Kiwi-In-Texas
16th November 2007, 03:30 PM
Interesting reading...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4275561a10.html
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4275561a10.html
Carol
16th November 2007, 03:49 PM
Wonder what's next....
Only non-smokers?
Only those with no family history of diabetes or cancer?
Only those who can jog non-stop for half an hour?
Only those who pass a blood test for Mad cow disease?
Will New Zealanders become a super race?
Now that sounds familiar.....
Only non-smokers?
Only those with no family history of diabetes or cancer?
Only those who can jog non-stop for half an hour?
Only those who pass a blood test for Mad cow disease?
Will New Zealanders become a super race?
Now that sounds familiar.....
Moorf
16th November 2007, 05:08 PM
Only those who pass a blood test for Mad cow disease?
Whew - glad I got in when I did :D
Whew - glad I got in when I did :D
willsken
16th November 2007, 05:13 PM
:laugh :laugh
colindp
16th November 2007, 06:52 PM
This also happend to me, I was refused my WTR visa until I got my BMI down from 39....I lost count at the number of times I had to go back and forth to the doctors to obtain more info for the NZIS...Took me six months and thankfully my employers at the time were happy to wait for me.
:clap
:clap
jshack52
17th November 2007, 07:31 AM
Hi
we are moving to nz we hope in jan. my bmi is 34 as just had a baby, will i get in. no one has said what it has to get down to. My hubby is the one with a job offer and is a bean pole so hes ok but i dont want to stay here on my own, i have no family or friends here and no house as of last week. boo hoo.
jess
xxx
we are moving to nz we hope in jan. my bmi is 34 as just had a baby, will i get in. no one has said what it has to get down to. My hubby is the one with a job offer and is a bean pole so hes ok but i dont want to stay here on my own, i have no family or friends here and no house as of last week. boo hoo.
jess
xxx
BkyMonster
17th November 2007, 08:13 AM
a BMI of 35 and under doesn't seem to be an issue.
Of the three articles I've read on this situation none of them say if the people had other health issues other than high BMI.
I wonder what NZIS will say when my BMI is over but my waist measurements are under. :laugh
Of the three articles I've read on this situation none of them say if the people had other health issues other than high BMI.
I wonder what NZIS will say when my BMI is over but my waist measurements are under. :laugh
Nick88
17th November 2007, 09:28 AM
You mention Mad Cow Disease, are you aware that Brits can't give blood here until you have been here for 10 years? Just in case you have CJD. As for being a super race, well, eugenics and NZ politics go way back. It's an interesting bit of political history I haven't really looked at.
Carol
17th November 2007, 03:18 PM
As far as I know - you can't give blood if you lived in the UK for 6 months or more between certain years in the 1980s (can't remember them).
As it says here...
http://www.nzblood.co.nz/?t=41
But no-one has ever mentioned we could start again once we had been here 10 years.... as far as we are concerned it's forever!
A shame really - hubby used to donate platelets monthly until this was brought in about 6 years ago.
He had one of the highest platelet counts in Wellington.
Now he has to keep them all to himself!
:confused:
As it says here...
http://www.nzblood.co.nz/?t=41
But no-one has ever mentioned we could start again once we had been here 10 years.... as far as we are concerned it's forever!
A shame really - hubby used to donate platelets monthly until this was brought in about 6 years ago.
He had one of the highest platelet counts in Wellington.
Now he has to keep them all to himself!
:confused:
Pete & Sheila
17th November 2007, 07:37 PM
check out the sun newspaper this saturday page 45
IanW99
17th November 2007, 08:04 PM
check out the sun newspaper this saturday page 45
Can you send us a copy, don't seem to sell it in NZ?
Ian
Can you send us a copy, don't seem to sell it in NZ?
Ian
Moorf
17th November 2007, 08:29 PM
[QUOTE=Carol;164957]As far as I know - you can't give blood if you lived in the UK for 6 months or more between certain years in the 1980s (can't remember them).
As it says here... [QUOTE]
My doc said it was forever too, I was an avid blood donor... not sure I'll still be able to give away in another 7 yrs tho!
As it says here... [QUOTE]
My doc said it was forever too, I was an avid blood donor... not sure I'll still be able to give away in another 7 yrs tho!
jubjub
17th November 2007, 08:38 PM
Even blood donating in the UK is restricted due to the possible transference of mad Cow... I had corneal transplants and got told I could no longer give blood as i had received transplanted tissue..., I think it also applies if you have received blood transfusion products too.
It is a shame that weight is becoming such a large issue (excuse the pun) it could well start to put employers off recruiting the chunkier members of society from overseas, if they have to wait so long for them, guess you must need to be very highly skilled (and a determined weight watcher) for an employer to wait for you.
Good job I am not trying to get a work visa at the moment is all I can say! ;)
It is a shame that weight is becoming such a large issue (excuse the pun) it could well start to put employers off recruiting the chunkier members of society from overseas, if they have to wait so long for them, guess you must need to be very highly skilled (and a determined weight watcher) for an employer to wait for you.
Good job I am not trying to get a work visa at the moment is all I can say! ;)
lockstock
17th November 2007, 09:44 PM
This thread has just made it to page 9 of today's Daily Telegraph - and the forum gets a mention too!
Moorf
17th November 2007, 09:52 PM
:eek: Paper or online?
Edit: Found it.... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/17/wfat117.xml
It says lots of people on ENZ said they had been turned down due to weight... I can only see one on this thread! :uhoh
Edit: Found it.... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/17/wfat117.xml
It says lots of people on ENZ said they had been turned down due to weight... I can only see one on this thread! :uhoh
Moorf
18th November 2007, 09:34 AM
This story sure is getting a lot of air time - Fox News now covering it plus Independent/Press/NBR/TV3/Welly Post/The Sun/Daily Mail/Anorak.co.uk :laugh
The way I look at it, with a country fighting obesity itself, I can only think it's a reasonable request that they don't import people to add to the problem? It's a bit like the excess baggage claim (no pun intended) where, for some reason, people take offense at not being able to carry what they want onboard even if it's slightly over the regulated weights....
The way I look at it, with a country fighting obesity itself, I can only think it's a reasonable request that they don't import people to add to the problem? It's a bit like the excess baggage claim (no pun intended) where, for some reason, people take offense at not being able to carry what they want onboard even if it's slightly over the regulated weights....
duckdodgers
19th November 2007, 08:47 AM
Hi
Some of the articles mainly in the UK are incorrect So don't Panic everyone!!!:nice1
I did the story and I'm still waiting for my wife after leaving everything behind plus there are too many of us are having the same problem, So I decided to speak didn't think I 'd get a reaction like this must of touched a nerve.
just shows how quick these things can spread thanks to the net. the original article was for the NBR in NZ on Fri in response to an article about the lack of technical people coming to NZ.
I wouldn't mind but I'm on a talent visa so not a resident! so I can't see the problem we're not that big, plus the idea was a change of life style and to be more active, No more commuting 3 hours to work!
Hope this clears a few things up.
regards
Richie:exit
Some of the articles mainly in the UK are incorrect So don't Panic everyone!!!:nice1
I did the story and I'm still waiting for my wife after leaving everything behind plus there are too many of us are having the same problem, So I decided to speak didn't think I 'd get a reaction like this must of touched a nerve.
just shows how quick these things can spread thanks to the net. the original article was for the NBR in NZ on Fri in response to an article about the lack of technical people coming to NZ.
I wouldn't mind but I'm on a talent visa so not a resident! so I can't see the problem we're not that big, plus the idea was a change of life style and to be more active, No more commuting 3 hours to work!
Hope this clears a few things up.
regards
Richie:exit
Carol
19th November 2007, 09:04 AM
The stupidist thing of this whole sorry saga - is that going on a crash diet (which people are being forced to do) does nothing in the long term but encourage the weight to be gained back - in some cases (most even?) MORE so!
I know it's hitting a nerve with me personally because of my own BMI - but seriously - I think it is appalling.
I know it's hitting a nerve with me personally because of my own BMI - but seriously - I think it is appalling.
Jo Jo
19th November 2007, 10:14 AM
There was a very interesting article about BMI in The Guardian last year: The BMI Myth (http://www.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,,1958685,00.html).
This is something I am quite interested in as I am working on a study where, among other things, we are trying to find out about links between childhood obesity and later health. Sadly we won't have any data for adults for another 20 odd years! (In fact, I should be writing about this right now, rather than being on the forum!)
