Equalities minister?

20 May 2010

Quote by Lizaleanrob

no kas would it not be discrimination and a lack of equality if the pedophiles where not allowed to adopt if they was homosexual
i do believe this is your shout on equality im just pointing out all the possibles :huh:

Very interesting point. Do you know of any paedophiles that have been granted adoption/foster rights after their conviction?
Not knowing much about adoption/foster rules, I believe a conviction may make the application ineligible. Has there been many cases? Or are you talking hypothetical. If you are talking hypothetical then the simple rule of protecting the kids from convicted criminals would be a sensible one if the adults were homosexual, straight, bi, etc. This would be discriminating against them, but allowed in law.
Discrimination is being bandied about as a bad word but it can also be used for good. E.g. discriminating on age: Stopping under 18's from smoking, discriminating on sex: Banning females of child bearing age working with lead/in the lead industry, etc
Dave_Notts
thank you dave im not very good at putting my case across at times i am just pointing out the rules of equality
and yes all hypothetical
what about suspected pedophiles ??
Suspected by whom? A neighbour? The police? In what context?
If only suspected i.e. charges brought but not convicted then yes the application can be progressed but not completed until the outcome of the case in court. If they are found innocent then the application can be processed, but if convicted then someone in jail cannot adopt.
Common sense really wink

Dave_Notts

20 May 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts

no kas would it not be discrimination and a lack of equality if the pedophiles where not allowed to adopt if they was homosexual
i do believe this is your shout on equality im just pointing out all the possibles :huh:

Very interesting point. Do you know of any paedophiles that have been granted adoption/foster rights after their conviction?
Not knowing much about adoption/foster rules, I believe a conviction may make the application ineligible. Has there been many cases? Or are you talking hypothetical. If you are talking hypothetical then the simple rule of protecting the kids from convicted criminals would be a sensible one if the adults were homosexual, straight, bi, etc. This would be discriminating against them, but allowed in law.
Discrimination is being bandied about as a bad word but it can also be used for good. E.g. discriminating on age: Stopping under 18's from smoking, discriminating on sex: Banning females of child bearing age working with lead/in the lead industry, etc
Dave_Notts
thank you dave im not very good at putting my case across at times i am just pointing out the rules of equality
and yes all hypothetical
what about suspected pedophiles ??
Suspected by whom? A neighbour? The police? In what context?
If only suspected i.e. charges brought but not convicted then yes the application can be progressed but not completed until the outcome of the case in court. If they are found innocent then the application can be processed, but if convicted then someone in jail cannot adopt.
Common sense really wink

Dave_Notts
case collapsed on a technicality ??

20 May 2010

Quote by Lizaleanrob

no kas would it not be discrimination and a lack of equality if the pedophiles where not allowed to adopt if they was homosexual
i do believe this is your shout on equality im just pointing out all the possibles :huh:

Very interesting point. Do you know of any paedophiles that have been granted adoption/foster rights after their conviction?
Not knowing much about adoption/foster rules, I believe a conviction may make the application ineligible. Has there been many cases? Or are you talking hypothetical. If you are talking hypothetical then the simple rule of protecting the kids from convicted criminals would be a sensible one if the adults were homosexual, straight, bi, etc. This would be discriminating against them, but allowed in law.
Discrimination is being bandied about as a bad word but it can also be used for good. E.g. discriminating on age: Stopping under 18's from smoking, discriminating on sex: Banning females of child bearing age working with lead/in the lead industry, etc
Dave_Notts
thank you dave im not very good at putting my case across at times i am just pointing out the rules of equality
and yes all hypothetical
what about suspected pedophiles ??
Suspected by whom? A neighbour? The police? In what context?
If only suspected i.e. charges brought but not convicted then yes the application can be progressed but not completed until the outcome of the case in court. If they are found innocent then the application can be processed, but if convicted then someone in jail cannot adopt.
Common sense really wink

Dave_Notts
case collapsed on a technicality ??
Are they guilty or not? If not guilty then their case can proceed. However, once you are in these realms then they also have to have an advanced CRB check and this does not just relate to convictions. So the authorities will have to make a judgement call on all the evidence presented before them.
So yes, the case could proceed but they may still refuse. Is it discrimination against paedophiles.......lets turn that on its head, would you like paedophiles being given adoption rights?
Equality laws are put in to make people........erm equal. Not more equal but equal to as long as they meet all other criteria.
Dave_Notts

20 May 2010

cant do the quote thing
dave you would hope common sense would stop this horror in its tracks
my point to kas was that there is no such thing as equality and for reasons such as this is justification enough
so like you say to many words are banded around with no idea just what they could mean and the horrors they may bring
bandwagons is a word that springs to mind wink

20 May 2010

If the difference between deselecting those who are a danger to children and being prejudiced solely because others pursue a different lifestyle cannot be understood then one is either clutching at straws or being deliberately obtuse or...... Well it beggars belief really.

