Breaking up a family for Social Engineering?

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by chocolate_frog, Apr 4, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Yes, it's from the Daily Mail.

    Posts related to the thread post here....

    Posts related to vitriol towards the Daily Mail here

    Somerset Social Workers want to split two brothers from their family, in order to adopt them to a gay couple.

    The gay couple are in now way legally partnered, in that they haven't had a formal civil partnership. Which worries the natural family, what happens to the boys if they split up? And the adoptive parents don't want the natural family to have ANYTHING to do with the boys once the adoption goes through.

    Pretty tradgic case, to be honest. And I feel the Social Workers have a LOT of explaining to do before I would consider the adoption of the boys to an unmarried couple a good idea.

    I also can't help but feeling the Natural Mother is slightly, shall we say, pliable. Are teh social workers out for a good tick in the box, adopting a few babies to a homosexual couple?

    More here
     
  2. Ok, probably going to get a slagging here but so what? As long as they are good people and will give the child positive focus, so what? If you are referring to splitting the boys, well I dont agree to that, but as for going to a gay couple, well I have seen some really bad male/female couples who clearly should not have kids. I remember in my last posting a guy and his Mrs near to me would get hammered on an evening and sleep all day, meanwhile his/her kids would be begging at our door for breakfast, lunch etc etc. One day I marched over to ask why his kids were begging at our house for food and had not had thier clothes changed for days and he answered the door in his kecks rubbing his eyes stating he had just got out of bed (it was 1pm). Oldest kid was 7 and wore night nappies - go figure. FAMO got involved but bugger all happened. One of the other estates near me had hoards of kids running around at 10pm, many only 7+, all from 'normal' families.

    Of the few gay guys I have met, I really could not see them behaving like that. One thing you could be sure of, they would be well dressed and groomed!!
     
  3. Just to clarify their sexuality doesn't bother me. The fact they are not in civil partnership does.

    So I'll remove the gay bit, as it may mislead.....

    Part 1.
    Natural family denied chance to look after brothers, but an unwed couple are lined up as adoptive parents.

    Now I'll reinject the gay bit.

    Part 2.
    I am concerned as reading it, it appears that the social workers are attempting to bully the family in to handing over the two lads. The fact that the couple they want to adopt the kids too are gay is key to this also.

    That would be a tick in the box for the "stats" but also should they be allowed to bully an obviously vulnerable mother?

    The family HAVE tried to take on the two brothers several times.

    Edit. But were refused, with no grounds given.

    Another case, similar, in Edinburgh the social workers told the Grandparents, at one point, that they wouldnever see the boys again, if they didn't stop.

    At this point, I'd also mention that I knew two lads who raised a child. Met them through a freind. The lad was the natural son of one, who looked after him. So I would prefer it if my concerns were not dismissed as purely homophobic.

    If the two lads were trully on their own, I wouldn't be that fussed over who adopted them... although I'd still like to see a form of cementing the relationship.

    A couple who I know quite well, were pretty much told to do one recently (trying to adopt) because they were too old and had no support network.
     
  4. I would also think that as British Society is still wary of a same sex parenting and that tabloids would love to do an exclusive if it was found that this couple were not looking after the kids would lead me to believe this couple have be vetted to death.

    As for legal marriage/partnership, does a piece of paper matter? A marriage certificate is hardly gonna to a person from shagging around, spending the family allowance on booze & drugs is it?
     
  5. Apolgies, i was sort of set for a massive bombardment "homophobe comments".

    To be honest, I dismissed the bit about the length of the relationship, as it was just gossip. And proven (inmy experience) as pretty flaky, relationships last, relationships fail regardless of sexuality. However, there should be a "plan" or somesort of framework to fall back on to if a couple do split.

    Re the reasons the grandparents and aunt are not allowed to adopt.Surely though, the social services should tell the grandparents and the aunt WHY they are considered unsuitable to look after the children?

    I appreciate the requirements for secrecy inthe newspapers and what not, but surely the family could be informed as to why they are not meeting the standards....

    Likewise, is it not possible for the social services to get in and provide assistance? Actual meaningful assistance.
     
  6. I get what you are saying Jarrod...

    But how does that tally up with the following...

    Known paedophile allowed to be a foster parent

    Known paedo teen placed in unsuspecting foster home... goes on to molest and rape the children.

    Unfortunatly social services (and I've told a mate who works in social services this) have lost all credibility and reliability.... in my eyes.

    Especially adding to it cases where such as...