I do think, though, that the BMI requirement for entry to NZ seems very arbitrary, as BMI alone is a pretty inaccurate measurement of fat, and a poor predictor of future health, so it doesn't necessarily follow that someone who has a high BMI is going to be a drain on the NZ health services. Plus, it is possible to get medical waivers for some of the conditions that people who are overweight are at a higher risk of developing, such as diabetes. Are people excluded simply because their BMI is over a certain amount, or are other health factors taken into account?
This is something I am quite interested in as I am working on a study where, among other things, we are trying to find out about links between childhood obesity and later health. Sadly we won't have any data for adults for another 20 odd years! (In fact, I should be writing about this right now, rather than being on the forum!)
I do think, though, that the BMI requirement for entry to NZ seems very arbitrary, as BMI alone is a pretty inaccurate measurement of fat, and a poor predictor of future health, so it doesn't necessarily follow that someone who has a high BMI is going to be a drain on the NZ health services. Plus, it is possible to get medical waivers for some of the conditions that people who are overweight are at a higher risk of developing, such as diabetes. Are people excluded simply because their BMI is over a certain amount, or are other health factors taken into account?
Gemini
19th November 2007, 01:22 PM
I was going to be excluded purely on BMI until I got a waiver. My medical results were not indicative of any health issues, low cholestrol levels, normal blood sugar levels, normal BP, liver function etc. I appealed stating that the medical was not indicative of any problems and that it was unfair to penalise me given my health is good and I was given a medical waiver and here I am, still in good health :raebanana
Moorfs point earlier about importing future problems. Where does it end? Smokers, drinkers etc, problems can still develop later. I do think that there should be a clear health issue other than just weight to deny someone entry.
Moorfs point earlier about importing future problems. Where does it end? Smokers, drinkers etc, problems can still develop later. I do think that there should be a clear health issue other than just weight to deny someone entry.
Tay
21st November 2007, 12:51 AM
Moorfs point earlier about importing future problems. Where does it end?
Where the duely elected representatives of the country you are asking to immigrate to decide its to end. Being granted access to a country is a priviledge not a right. If you dont meet the criteria, for whatever silly reason, its tough luck.
I support the current rules, not because I agree with BMI as an accurate measure of health, but because I have seen the massive drain of resource in the NHS that has accompanied the UK's PC gone mad immigration policy.
This hasnt made big news because they feel sorry for the individuals (although I am sure many do), but because many many citizens of many countries wish they ahd the same rules and had the guts to stick to them. I hate the current system in thr UK where they let anyone in any physical or mental condition in. Might warm ther hearts of the liberals, but I dont ike it, and I am proud NZ is not going down the same path.
Its an individual right to be whatever weight you want, but there are consequences for it, accept the consequences of your actions.
Where the duely elected representatives of the country you are asking to immigrate to decide its to end. Being granted access to a country is a priviledge not a right. If you dont meet the criteria, for whatever silly reason, its tough luck.
I support the current rules, not because I agree with BMI as an accurate measure of health, but because I have seen the massive drain of resource in the NHS that has accompanied the UK's PC gone mad immigration policy.
This hasnt made big news because they feel sorry for the individuals (although I am sure many do), but because many many citizens of many countries wish they ahd the same rules and had the guts to stick to them. I hate the current system in thr UK where they let anyone in any physical or mental condition in. Might warm ther hearts of the liberals, but I dont ike it, and I am proud NZ is not going down the same path.
Its an individual right to be whatever weight you want, but there are consequences for it, accept the consequences of your actions.
Gemini
21st November 2007, 06:02 AM
Where the duely elected representatives of the country you are asking to immigrate to decide its to end. Being granted access to a country is a priviledge not a right. If you dont meet the criteria, for whatever silly reason, its tough luck.
I support the current rules, not because I agree with BMI as an accurate measure of health, but because I have seen the massive drain of resource in the NHS that has accompanied the UK's PC gone mad immigration policy.
This hasnt made big news because they feel sorry for the individuals (although I am sure many do), but because many many citizens of many countries wish they ahd the same rules and had the guts to stick to them. I hate the current system in thr UK where they let anyone in any physical or mental condition in. Might warm ther hearts of the liberals, but I dont ike it, and I am proud NZ is not going down the same path.
Its an individual right to be whatever weight you want, but there are consequences for it, accept the consequences of your actions.
That is the whole point though, I don't think anyone is questioning that there should be criteria in place, certainly the UK need to tighten up their procedures. I totally agree that conditions that are a drain on resources should be questioned and appropriate actions taken, however if my health is good, I have passed all of the medical tests (I have worked for the past ten+ years incidentally without any medical problems) why should I be penalised for a bmi higher than 30?
If a medical examination highlights potential illness/disability which would be worsened by high BMI/weight problem then that is a whole different issue. I just feel that as a sole factor it is unfairly discriminatory.
I support the current rules, not because I agree with BMI as an accurate measure of health, but because I have seen the massive drain of resource in the NHS that has accompanied the UK's PC gone mad immigration policy.
This hasnt made big news because they feel sorry for the individuals (although I am sure many do), but because many many citizens of many countries wish they ahd the same rules and had the guts to stick to them. I hate the current system in thr UK where they let anyone in any physical or mental condition in. Might warm ther hearts of the liberals, but I dont ike it, and I am proud NZ is not going down the same path.
Its an individual right to be whatever weight you want, but there are consequences for it, accept the consequences of your actions.
That is the whole point though, I don't think anyone is questioning that there should be criteria in place, certainly the UK need to tighten up their procedures. I totally agree that conditions that are a drain on resources should be questioned and appropriate actions taken, however if my health is good, I have passed all of the medical tests (I have worked for the past ten+ years incidentally without any medical problems) why should I be penalised for a bmi higher than 30?
If a medical examination highlights potential illness/disability which would be worsened by high BMI/weight problem then that is a whole different issue. I just feel that as a sole factor it is unfairly discriminatory.
Moorf
21st November 2007, 08:25 AM
I was going to be excluded purely on BMI until I got a waiver
You did the correct thing and took the matter further. What I don't understand is, as Tay said above, why some people (i.e. couple in the papers) believe the rules shouldn't apply to them or that they should have special treatment.
I remember before the medical wondering whether I fit their criteria - not whether their criteria suited me.
You did the correct thing and took the matter further. What I don't understand is, as Tay said above, why some people (i.e. couple in the papers) believe the rules shouldn't apply to them or that they should have special treatment.
I remember before the medical wondering whether I fit their criteria - not whether their criteria suited me.
wilson182
21st November 2007, 08:31 AM
I agree TBH, I mean - they have to draw the line somewhere, imagine how it would complicate/delay the WHOLE process if the lines started to get smudged. At least there is a process you can follow if you do happen to fall just outside the rules.
Tay
21st November 2007, 09:16 PM
I have passed all of the medical tests (I have worked for the past ten+ years incidentally without any medical problems) why should I be penalised for a bmi higher than 30?
They are minimalising the risk of a future cost. Its a sound idea. You might not be sick now, but its an established fact that all things else considered even, an obese person is more likely to suffer expensive illnesses in later life. Dont shoot the messenger, deep down, you know your weight is unhealthy, and if your weight is unhealthy, surely you can see why a country would not be keen to add you to its system? Immigrants are weighed up on what they can bring to the country.. positive and negative. This guy had great skills, but they obviously decided there was a good chance those skills would be of no use to NZ if him and his wife both got ill and couldnt work soon after arriving.
I am not anti overweight people, I just dont want the UK attitude of "its my right to say do and be any way I want regardless of the cos to society" attitude... to start in NZ.
I am sometimes a bit blunt and tactless... its a character flaw... but I ahve to deal with the consequences of this in my everyday life, its not different here, people are fat .. deal with the consequences. Do we have people complaining they cant get in as they dont have a formal qualification? And if we did.. would they get this coverage? People are being judged on academic intelligence in immigration process all the time.
They are minimalising the risk of a future cost. Its a sound idea. You might not be sick now, but its an established fact that all things else considered even, an obese person is more likely to suffer expensive illnesses in later life. Dont shoot the messenger, deep down, you know your weight is unhealthy, and if your weight is unhealthy, surely you can see why a country would not be keen to add you to its system? Immigrants are weighed up on what they can bring to the country.. positive and negative. This guy had great skills, but they obviously decided there was a good chance those skills would be of no use to NZ if him and his wife both got ill and couldnt work soon after arriving.