20 May 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
here you go kaz i do believe this is the equality thingy in question

so back to my selective statement

Looks like discrimination to me :giggle:
why does it look like discrimination?,
There is a severe shortage of foster carers and people willing to adopt children over the age of 's lives are blighted by having to live in group homes,rather than experience family have seriously contemplated giving up swinging to become foster parents,knowing the plight of children who have suffered abuse who need love and support.
So you think given this situation the council should not try everything to try and find new foster parents and people willing to adopt the "difficult children"
Kent said there are hundreds waiting to adopt who are denied,this is bollocks,yes healthy babies are popular,the 5 year old who steals food ,the 4 year old who covers the room in excrement,the 6 year old who re enacts sex acts at school,the 7 year old who self harms, the 8 year old who offers her foster father a blow job, no one wants these this campaign gets one person willing to give one of them a home,then it is worth the money.
How the heck do you know? It is not bollocks at all, or are you now an expert in fostering and adoption, like you make out you are an expert in every field on every topic here?
We can all Wilki on our computers and have an opinion on anything, but sometimes having first hand knowledge is far more useful.
I am telling you it happens, I know a damn site more about adoption and fostering than you may well think...
Still not going to argue the toss with you, your comments to me prove it is merely your opinion, as you certainly do not know the facts !
Plus you bleat on about equalities yet and I quote " newly diagnosed disabled children " which you say you help with. I wonder if those same parents take would be the same if they knew what you did of an evening and what you did in your social life? I bet they would have a different opinion of you then maybe? So they would not be treating you as an equal either then, is it possible that some of those parents may well think it pretty disgusting? I wonder if someone wanted to adopt and was then found out to be a member of a swinging site who got naked on cam and met others for sex, if they would readily allow that person to adopt? I bet it would not help their case, which could mean that even swingers would be discriminated against?
I wonder if you will be told off for being "opinionated" by saying what I wrote is bollcoks? I await.

20 May 2010

So for purely equality purposes then, you will mention to the authorities about your swinging lifestyle then?
If you was to mention it the equality you seem so keen to see happen, would be directed against you...
I can see it much more clearly now.

20 May 2010

Ive only read 3/4 of this thread then i just gave up. Apart from the endless quotes within quotes (pet hate now most definitly) points are made but missed, it makes reading it such hard work when you have to constantly skip over bits you've read before.
But the worst thing about this particular thread is that its almost impossible to see past the apparent, dare i say it, hatred between certain members. The issues get lost in the back biting, and talk about taking points to the extreme to demonstrate how wrong someone is!! Honestly I feel quite bewildered.
This could have been a really good thread. There have been some very excellent points made but its just too nasty. There's no debate here - what a waste of time!

20 May 2010

Going back to the OP though I would agree that the political credentials of the person dont match the requirements of the position whatsoever. A point well made Kaz.
It would make as much sense appointing Gary Glitter as Minister for Child Welfare, or Chubby Brown Minister of good taste.

20 May 2010

The true results will be discovered in a few generations time
Just to reiterate, I have no problem with any-ones sexuality. It is simply that having two parents of the same sex does not sit well with me
I of coarse wish the family's and children every success and happiness and hope that you are correct Kaz and I am wrong.

20 May 2010

Quote by Ben_welshminx
If the difference between deselecting those who are a danger to children and being prejudiced solely because others pursue a different lifestyle cannot be understood then one is either clutching at straws or being deliberately obtuse or...... Well it beggars belief really.

Oh almost certainly deliberately obtuse....it seems to be a default position when the water gets a little deep

20 May 2010

indeed the fluffy grey cloud is a better place to hide ones awkward stance on matters when the nitty gritty of life might just bite your arse wink

:happy::happy::evil2::evil2:

20 May 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
So for purely equality purposes then, you will mention to the authorities about your swinging lifestyle then?
If you was to mention it the equality you seem so keen to see happen, would be directed against you...
I can see it much more clearly now.

