you would not make otherwise, such as injecting yourself with an ultimately poisonous substance.

Comments are closed.