I am not anti overweight people, I just dont want the UK attitude of "its my right to say do and be any way I want regardless of the cos to society" attitude... to start in NZ.
I am sometimes a bit blunt and tactless... its a character flaw... but I ahve to deal with the consequences of this in my everyday life, its not different here, people are fat .. deal with the consequences. Do we have people complaining they cant get in as they dont have a formal qualification? And if we did.. would they get this coverage? People are being judged on academic intelligence in immigration process all the time.
jshack52
22nd November 2007, 02:18 AM
I agree that there should be restrictions and you have to drawn the line somewhere otherwise the process would be too complicated.
However, there should also be a couple of clearly defined areas where if you meet those conditions the case is reviewed on a case by case basis. These could be limited to factors such as sports persons who BMI needs to be higher than average but are healthy.
People such as myself that have never had a weight related illness but have just had a baby and are attending the gym currently.
People who have a non serious condition that may have made them gain weight
etc etc - a doc woudl be able to say what these few areas may be better than myself.
I would also add that the same should also be true for those who have a low BMI. I work with an anorexic lady and i assume she would get in and is much more unhealthy than myself.
Perhaps another way forward is to just get people who they deem too overweight for immigration purposes to sign a contract to loose x amounts of weight or attend a gym x amount of times per week and if they have not reduced the weight in a designated time frame (say 6 months) then they would then have to return home.
It is not right to split up families and this would mean people had an incentive to work on their weight, families can stay together and people will still want to employ the heavier person with skills.
I have my medical on Friday and have been going to the gym every day to get my BMI down. It was 34 when i just found out about the BMI requirements (which is not advertised on the list of problem illnesses, if i had have know i would have started a weight loss program as soon as the baby was born) . In any event i am told 34 is ok but better to be doing something for health reasons anyway. I do know that i am overweight and i do know i have to do something about it and that is different to those people who are not prepared to do so.
I would also say why not add a charge for the provision and review of a weight contract and then people cannot say we are wasting resources unfairly. It would also allow people who are just over the requirements but not morbidly obese to work on their weight in a healthy manner and not crash diet. I do not see the difference in loosing weight in NZ or the UK, except you area more likely to be successful over there where you have more of an outdoor lifestyle and a happier life overall. You would also not be split up from your family.
However, there should also be a couple of clearly defined areas where if you meet those conditions the case is reviewed on a case by case basis. These could be limited to factors such as sports persons who BMI needs to be higher than average but are healthy.
People such as myself that have never had a weight related illness but have just had a baby and are attending the gym currently.
People who have a non serious condition that may have made them gain weight
etc etc - a doc woudl be able to say what these few areas may be better than myself.
I would also add that the same should also be true for those who have a low BMI. I work with an anorexic lady and i assume she would get in and is much more unhealthy than myself.
Perhaps another way forward is to just get people who they deem too overweight for immigration purposes to sign a contract to loose x amounts of weight or attend a gym x amount of times per week and if they have not reduced the weight in a designated time frame (say 6 months) then they would then have to return home.
It is not right to split up families and this would mean people had an incentive to work on their weight, families can stay together and people will still want to employ the heavier person with skills.
I have my medical on Friday and have been going to the gym every day to get my BMI down. It was 34 when i just found out about the BMI requirements (which is not advertised on the list of problem illnesses, if i had have know i would have started a weight loss program as soon as the baby was born) . In any event i am told 34 is ok but better to be doing something for health reasons anyway. I do know that i am overweight and i do know i have to do something about it and that is different to those people who are not prepared to do so.
I would also say why not add a charge for the provision and review of a weight contract and then people cannot say we are wasting resources unfairly. It would also allow people who are just over the requirements but not morbidly obese to work on their weight in a healthy manner and not crash diet. I do not see the difference in loosing weight in NZ or the UK, except you area more likely to be successful over there where you have more of an outdoor lifestyle and a happier life overall. You would also not be split up from your family.
macuser
22nd November 2007, 05:18 AM
I completely agree that NZIS can have whatever restrictions, rules and regulations they want regarding granting residency. It is true too that the UK's seemingly unregulated entry system is a farce. The problem is that it is only because of this recent press story that people are aware of this unwritten, recent change in policy regarding BMI over 35.
There are many people who have been granted residency with a BMI over 35. In some cases nothing was mentioned re. BMI, in others they were granted a medical waiver and granted residency. It seems to be pot luck and some applicants, unaware of this it would be a complete waste of £685, submitting an ITA with a medical done when their BMI was over 35. If it stated anywhere in any of the guides to application that, "You will not be accepted if your BMI is over 35". then applicants would at least have the opportunity to comply before wasting their money.
I don't think anyone is saying that this rule is right or wrong.......it doesn't matter anyway, it is what it is and if we want to live in NZ we need to abide by the rules. It just seems to me that the rules appear to be different for different applicants. Why is this? That's what I think is unfair.
Good luck to everyone with their weightloss and fitness regimes.
regards
Helen
There are many people who have been granted residency with a BMI over 35. In some cases nothing was mentioned re. BMI, in others they were granted a medical waiver and granted residency. It seems to be pot luck and some applicants, unaware of this it would be a complete waste of £685, submitting an ITA with a medical done when their BMI was over 35. If it stated anywhere in any of the guides to application that, "You will not be accepted if your BMI is over 35". then applicants would at least have the opportunity to comply before wasting their money.
I don't think anyone is saying that this rule is right or wrong.......it doesn't matter anyway, it is what it is and if we want to live in NZ we need to abide by the rules. It just seems to me that the rules appear to be different for different applicants. Why is this? That's what I think is unfair.
Good luck to everyone with their weightloss and fitness regimes.
regards
Helen
wilson182
22nd November 2007, 05:26 AM
Hi jshack52...
Congrats on the baby :clap and I wish you success in your weight loss efforts. I've just lost 2 stone myself, I've turned into a bit of a gym geek:laugh - I hope your having fun.
Not to be picky, but I just wanted to add some comments to your post.
I agree that there should be restrictions and you have to drawn the line somewhere otherwise the process would be too complicated.
However, there should also be a couple of clearly defined areas where if you meet those conditions the case is reviewed on a case by case basis. These could be limited to factors such as sports persons who BMI needs to be higher than average but are healthy.
People such as myself that have never had a weight related illness but have just had a baby and are attending the gym currently.
People who have a non serious condition that may have made them gain weight
etc etc - a doc woudl be able to say what these few areas may be better than myself. Isn't that what the medical waiver does?
I would also add that the same should also be true for those who have a low BMI. I work with an anorexic lady and i assume she would get in and is much more unhealthy than myself. That's a really interesting point, I wonder if thats correct.
Perhaps another way forward is to just get people who they deem too overweight for immigration purposes to sign a contract to loose x amounts of weight or attend a gym x amount of times per week and if they have not reduced the weight in a designated time frame (say 6 months) then they would then have to return home. Good idea but sadly, I think people would still complain that they are being singled out unfairly. Possibly it would be harder also if they have made a life for themselves and friends.
It is not right to split up families and this would mean people had an incentive to work on their weight, families can stay together and people will still want to employ the heavier person with skills. This makes me sound really hard faced, BUT if being apart is not a good incentive - What is?
I have my medical on Friday and have been going to the gym every day to get my BMI down. It was 34 when i just found out about the BMI requirements (which is not advertised on the list of problem illnesses, if i had have know i would have started a weight loss program as soon as the baby was born) . In any event i am told 34 is ok but better to be doing something for health reasons anyway. I do know that i am overweight and i do know i have to do something about it and that is different to those people who are not prepared to do so. :nice1
I would also say why not add a charge for the provision and review of a weight contract and then people cannot say we are wasting resources unfairly. It would also allow people who are just over the requirements but not morbidly obese to work on their weight in a healthy manner and not crash diet. I do not see the difference in loosing weight in NZ or the UK, except you area more likely to be successful over there where you have more of an outdoor lifestyle and a happier life overall. You would also not be split up from your family.Again, I think you would still get a minority of people feeling that they are being targeted unfairly.
Debs xx
Congrats on the baby :clap and I wish you success in your weight loss efforts. I've just lost 2 stone myself, I've turned into a bit of a gym geek:laugh - I hope your having fun.
Not to be picky, but I just wanted to add some comments to your post.
I agree that there should be restrictions and you have to drawn the line somewhere otherwise the process would be too complicated.
