Reply to: What can one say?

[BA to the Stars]

I'd have thought that the main point was that for reasons of PC, this magnificent pair weren't vetted properly.

To prevent the scream of "homophobia" ...

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.u...act.3198128.jp

The report in the local paper confirms this

[DBA_bloke]

The main thrust of that story is that the problems arose because it was 2 men who had adopted.

No, it wasn't! It was that the Authorities got it sooooo wrong... again.

[DBA_bloke]

It's - "It's" is a contraction. It is short for "it is"

Doh!

[The Lone Gunman]

By the way, there's an apostrophe in "wasn't". But you wouldn't understand that, would you?

I was quoting you and you missed it when you thought it.

BTW. I often find picking up on spelling and grammar adds weight to my argument on a serious subject.

The main thrust of that story is that the problems arose because it was 2 men who had adopted.

[oracleslave]

Read the article again. It's whole premise is that abuse took place, and the Authorities failed in a truly alarming way. That's it. It doesn't look like "see I told you it wasnt a good idea to let poofs adopt" to me.

By the way, there's an apostrophe in "wasn't". But you wouldn't understand that, would you?

It's - "It's" is a contraction. It is short for "it is"

[DBA_bloke]

It is sensationalised because it is designed to get the reaction of "see I told you it wasnt a good idea to let poofs adopt".

But you wouldnt understand that would you.

Read the article again. It's whole premise is that abuse took place, and the Authorities failed in a truly alarming way. That's it. It doesn't look like "see I told you it wasnt a good idea to let poofs adopt" to me.

By the way, there's an apostrophe in "wasn't". But you wouldn't understand that, would you?

[Old Greg]

The story is newsworthy as both a crime and a failure of public service. It bothers me if people will use this as justification for preventing children from being fostered / adopted by gay couples.

[Moose423956]

How many times have we heard things like 'a "rigorous overhaul" of children's services was needed ', or 'staff failed to act on suspicions for fear of being seen to be discriminatory'?

The people who took the decision to place children with these abusers should be held responsible as well. No excuses.

[The Lone Gunman]

It is sensationalised because it is designed to get the reaction of "see I told you it wasnt a good idea to let poofs adopt".

But you wouldnt understand that would you.

[DBA_bloke]

The story here is not that it is two blokes doing the abusing, it is the fat that the abuse was going on and that the people responsible for supervising failed to see it or stop it.

Abuse: Impossible to over-react to.
Authorities failing to do anything: Impossible to over-react to.

Again: sensationalised? Er, what the fook are you on?

[The Lone Gunman]

The story here is not that it is two blokes doing the abusing, it is the fat that the abuse was going on and that the people responsible for supervising failed to see it or stop it.

[DBA_bloke]

Oh please! You reactionary gits.
This is just a sensationalised story. They are not the only abusive adopters there have ever been.

sensationalised? Er, what the fook are you on?

[The Lone Gunman]

Oh please! You reactionary gits.
This is just a sensationalised story. They are not the only abusive adopters there have ever been.

[wendigo100]

Ahem.

From what I recall from the Discovery channel, young lizards have to be a bit sharp on their toes after hatching or their parents eat them.

[BA to the Stars]

It was reported in a local paper last week and it was stated that some of the initial findings were that the appropriate authority did not investigate the couple too much for fear of being branded homophobic.

Another success for the PC brigrade from whom as usual in such circumstances the silence is deafening

There needs to be a balance, I fear that it has tipped too far one way