DJ Barry Hammond Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 Guess the politican that posted this on their own blog; "There's a truly unbelievable story in the paper today, that a young brother and sister, whose mother is a heroin addict, have been turned down for adoption by their own grandparents, because they are deemed too old, even though neither has yet turned 60. If that weren't enough, the siblings are now to be adopted by two complete strangers against the wishes of the grandparents. Following adoption, they will then be 'allowed' 2 visits to their grandchildren each year. And as if that weren't enough, the two strangers are a gay couple, who have been selected ahead of several heterosexual couples. And as if that weren't enough, the Grandparents have been told that if they object to the choice of adoptive parents, then their right to see their own flesh and blood twice a year will be denied them." Adoption should be all about what is best for the children. I just cannot for the life of me see how this takes any account of their needs. It is an utter tragedy for that whole family.
Webbo Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 Grand parents worried about their grand children. Those evil right wing bastards.
Guest MattP Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 Is that supposed to show Leadsom in a bad light Barry?
Strokes Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 Guess the politican that posted this on their own blog;"There's a truly unbelievable story in the paper today, that a young brother and sister, whose mother is a heroin addict, have been turned down for adoption by their own grandparents, because they are deemed too old, even though neither has yet turned 60. If that weren't enough, the siblings are now to be adopted by two complete strangers against the wishes of the grandparents. Following adoption, they will then be 'allowed' 2 visits to their grandchildren each year. And as if that weren't enough, the two strangers are a gay couple, who have been selected ahead of several heterosexual couples. And as if that weren't enough, the Grandparents have been told that if they object to the choice of adoptive parents, then their right to see their own flesh and blood twice a year will be denied them." Adoption should be all about what is best for the children. I just cannot for the life of me see how this takes any account of their needs. It is an utter tragedy for that whole family. The part about the homosexual couple, is she suggesting they were pushed up the queue to fill a quota or merely should be a last resort? The last paragraph is true, I think that sums up what she is trying to communicate.
Guest MattP Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 Different thread for this but assuming that's true what kind of a society do that? I'm very lucky to have been born into a stable family, I can't believe the state would put the rights of two gays over the rights of two young children to have a mother and father figure growing up, appalling. That story has made me sad.
Mark_w Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 Is that supposed to show Leadsom in a bad light Barry? And as if that weren't enough, the two strangers are a gay couple, who have been selected ahead of several heterosexual couples. That's the line that shows Leadsom in a bad light Matt. Though I acknowledge it'll only endear her to you.
Guest MattP Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 Why would you put a guy couples right to adopt ahead of a child's right to a mother and father figure growing up?
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 Why would you put a guy couples right to adopt ahead of a child's right to a mother and father figure growing up? What if the grand parents had reasonably serious health conditions? Angina and diabeties? It should also be noted, the children were already in care, they hadn't been staying with the Grandparents.
Mark_w Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 Why would you put a guy couples right to adopt ahead of a child's right to a mother and father figure growing up? If I were said child I'd want the most capable parents available, and sexuality wouldn't even be in the ranking system. But I'm sure we've had this discussion before and got nowhere.
Strokes Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 What if the grand parents had reasonably serious health conditions? Angina and diabeties? It should also be noted, the children were already in care, they hadn't been staying with the Grandparents. What if they were in perfect health? Would it be ok then?
theessexfox Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 I'm also sure what Leadsom said about having children was blown hugely out of context, as usual with anything said in politics.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 What if they were in perfect health? Would it be ok then? Decisions need to be taken on a variety of factors, but clearly long term stability for young children is a paramount consideration.
davieG Posted 9 July 2016 Author Posted 9 July 2016 A lot of criticism and second guessing being made without knowing all the facts.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 I'm also sure what Leadsom said about having children was blown hugely out of context, as usual with anything said in politics. Here's the text - make your own mind up https://twitter.com/emmatimes2/status/751551212495986688
theessexfox Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 Here's the text - make your own mind up https://twitter.com/emmatimes2/status/751551212495986688 'I don't want this to be "Andrea has children, Theresa hasn't" because that would be really horrible'. She actively made a point of not wanting to compare it with Theresa, just to justify why being a mum is important to her politics, nowhere near as bad as it's been made out.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 'I don't want this to be "Andrea has children, Theresa hasn't" because that would be really horrible'. She actively made a point of not wanting to compare it with Theresa, just to justify why being a mum is important to her politics, nowhere near as bad as it's been made out. But the question didn't ask her to go there? And the stupid thing was her to bring up May in the response - it did exactly the thing she was alledgedly trying not to do. She drew the comparison herself.
Webbo Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 But the question didn't ask her to go there? And the stupid thing was her to bring up May in the response - it did exactly the thing she was alledgedly trying not to do. She drew the comparison herself. I heard the clip on the news this morning and it did sound like a cheap shot. Whether the Times put more emphasis than was meant I don't know. I don't think it's the sort of thing that would make you change your vote though.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 I heard the clip on the news this morning and it did sound like a cheap shot. Whether the Times put more emphasis than was meant I don't know. I don't think it's the sort of thing that would make you change your vote though. What, positioning yourself in a superior position against something the other candidate can't psychically do? It would have been fine to comment on how being a mother influenced her decision making, no problem with that, but she deliberately drew comparisons by referencing May's position twice. Doing the "I'm not saying this, but" thing is no excuse. For me, she's like your slightly unstable Nan who will say things without caution that leave you wincing - now you forgive your Nan because she's your Nan and doesn't really know better, but you wouldn't put her in charge of the country!
Strokes Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 What, positioning yourself in a superior position against something the other candidate can't psychically do? It would have been fine to comment on how being a mother influenced her decision making, no problem with that, but she deliberately drew comparisons by referencing May's position twice. Doing the "I'm not saying this, but" thing is no excuse. For me, she's like your slightly unstable Nan who will say things without caution that leave you wincing - now you forgive your Nan because she's your Nan and doesn't really know better, but you wouldn't put her in charge of the country! I don't think she is dangerous, I'm quite excited by how she blurs certain boundries. I would vote for her based on she won't give any leeway on the brexit plan and push us down the road we voted for. I'm still unsure as to what May's plan is for this, cheap shots are nothing new and this one is pretty lame by comparison.
Webbo Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 What, positioning yourself in a superior position against something the other candidate can't psychically do? It would have been fine to comment on how being a mother influenced her decision making, no problem with that, but she deliberately drew comparisons by referencing May's position twice. Doing the "I'm not saying this, but" thing is no excuse. For me, she's like your slightly unstable Nan who will say things without caution that leave you wincing - now you forgive your Nan because she's your Nan and doesn't really know better, but you wouldn't put her in charge of the country! I've not tried to excuse it but you pick a leader for what their vision is for the country, not for how bitchy they are. As I've said before I'm neutral atm.
Guest MattP Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 Leadsom is going to find out just how brutal the Tory party machine is over the next few weeks, she'll get a harder time from the right wing press than Clarke or Portillo got. They want May and they will make sure nothing stops her.
Guest Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 Grand parents worried about their grand children. Those evil right wing bastards. Seems those grandparents allowed their child to become a heroin addict. Perhaps the authorities think they aren't fit to bring up the grandchildren. We don't know any of the facts but would hope that the authorities do and are doing what is best for the children.
Guest Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 There are no saints in politics. Still think Leadsom is better for the tories than May.
Dr The Singh Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 There are no saints in politics. Still think Leadsom is better for the tories than May. We need a Obama type figure to bring everyone together. Although he was found to be a shit president, he brought it of hope when he just became the leader
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.