However, there should also be a couple of clearly defined areas where if you meet those conditions the case is reviewed on a case by case basis. These could be limited to factors such as sports persons who BMI needs to be higher than average but are healthy.
People such as myself that have never had a weight related illness but have just had a baby and are attending the gym currently.
People who have a non serious condition that may have made them gain weight
etc etc - a doc woudl be able to say what these few areas may be better than myself. Isn't that what the medical waiver does?
I would also add that the same should also be true for those who have a low BMI. I work with an anorexic lady and i assume she would get in and is much more unhealthy than myself. That's a really interesting point, I wonder if thats correct.
Perhaps another way forward is to just get people who they deem too overweight for immigration purposes to sign a contract to loose x amounts of weight or attend a gym x amount of times per week and if they have not reduced the weight in a designated time frame (say 6 months) then they would then have to return home. Good idea but sadly, I think people would still complain that they are being singled out unfairly. Possibly it would be harder also if they have made a life for themselves and friends.
It is not right to split up families and this would mean people had an incentive to work on their weight, families can stay together and people will still want to employ the heavier person with skills. This makes me sound really hard faced, BUT if being apart is not a good incentive - What is?
I have my medical on Friday and have been going to the gym every day to get my BMI down. It was 34 when i just found out about the BMI requirements (which is not advertised on the list of problem illnesses, if i had have know i would have started a weight loss program as soon as the baby was born) . In any event i am told 34 is ok but better to be doing something for health reasons anyway. I do know that i am overweight and i do know i have to do something about it and that is different to those people who are not prepared to do so. :nice1
I would also say why not add a charge for the provision and review of a weight contract and then people cannot say we are wasting resources unfairly. It would also allow people who are just over the requirements but not morbidly obese to work on their weight in a healthy manner and not crash diet. I do not see the difference in loosing weight in NZ or the UK, except you area more likely to be successful over there where you have more of an outdoor lifestyle and a happier life overall. You would also not be split up from your family.Again, I think you would still get a minority of people feeling that they are being targeted unfairly.
Debs xx
Perksy
22nd November 2007, 05:31 AM
I wonder how the doctors assess the BMI. My husband is a mega-fit tee-total triathlete with hardly an ounce of fat on him and his medical shows him as 29. I do a bit of jogging but like a bit of wine and cheese and although a size 10/12 could do with losing half a stone or so. I wasn't expecting to fail the BMI but my medical records say 23 - in my dreams!!!
dharder
22nd November 2007, 05:45 AM
I wonder how the doctors assess the BMI. My husband is a mega-fit tee-total triathlete with hardly an ounce of fat on him and his medical shows him as 29. I do a bit of jogging but like a bit of wine and cheese and although a size 10/12 could do with losing half a stone or so. I wasn't expecting to fail the BMI but my medical records say 23 - in my dreams!!!
It is a fixed formula that you use to calculate it: weight (kg) / [height (m)]2
There is a known problem with the 'superfit' and bodybuilders and weight lifters, because they might actuall show up as overweight when they aren't. But I think taken the entire population, that is going to be a rather small group.
The doctor at my medical didn't calculate my BMI at all and just wrote down <35.
Daniela
It is a fixed formula that you use to calculate it: weight (kg) / [height (m)]2
There is a known problem with the 'superfit' and bodybuilders and weight lifters, because they might actuall show up as overweight when they aren't. But I think taken the entire population, that is going to be a rather small group.
The doctor at my medical didn't calculate my BMI at all and just wrote down <35.
Daniela
Perksy
22nd November 2007, 05:58 AM
Thanks for the explanation Daniela. Might keep the info re the ultra fit to myself for now, it's rare that I look better on paper than hubby!!!
BkyMonster
22nd November 2007, 06:23 AM
I think the BMI calculation in addition to the waist measurement is probably a good indicator. BMI without any other information, not so much as bodies are different.
That said I'm sure I'm going to have a denial in my future. I'm hoping to get my waist down so I look a bit fitter on paper. :uhoh
Just going to keep working on it and hope for the best as I know I'm quite healthy and mobile otherwise.
That said I'm sure I'm going to have a denial in my future. I'm hoping to get my waist down so I look a bit fitter on paper. :uhoh
Just going to keep working on it and hope for the best as I know I'm quite healthy and mobile otherwise.
Tay
22nd November 2007, 06:41 AM
There is a known problem with the 'superfit' and bodybuilders and weight lifters, because they might actuall show up as overweight when they aren't. But I think taken the entire population, that is going to be a rather small group.
The entire New Zeland rugby side is clinically obese.....
The doctor at my medical didn't calculate my BMI at all and just wrote down <35.
Hope he loses his medical licence. Thats a disgrace. Not your fault and in your position I would just smile and take it as well, but I am appalled at your doctor.
The entire New Zeland rugby side is clinically obese.....
The doctor at my medical didn't calculate my BMI at all and just wrote down <35.
Hope he loses his medical licence. Thats a disgrace. Not your fault and in your position I would just smile and take it as well, but I am appalled at your doctor.
Gemini
22nd November 2007, 06:52 AM
They are minimalising the risk of a future cost. Its a sound idea. You might not be sick now, but its an established fact that all things else considered even, an obese person is more likely to suffer expensive illnesses in later life. Dont shoot the messenger, deep down, you know your weight is unhealthy, and if your weight is unhealthy, surely you can see why a country would not be keen to add you to its system?
I still say that is a generalisation based on "maybe". There are maybe's in absolutely any situation. If you smoke you have a higher risk of contracting particular diseases, if you drink you have a higher risk factor, if you already have an illness with a prognosis of later risk factor (Diabetes/Bi polar disorder). Every overweight person does not have health issues, nor does every overweight person remain overweight. What about people who slim down get to NZ and then gain weight. I'm not shooting the messenger, I just think the messenger should not be so smug because the particular issue does not affect them.
I still say that is a generalisation based on "maybe". There are maybe's in absolutely any situation. If you smoke you have a higher risk of contracting particular diseases, if you drink you have a higher risk factor, if you already have an illness with a prognosis of later risk factor (Diabetes/Bi polar disorder). Every overweight person does not have health issues, nor does every overweight person remain overweight. What about people who slim down get to NZ and then gain weight. I'm not shooting the messenger, I just think the messenger should not be so smug because the particular issue does not affect them.
incredible hulse
22nd November 2007, 07:00 AM
The entire New Zeland rugby side is clinically obese.....
I assume the rules do not apply to the Pacific Island class then
I assume the rules do not apply to the Pacific Island class then
Carol
22nd November 2007, 07:21 AM
I assume the rules do not apply to the Pacific Island class then
class?
class?
Carol
22nd November 2007, 07:29 AM
So.....
Has anyone been asked if they smoke? And do any rules apply to that?
Because surely if they apply to BMI - they HAVE to apply to smokers....who affect more people by their habits than overweight people who have a higher than 35 BMI?
Has anyone been asked if they smoke? And do any rules apply to that?
Because surely if they apply to BMI - they HAVE to apply to smokers....who affect more people by their habits than overweight people who have a higher than 35 BMI?
dharder
22nd November 2007, 07:40 AM
Hope he loses his medical licence. Thats a disgrace. Not your fault and in your position I would just smile and take it as well, but I am appalled at your doctor.
Not sure I understand this. Why would that be a problem? I'm sure if he thought it had been borderline he would have calculated, he just didn't see the need, my BMI clearly is under 35. I don't think he did anything wrong at all.
Is there something I'm not seeing?
Daniela
Not sure I understand this. Why would that be a problem? I'm sure if he thought it had been borderline he would have calculated, he just didn't see the need, my BMI clearly is under 35. I don't think he did anything wrong at all.
Is there something I'm not seeing?
Daniela
Jo Jo
22nd November 2007, 07:43 AM
On the medical form you have to put down smoking history, and if you've smoked more than X amount for Y years then you have to have a lung function test, but the amount you have to have smoked is pretty high before a lung function test is required.
The reasons given for excluding people solely on the basis of BMI just don't make sense when you see what other risk factors and chronic health conditions are ignored, such as smoking, mental health issues, diabetes, etc.
The reasons given for excluding people solely on the basis of BMI just don't make sense when you see what other risk factors and chronic health conditions are ignored, such as smoking, mental health issues, diabetes, etc.
dharder
22nd November 2007, 07:43 AM
Has anyone been asked if they smoke? And do any rules apply to that?
