I can't imagine this will do anyone any favours

A can't imagine you posting it in this fashion does you any favours.

What is your point?

They should have got life. Wakefield Social Services should have got the 11 years sentence.

quote:

Originally posted by garyi:
A can't imagine you posting it in this fashion does you any favours.

What is your point?

Luckily Garyi, i wasn't expecting any.

I was bringing it to the attention of the forum to invite comment. If i'd had more time when i first saw it i'd have commented that this is potentially unfortunate to the cause of many gay couples who wish to adopt/foster children, in that 'popular' opinion that these people are somehow out to harm children will be reinforced.

There was a huge thread on this very issue in the padded cell a while back, and i expected that this post may add something to that thread. I couldn't find it earlier on as I didn't have a lot of time (it's here by the way http://forums.naim-audio.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/58019385/m/3462901207/p/1), but expected that the people raging that debate might have picked it up.

I won't lose any sleep over it either way however.

phil

ps if your only point is that i didn't have one, perhaps your post was as futile as mine. Mine however had a link to an interesting news story, yours.....

Phil, my point was the abuse of children by anyone is horrendous.

Unfortunately its not because the children were abused here that is the news story its because they were gay.

So what if they are gay they are still crunts and should be dealt with, but then if they were straight or lesbian they should be dealt with.

These types of story line are very dangerous.

quote:

Originally posted by garyi:
These types of story line are very dangerous.

Just because it's dangerous doesn't mean it's correct to ignore it. The key in that particular case wasn't necessarily that the couple were gay, but just how incompetent social services can be.

Agreed.

MMmmmm,not good is it.
I am a foster carer, & the recruitment process takes about a year to complete. Social services are very thorough in this process, & there are a series of interviews to ascertain character qualities. They also interviewed our family members & neighbours/friends, acting as character references.My wife & I had to submit our "life stories", as well as complete a college course which highlighted the consequences of fostering & required skills to do the job. Criminal record checks on us & our immediate family were also completed. One of the primary reasons for this in depth recruitment procedure is to block people who may regard fostering as a supply-line of kids. Regrettably no selection procedure is 100% successful.
Social services, at least in our area are very over-worked, & there are major inefficiences in the system, imho. There is also a drastic shortage of carers from all races/religions/lifestyles.The pressure to place kids is enormous, & therefore unfortunately compromises & mistakes are inevitable.
And yes, there are carers out there who are "just in it for the money", or for more negative reasons. Catching & proving this is obviously difficult,as the above mentioned case highlights. There are no winners in these situations. Us as foster carers get a bad reputation, as do social services, & worst of all the kids involved may be irretrievably damaged.
If anyone out there is thinking of becoming a foster carer, depite all this, it can be fantastic & very rewarding. Cliches have to be broken down, but the more carers we have, the easier it will be to raise the standard of care given to kids.
Anyone thinking of becoming a foster carer is more than welcome to PM me.
matt.

Hmm. It's not a fashionable opinion, but I ask myself what a couple of men - gay or straight - want with a young child. I think children are best left to women; normal man tend to have other priorities like beer, football and tits. Your own kids, I'm told, are always a million times better than anyone else's, and I find other people's most annoying.

Again, I'm not PC, but what on earth do two gay men want with a kid? They just happen to like noise, expense and extra responsibility?

Speaking as a (straight) man, Its not meant to be about the adults, its supposed to be about what the adults can do for the kids!
I can understand how that concept bypasses most males,(it did me) at least until you are introduced to the idea, & have the will & openmindedness to look a little further.
matt.

quote:

Originally posted by manicatel:
Speaking as a (straight) man, Its not meant to be about the adults, its supposed to be about what the adults can do for the kids!

Indeed, and it's depressing how many normal breeding pairs regard kids as an accessory to their own personal happiness; the fact that scratching their itch involves dooming some other poor fucker to life hardly enters into it.

EW

Given the lack of parenting skills, so apparent nowadays, I am sure education about sex, and the unwanted results of it should be much more important in schools than they are. This is the only way of breaking the cycle of misery caused by fathers abandoning the mothers to their fate, or just as bad, being stuck in loveless couplings for the sake of the ghastly mistake of poorly planned and unprotected sex. The loosers are always the children that result.