    Foster parents not informed their foster child was HIV positive

    I've read about a healthy child being forcably adopted, because the parents couldn't cope, but the special needs sibling being left with the couple. But can't find a link.
     
  7. Add to that the stories of a SS worker taking a baby MOMENTS after the umbilical was cut, or being caught out lying in court.

    You can see why I wonder at their motives.

    Esp when you throw int he Baby P case or similar cases where fostered and adopted children have been taken from their natural parents and then harmed by their new carers.
     
  8. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    Hmmm, homosexuals are almost by definition irresponsible sexual practitioners. I've never known a homosexual who hasn't indulged in irresponsible behaviour on a regular basis. No condom, sex with a random unknown partner. The rest of us have as well, but it is the default way of doing things for most gay men. I do know a few, and bullshit arguments that that is not the case doesn't get past first muster so don't argue its not the case, because it is. Jarrod, there are numerous threads where you re-enforce this for all to see.

    A mindset that considers such things as whimsical and malleable is not a place for a child to grow up in, and certainly not with a couple who can't even find the commitment to a marriage. Fcuk I don't have any intention to have children, but even I can be bothered to marry to show my commitment.

    I personally would be very wary of putting an adopted kid in that kind of enviroment myself, but hey, lets not let common sense get in the way of fashionable thinking.
     
  9. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    Nope, just saying what I see without pandering to public opinion.
     
  10. For what it's worth, I'm an arrse-bandit but have my doubts about whether same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt. That aside, as with a lot of Daily Mail articles, I get the distinct feeling that there's more to this story than they're telling us...
     
  11. Difficult: On one had the newspapers frequently tell lies. On the other social workers frequently base their decisions on a fantasy world.

    Having read the article, I see the following points: The logic for taking the boys into care in the first place is strange, no reason is given for not placing the children with their grand parents or uncle, I cannot see any good reason for preventing the sons contacting the mother and so I suspect a bad one, given that one of the arguments for civil partnerships was adoption I find it strange that the authorities don't make it a condition of adoption.
     
  12. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    No problems with same sex couples adopting, but the morals are so sh1t that they would risk the defence of the realm to get their rocks off.

    When homosexuality was not allowed in the military, review ages of news and radio for evidence, getting laid was more important than the countries security, playing by the rules and putting themselves in a dodgy position.

    I like getting wankered and would like to bone the wife of the CO, but thats outside the rules, so I contain myself and exercise control.

    But the Jarrods of this world deem that as too much and they should be allowed to crack on regardless. Self control and self responsibility is something homosexuals these days feel they should be freed from. Fcuk off they shouldn't, take responsibility like the rest of us.

    A shag is not more important than your moral resposnibility to be in control of yourself.
     
  13. A gross generalisation, Ord_Sgt, and a fcuking insulting one for that matter. Just because you have come across some queer d1ckheads in your time doesn't mean that all, or even most of us are the same. I exercise self-control just as much as you do, I don't look under toilet doors and I go into the showers for - guess what? - a shower. I totally agree with you that "a shag is not more important than your moral resposnibility to be in control of yourself". On the other hand, how about the moral responsibility of a Senior NCO not to make ludicrous generalisations and pre-judgements about those he may have to lead?
     
  14. It bothers me very considerably. No family is homosexual. Some other perverse form of group may be, but not a family. The child - who is supposedly the principal focus of concern in any circumstance like this - should never be subjected to such a shockingly unnatural situation; only the nonsensical but politically-driven directives of the relevant agencies would force him or her into it.

    Young children, when unrestrained from the currently fashionable political progaganda of their schooling, treat each other as they should; competitively. The stronger by their competitive range of abilities are bound by nature to succeed, while those with artificial hindrances, such as having an obviously unnatural parentage will be at a disadvantage.

    It's cruelty of the worst kind in any supposedly civilised society, and must be stopped.
     
  15. Then there is the Christian Angle, children being born into a loving partnership between and man and a woman.

    However, and thanks to successive government who have become more and more liberal in their laws here in the UK, we now have had forced upon us ALL manner of relationships, HAS anyone put the thoughts and feeling of the CHILD First and Foremost?

    It's all about getting PLACEMENTS and my GOD, have you seen how much Social Services PAY those who foster? Three kids and you don't have to work!!

    Gay or ungay, if the child or children in question are born hetrosexual, will being placed with Gay parents NOT confuse them and make the childs life harder once they attend school "Meet Mummy & Mummy"!

    Mutlicultral and Mitisexual, no wonder the country is SCREWED!!