Yes, if I remember correctly, they want to know in quite great detail if you smoked, how much you smoked, when you stopped, etc.
I'm not sure what would happen if you said 'about 40 a day for the last 30 years' (though you chest x-ray might answer that...), but that would be interesting to know.
Daniela
Yes, if I remember correctly, they want to know in quite great detail if you smoked, how much you smoked, when you stopped, etc.
I'm not sure what would happen if you said 'about 40 a day for the last 30 years' (though you chest x-ray might answer that...), but that would be interesting to know.
Daniela
Carol
22nd November 2007, 08:01 AM
Anyone been asked how much they drink?
Would it be noted if you said "more than 1 drink a day (for women) as it is currently recommended by the World Cancer Research Fund that no more than 1 drink a day is recommended for cancer prevention.
Also processed meat (eg bacon, ham and salami) should be completely avoided. And red meat consumption limited to no more than 750g (raw weight) a week.
http://www.wcrf-uk.org/research_science/recommendations.lasso
Would it be noted if you said "more than 1 drink a day (for women) as it is currently recommended by the World Cancer Research Fund that no more than 1 drink a day is recommended for cancer prevention.
Also processed meat (eg bacon, ham and salami) should be completely avoided. And red meat consumption limited to no more than 750g (raw weight) a week.
http://www.wcrf-uk.org/research_science/recommendations.lasso
Jo Jo
22nd November 2007, 08:05 AM
Yup, you're asked that, too. I got told off!
dharder
22nd November 2007, 08:15 AM
Anyone been asked how much they drink?
Yes, I was asked, but again, not sure what would happen if you slurred 'a bottle of vodka a day'.
I do see what you're getting at, but I guess they are working with probabilities and statistics here. As in 'how likely are you to develop a serious illness if you are (morbidly) obese' as opposed to how likely are you to do the same eating a steak a day. I think statistically, the answer is probably fairly obvious.
It is their prerogative to make the rules, since we want something from them. And to be honest, if it makes you lose weight and get a bit fitter, it can't be all bad.
I keep comparing this (though of course it is not exactly the same) with the English test you have to take if you can't prove you speak English. I've read (on forums) people complain that they are too difficult, and that they get by perfectly well in everyday life with the skills they have, and that the levels are set absolutely arbitrarily. I tend to think that may very well be true, but do you really have to lose anything if you improve your English in the process?
I kind of consider the weight thing to be along similar lines, though of course that is easy for me to say since I didn't have to face that as an issue.
Mind you, statistically speaking, the doctor should probably have asked if I cross a road on a daily basis...
Daniela
Yes, I was asked, but again, not sure what would happen if you slurred 'a bottle of vodka a day'.
I do see what you're getting at, but I guess they are working with probabilities and statistics here. As in 'how likely are you to develop a serious illness if you are (morbidly) obese' as opposed to how likely are you to do the same eating a steak a day. I think statistically, the answer is probably fairly obvious.
It is their prerogative to make the rules, since we want something from them. And to be honest, if it makes you lose weight and get a bit fitter, it can't be all bad.
I keep comparing this (though of course it is not exactly the same) with the English test you have to take if you can't prove you speak English. I've read (on forums) people complain that they are too difficult, and that they get by perfectly well in everyday life with the skills they have, and that the levels are set absolutely arbitrarily. I tend to think that may very well be true, but do you really have to lose anything if you improve your English in the process?
I kind of consider the weight thing to be along similar lines, though of course that is easy for me to say since I didn't have to face that as an issue.
Mind you, statistically speaking, the doctor should probably have asked if I cross a road on a daily basis...
Daniela
Carol
22nd November 2007, 08:25 AM
Yes, I was asked, but again, not sure what would happen if you slurred 'a bottle of vodka a day'.
I do see what you're getting at, but I guess they are working with probabilities and statistics here. As in 'how likely are you to develop a serious illness if you are (morbidly) obese' as opposed to how likely are you to do the same eating a steak a day. I think statistically, the answer is probably fairly obvious.
It is their prerogative to make the rules, since we want something from them. And to be honest, if it makes you lose weight and get a bit fitter, it can't be all bad.
I keep comparing this (though of course it is not exactly the same) with the English test you have to take if you can't prove you speak English. I've read (on forums) people complain that they are too difficult, and that they get by perfectly well in everyday life with the skills they have, and that the levels are set absolutely arbitrarily. I tend to think that may very well be true, but do you really have to lose anything if you improve your English in the process?
I kind of consider the weight thing to be along similar lines, though of course that is easy for me to say since I didn't have to face that as an issue.
Mind you, statistically speaking, the doctor should probably have asked if I cross a road on a daily basis...
Daniela
I know I'm banging on about the same thing here....and Daniela - please dont think I am singling you out - I'm not.
But it IS all about statisitics isnt it?
My point is where do you stop?
The link I have added in my post above is pretty scary actually.
THey are not referring to sculling a bottle of vodka a day - they are referring to ONE drink (eg of wine) a day being the maximum before you start putting yourself at risk.
Or 100g of steak a day. That isn't a lot (I know exactly how much it is - because I need to watch what I am eating constantly - and I do.)
My BMI is over 35.
I am a teacher. Have been for 18 years.
I have made a difference to 100s of students. I know because they told me.
It just galls me a little to think I am NOW classed as "unworthy" of living here because of my weight - when I have so much to offer....
Well too bad. I'm here now.
:cool:
I do see what you're getting at, but I guess they are working with probabilities and statistics here. As in 'how likely are you to develop a serious illness if you are (morbidly) obese' as opposed to how likely are you to do the same eating a steak a day. I think statistically, the answer is probably fairly obvious.
It is their prerogative to make the rules, since we want something from them. And to be honest, if it makes you lose weight and get a bit fitter, it can't be all bad.
I keep comparing this (though of course it is not exactly the same) with the English test you have to take if you can't prove you speak English. I've read (on forums) people complain that they are too difficult, and that they get by perfectly well in everyday life with the skills they have, and that the levels are set absolutely arbitrarily. I tend to think that may very well be true, but do you really have to lose anything if you improve your English in the process?
I kind of consider the weight thing to be along similar lines, though of course that is easy for me to say since I didn't have to face that as an issue.
Mind you, statistically speaking, the doctor should probably have asked if I cross a road on a daily basis...
Daniela
I know I'm banging on about the same thing here....and Daniela - please dont think I am singling you out - I'm not.
But it IS all about statisitics isnt it?
My point is where do you stop?
The link I have added in my post above is pretty scary actually.
THey are not referring to sculling a bottle of vodka a day - they are referring to ONE drink (eg of wine) a day being the maximum before you start putting yourself at risk.
Or 100g of steak a day. That isn't a lot (I know exactly how much it is - because I need to watch what I am eating constantly - and I do.)
My BMI is over 35.
I am a teacher. Have been for 18 years.
I have made a difference to 100s of students. I know because they told me.
It just galls me a little to think I am NOW classed as "unworthy" of living here because of my weight - when I have so much to offer....
Well too bad. I'm here now.
:cool:
Tay
22nd November 2007, 08:49 AM
I assume the rules do not apply to the Pacific Island class then
What a strange post. What are you talking about?
Not sure I understand this. Why would that be a problem? I'm sure if he thought it had been borderline he would have calculated, he just didn't see the need, my BMI clearly is under 35. I don't think he did anything wrong at all.
Is there something I'm not seeing?
Ahh I see. My bad. I assumed that you were over 35, but he couldnt be bothered with the test, or thought it was silly. My mistake.
But it IS all about statisitics isnt it?
My point is where do you stop?
A spurious argument that can be applied to any law or rule of a country. The laws and rules of a country are based on arbirtary figures.
My BMI is over 35.
I am a teacher. Have been for 18 years.
I have made a difference to 100s of students. I know because they told me.
It just galls me a little to think I am NOW classed as "unworthy" of living here because of my weight - when I have so much to offer....
Well too bad. I'm here now.
Lets not start a competition over who has the most important profession....
Its not about testing current citizens, its about minimising the cost to the country of potential citizens. Its not the only criteria, but we dont hear complaints about all the others. Maybe all the people without degrees in NZ should get upset that non degree holding potential immigrants get less points than degree holders....
What a strange post. What are you talking about?
Not sure I understand this. Why would that be a problem? I'm sure if he thought it had been borderline he would have calculated, he just didn't see the need, my BMI clearly is under 35. I don't think he did anything wrong at all.
Is there something I'm not seeing?