I totally agree with you dear EW! I was told I was an accident by both parents, and indeed had they been more careful they might have realised their own obvious (at least to my Norwegian grandmother, among others) incompatability, and saved themselves some trouble and the world from having to put up with Fredrik and his none to wonderful brother, as well as we having to put with the consequences of our ridiculous parents' actions. We are opposites in every way! He is a chip of the old man's block, and I am like nothing else in the familly on either side!

I also agree that most children are fairly unpleasant unless they are your own. My parents obviously felt my brother and I were a real menace from the start! We had a free range upbringing actually! School shaved off the rough edges, and gave me at least a sense of balance mentally, if not an understanding of the ways of the world. I have NO intention of having any children!

One would not miss what one has never known!

Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:
Indeed, and it's depressing how many normal breeding pairs regard kids as an accessory to their own personal happiness; the fact that scratching their itch involves dooming some other poor fucker to life hardly enters into it.

Aren't you a cheery soul...

EW, I agree with you. Most of the kids we've had through our house have come from estates where it is the norm to have 3 or 4 kids by different dads, none of which are on the scene or financially supportive. Dads who pawn their kids belongings "for the electricity bill" ahem, & dads who purposely give up their jobs so that their impending court cases are paid for by social services, not from his own pocket.Or promise to clean up their act so that they can get their kid back, & therefore qualify for a bigger house in which to store "stuff".
The kids don't stand an earthly, as they are rarely exposed to other ways of life. Their whole life, families, neighbours, friends, schools, shops is contained within the confines of their local estate. It is their "real world".
When I've asked some of the teenage kids about their careers/plans, their attitude is "well if I don't get that job in the local nail-bar, I'll have a kid, get a flat & see what happens. After-all, thats what my mum/sister/friend has done, & they're ok, aren't they?"
As a foster carer, I can't advocate sterilisation, can I??
We are hopefully just in a position to open kids eyes to other options, & some of them grasp the opportunity with both hands, which is so rewarding to witness.
matt.

quote:

Originally posted by garyi:
Phil, my point was the abuse of children by anyone is horrendous.

Unfortunately its not because the children were abused here that is the news story its because they were gay.

So what if they are gay they are still crunts and should be dealt with, but then if they were straight or lesbian they should be dealt with.

These types of story line are very dangerous.

Agreed Garyi,

I was on the way out the door when I saw the story, and thought, how awful that these children have been placed in care and 'out of the frying pan and into the fire', and then thought how unfortunate that this story will have an adverse effect on gay couples rights to adopt, if only in the prejudices of others, and then the feeling that this type of story is bad for everyone - hence the title...

I don't expect that there's a higher instance of gay couples abusing children for a moment, but I expect it will get more news coverage.

Phil

quote:

Originally posted by manicatel:
As a foster carer, I can't advocate sterilisation, can I??

I'm not, and I can!

I think a lot of problems would be solved if the birth rate were lower; breeding should be the exception not the rule. There're too many people anyway, and the fecundity of people who shouldn't breed is depressing. There isn't going to be much political will to do anything about it in this country, as the leaders of both main parties seem quite incapable of containing their reproductive capacity - especially that grinning tosser and his cringesome misses. As for other countries, well, breeding seems to be the national sport out in Foreign. The human population has now reached a point where the amount of pollution it's generating threatens the world climate...

EW

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:

quote:

Originally posted by manicatel:
As a foster carer, I can't advocate sterilisation, can I??

I'm not, and I can!

I think a lot of problems would be solved if the birth rate were lower; breeding should be the exception not the rule. There're too many people anyway, and the fecundity of people who shouldn't breed is depressing. There isn't going to be much political will to do anything about it in this country, as the leaders of both main parties seem quite incapable of containing their reproductive capacity - especially that grinning tosser and his cringesome misses. As for other countries, well, breeding seems to be the national sport out in Foreign. The human population has now reached a point where the amount of pollution it's generating threatens the world climate...