Ahh I see. My bad. I assumed that you were over 35, but he couldnt be bothered with the test, or thought it was silly. My mistake.
But it IS all about statisitics isnt it?
My point is where do you stop?
A spurious argument that can be applied to any law or rule of a country. The laws and rules of a country are based on arbirtary figures.
My BMI is over 35.
I am a teacher. Have been for 18 years.
I have made a difference to 100s of students. I know because they told me.
It just galls me a little to think I am NOW classed as "unworthy" of living here because of my weight - when I have so much to offer....
Well too bad. I'm here now.
Lets not start a competition over who has the most important profession....
Its not about testing current citizens, its about minimising the cost to the country of potential citizens. Its not the only criteria, but we dont hear complaints about all the others. Maybe all the people without degrees in NZ should get upset that non degree holding potential immigrants get less points than degree holders....
BkyMonster
22nd November 2007, 08:59 AM
If I recall from looking at the form they calculate the number of cigarettes you've ever smoked (more or less). I'm sure they have some kind of threshold where they start taking a closer look.
I also don't know that there are as many debilitating medical issues that can come of smoking as can from being severely overweight. Of course both can have very serious, deadly even, consequences, but I think that being overweight has more of a range of costly health effects than smoking. :(
I also don't know that there are as many debilitating medical issues that can come of smoking as can from being severely overweight. Of course both can have very serious, deadly even, consequences, but I think that being overweight has more of a range of costly health effects than smoking. :(
incredible hulse
22nd November 2007, 09:55 AM
class?
sorry - as in Visa class rather than how far removed from the Queen
sorry - as in Visa class rather than how far removed from the Queen
incredible hulse
22nd November 2007, 10:00 AM
What a strange post. What are you talking about?
2 points (sorry it went over you). 1st was a quip that the AB's import a lot of islanders for their team. Second was the fact that a lot of the Islanders are 'large' build and wondered if this requirement was valid to that class of visa
2 points (sorry it went over you). 1st was a quip that the AB's import a lot of islanders for their team. Second was the fact that a lot of the Islanders are 'large' build and wondered if this requirement was valid to that class of visa
Carol
22nd November 2007, 10:27 AM
sorry - as in Visa class rather than how far removed from the Queen
:laugh
like 175th cousin 8 times removed...:laugh
:laugh
like 175th cousin 8 times removed...:laugh
renew
22nd November 2007, 10:29 AM
for a bit of fun have a look on the BBC website
they have an interesting obesity quiz
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7105472.stm
Have fun
they have an interesting obesity quiz
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7105472.stm
Have fun
urban78
22nd November 2007, 02:21 PM
2 points (sorry it went over you). 1st was a quip that the AB's import a lot of islanders for their team. Second was the fact that a lot of the Islanders are 'large' build and wondered if this requirement was valid to that class of visa
Yep it all applies to Islanders as well. You'd be quite surprised to see the number who are declined visas due to diabetes ect ect (my partner's family are islanders and they are keen gossipers :laugh ). Although a lot of them emigrate under the Pacific quota and under Family Category (parents and siblings).
If you have a read at the Residence Review Board decisions, quite a bit are posted there.
Jen
Yep it all applies to Islanders as well. You'd be quite surprised to see the number who are declined visas due to diabetes ect ect (my partner's family are islanders and they are keen gossipers :laugh ). Although a lot of them emigrate under the Pacific quota and under Family Category (parents and siblings).
If you have a read at the Residence Review Board decisions, quite a bit are posted there.
Jen
Tay
22nd November 2007, 07:36 PM
1st was a quip that the AB's import a lot of islanders for their team.
No they do not. In fact thats a very ignorant thing to say.
No they do not. In fact thats a very ignorant thing to say.
incredible hulse
22nd November 2007, 08:27 PM
No they do not. In fact thats a very ignorant thing to say.
Really ? I could bite but just can't be... See ya
Really ? I could bite but just can't be... See ya
Tay
22nd November 2007, 09:42 PM
Really ?
Yes really. A large proportion of New Zealanders have brown skin, and strangely enough thy have not been recruited to play rugby.
You are basing a grubby accusation on nothing. The only player even remotely close to that was Sivivatu, but he was 14 when he came to NZ for high school. The rest were either born in NZ or came with family when younger than 5 years old.
So before you make smart ass comments about things you dont understand, think again.
Yes really. A large proportion of New Zealanders have brown skin, and strangely enough thy have not been recruited to play rugby.
You are basing a grubby accusation on nothing. The only player even remotely close to that was Sivivatu, but he was 14 when he came to NZ for high school. The rest were either born in NZ or came with family when younger than 5 years old.
So before you make smart ass comments about things you dont understand, think again.
Jo Jo
22nd November 2007, 10:20 PM
You are basing a grubby accusation on nothing. The only player even remotely close to that was Sivivatu, but he was 14 when he came to NZ for high school. The rest were either born in NZ or came with family when younger than 5 years old.
So before you make smart ass comments about things you dont understand, think again.
You're right, the majority of Polynesians in the ABs were born here. But, NZRFU has scouted players from the islands at a young age and paid for them to attend high school here until they qualify to play for the ABs.
The head of the Fijian Rugby Union is on record as saying that they are losing too many schoolboys into the New Zealand system.
AFAIK, Sivivatu was 16 when he came to NZ, not 14, and he came here because NZRFU paid for him to come to high school here so that by the time he was 18 he qualified for the ABs on residency.
So before you make smart ass comments about things you dont understand, think again.
You're right, the majority of Polynesians in the ABs were born here. But, NZRFU has scouted players from the islands at a young age and paid for them to attend high school here until they qualify to play for the ABs.
The head of the Fijian Rugby Union is on record as saying that they are losing too many schoolboys into the New Zealand system.
AFAIK, Sivivatu was 16 when he came to NZ, not 14, and he came here because NZRFU paid for him to come to high school here so that by the time he was 18 he qualified for the ABs on residency.
Tay
22nd November 2007, 10:38 PM
But, NZRFU has scouted players from the islands at a young age and paid for them to attend high school here until they qualify to play for the ABs.
Rubbish. Give some examples please. I ahve already mentioned Siviavatu, did you know he had NEVER played rugby until he came to NZ?
:roll
Please give examples of these poaches... please... just give me some. You cannot.
This annoys me because it is borderline racist. If you ahve brown skina nd a non european name.... you clearly cant be a New Zealander.
and he came here because NZRFU paid for him to come to high school here so that by the time he was 18 he qualified for the ABs on residency.
And that is 100% lie
Rubbish. Give some examples please. I ahve already mentioned Siviavatu, did you know he had NEVER played rugby until he came to NZ?
:roll
Please give examples of these poaches... please... just give me some. You cannot.
This annoys me because it is borderline racist. If you ahve brown skina nd a non european name.... you clearly cant be a New Zealander.
and he came here because NZRFU paid for him to come to high school here so that by the time he was 18 he qualified for the ABs on residency.
And that is 100% lie
Tay
22nd November 2007, 10:54 PM
Time British scribes got their facts right
MIDWEEK MAUL - By JIM KAYES in Marseilles - Stuff.co.nz | Wednesday, 12 September 2007
It's always good to get your shots in early. So before the [mostly British] scribes starting writing about how the All Blacks are the Pacific Barbarians and the NZRU pillages the southern seas, here's a few facts.
Five All Blacks were born in Samoa - Jerry Collins, Rodney So'oialo, Chris Masoe, Mils Muliaina and Isaia Toeava - and 12 of the Samoa squad were born in New Zealand.
It might be asked, tongue firmly in the cheek, who is pillaging from whom.
Add in Fijian-born wings Joe Rokocoko and Sitiveni Sivivatu, and Tonga's Sione Lauaki, and the All Blacks tally rises to eight.
That's still fewer than the number of "Kiwis" in the Samoa squad, and at least eight more Samoans have played first class rugby in New Zealand.
Their coach, All Blacks great Michael Jones, was also born in New Zealand, while assistant coach Pita Fatialofa was a Ponsonby and Auckland stalwart.
Japan are coached by another All Blacks legend, John Kirwan, who coached Italy at the last World Cup.
Throughout the 20 World Cup squads in France are 24 players who were born in New Zealand and who are not in the All Blacks. Many are well known as they have played in the Super 14 or NPC.
Others have household surnames like the Whakatane born Hayden Mexted who plays for USA, a team coached by North Harbour's Peter Thorburn.
The attacks on the racial make up of the All Blacks have always conveniently ignored the immigration trends of Pacific Islanders moving to New Zealand and the diverse cultural mix in our major cities.
Critics also gloss over the fact many of the All Blacks born in Fiji, Tonga or Samoa moved with their families to New Zealand when they were young Muliaina, for instance, was just three.
Such facts won't stop the claims the All Blacks have gained an unfair advantage by poaching players from the islands, especially when such critics begin to fear New Zealand might win the World Cup.
But then those writers have never let the truth get in the way of a 'good' story.
To many people in the UK have been brain washed by ignorant British tabloid journos like Stephen Jones... like some poster son this thread.
MIDWEEK MAUL - By JIM KAYES in Marseilles - Stuff.co.nz | Wednesday, 12 September 2007
It's always good to get your shots in early. So before the [mostly British] scribes starting writing about how the All Blacks are the Pacific Barbarians and the NZRU pillages the southern seas, here's a few facts.
Five All Blacks were born in Samoa - Jerry Collins, Rodney So'oialo, Chris Masoe, Mils Muliaina and Isaia Toeava - and 12 of the Samoa squad were born in New Zealand.
It might be asked, tongue firmly in the cheek, who is pillaging from whom.
Add in Fijian-born wings Joe Rokocoko and Sitiveni Sivivatu, and Tonga's Sione Lauaki, and the All Blacks tally rises to eight.
That's still fewer than the number of "Kiwis" in the Samoa squad, and at least eight more Samoans have played first class rugby in New Zealand.
Their coach, All Blacks great Michael Jones, was also born in New Zealand, while assistant coach Pita Fatialofa was a Ponsonby and Auckland stalwart.
Japan are coached by another All Blacks legend, John Kirwan, who coached Italy at the last World Cup.
Throughout the 20 World Cup squads in France are 24 players who were born in New Zealand and who are not in the All Blacks. Many are well known as they have played in the Super 14 or NPC.
Others have household surnames like the Whakatane born Hayden Mexted who plays for USA, a team coached by North Harbour's Peter Thorburn.
The attacks on the racial make up of the All Blacks have always conveniently ignored the immigration trends of Pacific Islanders moving to New Zealand and the diverse cultural mix in our major cities.
Critics also gloss over the fact many of the All Blacks born in Fiji, Tonga or Samoa moved with their families to New Zealand when they were young Muliaina, for instance, was just three.
Such facts won't stop the claims the All Blacks have gained an unfair advantage by poaching players from the islands, especially when such critics begin to fear New Zealand might win the World Cup.
But then those writers have never let the truth get in the way of a 'good' story.
To many people in the UK have been brain washed by ignorant British tabloid journos like Stephen Jones... like some poster son this thread.
Jo Jo
22nd November 2007, 11:15 PM
Oh, and you might want to look up racism in the dictionary before throwing accusations around.
Tay
22nd November 2007, 11:32 PM
Paul Thomas: False charge of poaching
Saturday June 25, 2005
By Paul Thomas
They're calling it the Rape of the Pacific. And like most of the hot air being expelled throughout the nation, it involves rugby.
New Zealand stands accused of enticing the best players in Fiji, Samoa and Tonga to abandon their homelands and throw in their lot with the All Blacks.
This charge has been levelled time and again by British rugby writers, sometimes indignantly, sometimes with disgusted fatalism as if our poaching operation is so brazen and methodical that it's impossible to maintain the rage.
And as the temperature rises ahead of tonight's first test, it's getting another airing.
Leading the attack is Stephen Jones of the Sunday Times. Jones has created a persona built on relentless disparagement of New Zealand rugby - its players, stadia, referees, fans and media. It can only be a matter of time before he lays into the ball-boys.
Although Jones has one setting - a pop-eyed, bull moose roar of outrage - he's not always being entirely serious. When challenged, he tends to complain that Kiwis don't get irony.
We could search for the irony in his statement that Sitiveni Sivivatu's four-try All Black debut was "one of the saddest sporting occasions I can remember". We could try to work out what he really means when he tells his readers that "the All Blacks continue to steal the best talent from Fiji, Samoa and Tonga" and "are now an amalgam of four nations".
But seeing we're frightfully gauche provincials who think Irony is one of those all-girl hip-hop groups, we'll just have to take these assertions at face value.
There are 10 Polynesians in the current All Black squad, five of whom were born here. Four went to primary school here. Sivivatu arrived when he was 17 to attend Wesley College.
We may think that because these players' parents came to New Zealand in search of a better life, because they grew up, went to school and learned to play rugby here, because they regard themselves as New Zealanders, it's appropriate for them to wear the black jersey.
Apparently not; apparently we stole them. Apparently this constitutes the Rape of the Pacific.
That's not my idea of irony; that's my idea of bullshit.
The British rugby media rat pack choose to ignore the decades of immigration which have made Polynesians one of the four main ethnic groups in our multi-cultural society and Auckland the biggest Polynesian city in the world.
It's odd that they find it so hard to get their heads around the phenomenon of immigrant communities producing more than their fair share of outstanding athletes given that it has also happened in England over roughly the same period.
English track-and-field and boxing have flourished largely thanks to athletes of West Indian and African descent, and the days of the all-vanilla English soccer team are long gone.
Were these athletes poached or are they New Britons?
And on the subject of flags of convenience, how about that good southern man Brendon Laney, who a week after setting foot in Scotland was lining up at Murrayfield hoping that the TV cameras wouldn't focus on him during the singing of Flower of Scotland?
But that's okay. It's okay too that South Africans like Mike Catt, Stuart Abbott and current Lion Matt Stevens play for England, even though England already has more rugby players than any other country. And it's okay for France, when they played the All Blacks last November, to field two South Africans, a New Zealander and a flanker from Cameroon, even though France already has more players than any other country except England.
What's not okay is Jerry Collins, having arrived in New Zealand aged four with his family, having attended primary school in Porirua and St Pat's College in Wellington, having joined Norths, the club he still plays for whenever he can, having represented New Zealand at secondary school, under 19, under 21 and A level, running on to Jade Stadium tonight in an All Black jersey.
Well, I can understand that the Brits would prefer he didn't, but to insist that he shouldn't be an All Black because he should be playing for another country is - here we go again - bullshit.
It would be laughable if it wasn't for the nasty, lingering suspicion that underpinning this campaign is a mindset that those white South Africans, Australians and New Zealanders who swap countries at the drop of a hat are exercising their free will while the poor, naive Polynesians are being led by the nose.
After this week's Australia-England one-day cricket match, The Guardian website ran a headline describing Kevin Pietersen's 91 off 65 balls as the "best innings by an Englishman".
Only he isn't. Pietersen was born in Pietermaritzburg, represented South Africa at under-19 level and played first-class cricket for KwaZulu-Natal. Convinced that his progress was being blocked by the quota system that promotes non-white players into national teams, Pietersen defected to England in 2001.
Now that's irony - of the unconscious variety.
The shame of it is that these excuses for UK sports journalists actually convince people like Jojo. Its a disgrace.
Saturday June 25, 2005
By Paul Thomas
They're calling it the Rape of the Pacific. And like most of the hot air being expelled throughout the nation, it involves rugby.
New Zealand stands accused of enticing the best players in Fiji, Samoa and Tonga to abandon their homelands and throw in their lot with the All Blacks.
This charge has been levelled time and again by British rugby writers, sometimes indignantly, sometimes with disgusted fatalism as if our poaching operation is so brazen and methodical that it's impossible to maintain the rage.
And as the temperature rises ahead of tonight's first test, it's getting another airing.
Leading the attack is Stephen Jones of the Sunday Times. Jones has created a persona built on relentless disparagement of New Zealand rugby - its players, stadia, referees, fans and media. It can only be a matter of time before he lays into the ball-boys.
Although Jones has one setting - a pop-eyed, bull moose roar of outrage - he's not always being entirely serious. When challenged, he tends to complain that Kiwis don't get irony.
We could search for the irony in his statement that Sitiveni Sivivatu's four-try All Black debut was "one of the saddest sporting occasions I can remember". We could try to work out what he really means when he tells his readers that "the All Blacks continue to steal the best talent from Fiji, Samoa and Tonga" and "are now an amalgam of four nations".
But seeing we're frightfully gauche provincials who think Irony is one of those all-girl hip-hop groups, we'll just have to take these assertions at face value.