EW

I know EW, you could start a movement concerned with the selective elimination of certain genes from the gene pool! You could call it Eugenics

I happen to agree with a lot of what you say by the way, just jesting...

Phil

Okaaaay then, just for fun, how would we stipulate who can & can't procreate?
Nationality,bank balance, IQ level, only people who live in Surrey? Wasn't there a theory called eugenics a while ago, something about the idea that too many lower-class poeple were breeding/not enough of the right people breeding ergo humanity is doomed? Adolf was a fan, apparently. ALright, maybe thats going a bit too far, but (unfortunately) you can't give someone the snip 'cos they come from a council estate. Even though sometimes, we wish we could.
matt.

Sorry, looks like phil beat me to the eugenics thing. Again, I think we'd probably agree on a lot, but I don't know the answer to the question.
matt

I'm quite an ardent supporter of eugenics. There are too many people; life would be better for us all if there were fewer of us.

Lots of people have shit lives; it would have been better for them if they hadn't been born. (I include myself in this category.)

Reducing the number of superfluous people is desirable.

Eliminating duff genes that make people unfit is desirable.

A breeding certificate should be issued to select breeding couples when stringent criteria are satisfied. Genetic profiling should be a part of it, then some tests on general suitability for parenting; "we just want a baby" isn't a good enough reason for having one. Breeding should be the exception, not the rule.

EW

Oh dear.
Discussions about forming a master race is all a bit too heavy for me.
Seig heil! Seig heil! Seig heil!
matt.

It's better than forming a vast, bloated, miserable unter-race which is exactly what we're doing.

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:
[QUOTE]Reducing the number of superfluous people is desirable.

What's your definition of "superfluous" and who decides?

quote:

Eliminating duff genes that make people unfit is desirable.

What's your definition of "unfit" and who decides?

quote:

A breeding certificate should be issued to select breeding couples when stringent criteria are satisfied. Genetic profiling should be a part of it, then some tests on general suitability for parenting; "we just want a baby" isn't a good enough reason for having one. Breeding should be the exception, not the rule.

Is that really what you believe? Even if you do believe it who would you trust to make the determination about who is fit to breed? The current government would probably only allow it if you voted for them...

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:
It's better than forming a vast, bloated, miserable unter-race which is exactly what we're doing.

So who is this "unter-race" that you wish to eliminate then, and how does your elimination of them differ from Hitlers persecution of the Jews or what happened in Rwanda?

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Cork:

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:
I think a lot of problems would be solved if the birth rate were lower; breeding should be the exception not the rule. There're too many people anyway, and the fecundity of people who shouldn't breed is depressing. There isn't going to be much political will to do anything about it in this country, as the leaders of both main parties seem quite incapable of containing their reproductive capacity - especially that grinning tosser and his cringesome misses. As for other countries, well, breeding seems to be the national sport out in Foreign. The human population has now reached a point where the amount of pollution it's generating threatens the world climate...

EW

I know EW, you could start a movement concerned with the selective elimination of certain genes from the gene pool! You could call it Eugenics

Maybe we could breed out the miserable whingy glass half empty gene?

quote:

Originally posted by Steve G:
What's your definition of "superfluous" and who decides?

Most people are superfluous, born because of the clumsiness or stupidity of a couple of bloody idiot kids with a dose of the springtimes.

quote:

Eliminating duff genes that make people unfit is desirable.

What's your definition of "unfit" and who decides?

Plenty of genes are "unfit", increasing to unacceptable levels the chances of dying of hideous diseases, and also conferring mental retardation and a whole host of other deleterious traits that make people's lives very fucking miserable as well as just pointless. I'd like to hear a case for leaving them IN the gene pool... These are objectively identifiable in most cases.

quote:

A breeding certificate should be issued to select breeding couples when stringent criteria are satisfied. Genetic profiling should be a part of it, then some tests on general suitability for parenting; "we just want a baby" isn't a good enough reason for having one. Breeding should be the exception, not the rule.

Is that really what you believe?

Yes. There's no point telling a couple of stupid kids they aren't suitable breeding material when they KNOW they're marvellous. An active means of preventing them from manifesting their fecundity is required.

EW