There are 10 Polynesians in the current All Black squad, five of whom were born here. Four went to primary school here. Sivivatu arrived when he was 17 to attend Wesley College.
We may think that because these players' parents came to New Zealand in search of a better life, because they grew up, went to school and learned to play rugby here, because they regard themselves as New Zealanders, it's appropriate for them to wear the black jersey.
Apparently not; apparently we stole them. Apparently this constitutes the Rape of the Pacific.
That's not my idea of irony; that's my idea of bullshit.
The British rugby media rat pack choose to ignore the decades of immigration which have made Polynesians one of the four main ethnic groups in our multi-cultural society and Auckland the biggest Polynesian city in the world.
It's odd that they find it so hard to get their heads around the phenomenon of immigrant communities producing more than their fair share of outstanding athletes given that it has also happened in England over roughly the same period.
English track-and-field and boxing have flourished largely thanks to athletes of West Indian and African descent, and the days of the all-vanilla English soccer team are long gone.
Were these athletes poached or are they New Britons?
And on the subject of flags of convenience, how about that good southern man Brendon Laney, who a week after setting foot in Scotland was lining up at Murrayfield hoping that the TV cameras wouldn't focus on him during the singing of Flower of Scotland?
But that's okay. It's okay too that South Africans like Mike Catt, Stuart Abbott and current Lion Matt Stevens play for England, even though England already has more rugby players than any other country. And it's okay for France, when they played the All Blacks last November, to field two South Africans, a New Zealander and a flanker from Cameroon, even though France already has more players than any other country except England.
What's not okay is Jerry Collins, having arrived in New Zealand aged four with his family, having attended primary school in Porirua and St Pat's College in Wellington, having joined Norths, the club he still plays for whenever he can, having represented New Zealand at secondary school, under 19, under 21 and A level, running on to Jade Stadium tonight in an All Black jersey.
Well, I can understand that the Brits would prefer he didn't, but to insist that he shouldn't be an All Black because he should be playing for another country is - here we go again - bullshit.
It would be laughable if it wasn't for the nasty, lingering suspicion that underpinning this campaign is a mindset that those white South Africans, Australians and New Zealanders who swap countries at the drop of a hat are exercising their free will while the poor, naive Polynesians are being led by the nose.
After this week's Australia-England one-day cricket match, The Guardian website ran a headline describing Kevin Pietersen's 91 off 65 balls as the "best innings by an Englishman".
Only he isn't. Pietersen was born in Pietermaritzburg, represented South Africa at under-19 level and played first-class cricket for KwaZulu-Natal. Convinced that his progress was being blocked by the quota system that promotes non-white players into national teams, Pietersen defected to England in 2001.
Now that's irony - of the unconscious variety.
The shame of it is that these excuses for UK sports journalists actually convince people like Jojo. Its a disgrace.
Tay
22nd November 2007, 11:39 PM
MIDWEEK MAUL - By JIM KAYES
The New Zealand Rugby Union has been busted, again.
British rugby writers have long known about the NZRU's secret plan for world domination and now a South African columnist has exposed it again.
Writing in Johannesburg's Weekender newspaper, former Springboks halfback Garth Wright revealed the NZRU had "plundered the resources of Samoa, Tonga and Fiji" in an effort to make the All Blacks strong.
He's right.
Classified documents leaked to Midweek Maul reveal the scheme to strip the islands of their players has been in place for decades.
So intricate is it that Tana Umaga's parents were sponsored by the NZRU to move from Samoa to Wainuiomata for the specific reason of breeding the future All Blacks captain.
In a similar "sleeper" ruse, Mils Muliaina's family were enticed to Invercargill when the All Blacks fullback was 3 because of the form he had shown in the backyard in Apia with the ball in hand.
Likewise, the Collins family had its airfares paid and a house bought for it in Porirua after one of the boys, Jerry, kept flattening his kindergarten mates.
And, in a superb display of espionage, Sitiveni Sivivatu was slipped into the country in his mid- teens on a football scholarship.
What's strange about the top secret documents, stolen from the bowels of the NZRU's KGB-like fortress which is carefully hidden from view on Wellington's waterfront, is that there was no mention of the immigration flows to New Zealand during the past 40 years.
The documents, which have since self-destructed, don't refer to the influx of Pacific Islanders in the 1960s and 1970s as New Zealand suffered a shortage of workers.
Nor do they touch on the special relationship between New Zealand and the Pacific Islands, or the fact that more of Pacific Islanders live in Auckland than in the Islands.
There's also no reference to the fact that many New Zealanders are second or third generation Pacific Islanders (if they are good at rugby, then their parents were obviously asked to emigrate by the NZRU).
No, the NZRU's secret plans didn't anticipate how New Zealand would become a multicultural place. In fact, they're as removed from reality as the ill informed babble some in Britain, and now South Africa, use to cover their own deficiencies.
Sorry to everyuone else expecting to be reading about weight issues... but I wasnt the one to start this and its a pet peeve of mine that people lie about these things and paint a picture of our national team which is untrue.
The New Zealand Rugby Union has been busted, again.
British rugby writers have long known about the NZRU's secret plan for world domination and now a South African columnist has exposed it again.
Writing in Johannesburg's Weekender newspaper, former Springboks halfback Garth Wright revealed the NZRU had "plundered the resources of Samoa, Tonga and Fiji" in an effort to make the All Blacks strong.
He's right.
Classified documents leaked to Midweek Maul reveal the scheme to strip the islands of their players has been in place for decades.
So intricate is it that Tana Umaga's parents were sponsored by the NZRU to move from Samoa to Wainuiomata for the specific reason of breeding the future All Blacks captain.
In a similar "sleeper" ruse, Mils Muliaina's family were enticed to Invercargill when the All Blacks fullback was 3 because of the form he had shown in the backyard in Apia with the ball in hand.
Likewise, the Collins family had its airfares paid and a house bought for it in Porirua after one of the boys, Jerry, kept flattening his kindergarten mates.
And, in a superb display of espionage, Sitiveni Sivivatu was slipped into the country in his mid- teens on a football scholarship.
What's strange about the top secret documents, stolen from the bowels of the NZRU's KGB-like fortress which is carefully hidden from view on Wellington's waterfront, is that there was no mention of the immigration flows to New Zealand during the past 40 years.
The documents, which have since self-destructed, don't refer to the influx of Pacific Islanders in the 1960s and 1970s as New Zealand suffered a shortage of workers.
Nor do they touch on the special relationship between New Zealand and the Pacific Islands, or the fact that more of Pacific Islanders live in Auckland than in the Islands.
There's also no reference to the fact that many New Zealanders are second or third generation Pacific Islanders (if they are good at rugby, then their parents were obviously asked to emigrate by the NZRU).
No, the NZRU's secret plans didn't anticipate how New Zealand would become a multicultural place. In fact, they're as removed from reality as the ill informed babble some in Britain, and now South Africa, use to cover their own deficiencies.
Sorry to everyuone else expecting to be reading about weight issues... but I wasnt the one to start this and its a pet peeve of mine that people lie about these things and paint a picture of our national team which is untrue.
Moorf
22nd November 2007, 11:45 PM
I am sometimes a bit blunt and tactless.
That may well be, and while I don't have a problem with what you want to say, you're presenting it in a very rude and obnoxious manner.
In addition, many people prefer not to mention personal or their friend's names/places/dates on forums, and wisely so.
That may well be, and while I don't have a problem with what you want to say, you're presenting it in a very rude and obnoxious manner.
In addition, many people prefer not to mention personal or their friend's names/places/dates on forums, and wisely so.
Tay
22nd November 2007, 11:48 PM
In addition, many people prefer not to mention personal or their friend's names/places/dates on forums, and wisely so.
Not asking for the name of his source.... asking for some examples of the alleged poached AB's.
His claims are extremely offensive, you might not understand why, but they are. And the fact he is lieing makes it even worse.
That may well be, and while I don't have a problem with what you want to say, you're presenting it in a very rude and obnoxious manner.
Maybe as its because he makes an offensive allegation, and then hides?
Not asking for the name of his source.... asking for some examples of the alleged poached AB's.
His claims are extremely offensive, you might not understand why, but they are. And the fact he is lieing makes it even worse.
That may well be, and while I don't have a problem with what you want to say, you're presenting it in a very rude and obnoxious manner.
Maybe as its because he makes an offensive allegation, and then hides?
© emigratenz.org. All Rights Reserved
vBulletin®
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.