As i said we would give up swinging if we became foster parents.
It would be impossible to fight the ingrained prejudices,and therefore a situation when discretion would be the better part of valour,this would be a result of prejudice and inequality,and why u fail to see that i can not understand.
so what is the difference between your kids and fostering other kids
would that not be double standards then

20 May 2010

Quote by Lizaleanrob
so what is the difference between your kids and fostering other kids
would that not be double standards then

Your life, sex life and all round behavoiur aren't put under a microscope and judged to allow you to look after your own kids. Its not double standards - its doing whats necessary to jump through the hoops that you have to jump through and prove that you're what they expect you to be. If thats what it takes then whats the issue?
If its double standards at all its on the part of the authorities who set these conditions in which they judge for fostering, and not for parenting not the prospective parents who are trying to meet their exacting standards.
Kids, whether your own or foster kids, wouldnt be exposed to any swinging antics so it shouldnt matter to anyone what parents do in thier own time. They might even have sex with each other after all!!!!
Kaz - i really dont know why you would bother even replying to this!

20 May 2010

Quote by vampanya

so what is the difference between your kids and fostering other kids
would that not be double standards then

Your life, sex life and all round behavoiur aren't put under a microscope and judged to allow you to look after your own kids. Its not double standards - its doing whats necessary to jump through the hoops that you have to jump through and prove that you're what they expect you to be. If thats what it takes then whats the issue?
If its double standards at all its on the part of the authorities who set these conditions in which they judge for fostering, and not for parenting not the prospective parents who are trying to meet their exacting standards.
Kids, whether your own or foster kids, wouldnt be exposed to any swinging antics so it shouldnt matter to anyone what parents do in thier own time. They might even have sex with each other after all!!!!
Kaz - i really dont know why you would bother even replying to this!
Exactly what I have been saying.
The authorities put so many obstacles in the way that many either fail, or just give up, leaving kids in the very care system that they should be out of.
But and here is the but.....gay couples can on occasion be exempt from those same conditions, so as the authorities meet their " targets ". That is NOT equality which is what this thread is about. The equality minister was somewhat slated for her views, but it is certainly double standards if you are prepared to lie to someone, or to keep quite about something, if it was to affect ones chances of adopting.
As with many issues out there, until you treat everyone the same whether it be sexual orientation, or the colour of ones skin, problems will always be there, and I do not think that one section of the community should have preference over another just because of that sexual orientation or the colour of their skin.
As was mentioned earlier which is a valid point, why change your habits for someone elses kids, that you want to adopt, but not for your own kids? That does have a tad of double standards.

20 May 2010

Tonight on question time, Theresa May admitted that she was wrong on Gay adoption and now fully supports it

20 May 2010

Well no suprise there then Blue eh ?

20 May 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
As was mentioned earlier which is a valid point, why change your habits for someone elses kids, that you want to adopt, but not for your own kids? That does have a tad of double standards.

As you yourself just agreed its double standards on the part of the authorities for not expecting the same of parents as of foster parents not on the part of the parents. If someone would change their habits they're doing whats necessary. It doesn't mean they have double standards, rather doing what they have to do to fit the bill.

21 May 2010

Quote by vampanya

As was mentioned earlier which is a valid point, why change your habits for someone elses kids, that you want to adopt, but not for your own kids? That does have a tad of double standards.

As you yourself just agreed its double standards on the part of the authorities for not expecting the same of parents as of foster parents not on the part of the parents. If someone would change their habits they're doing whats necessary. It doesn't mean they have double standards, rather doing what they have to do to fit the bill.
are we saying then !!!
so as far as the authorities are concerned and us now>> these fostered children will get a different parent to the one her own children have got by fact of kaz giving up her swinging lifestyle ?? dunno

21 May 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
But and here is the but.....gay couples can on occasion be exempt from those same conditions, so as the authorities meet their " targets ". That is NOT equality which is what this thread is about.

But and here is the but..........apart from the "friend" who told you that gay people are exempt (and I have made my opinion known on them being in that position if they want to turn a blind eye), where does it state in the procedures for adoption that gay people are exempt from the rest of the rules that straight folk have to adhere to?
If you can show me then I will agree it is not equal. If you can't then it is equal.
Dave_Notts

21 May 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts

But and here is the but.....gay couples can on occasion be exempt from those same conditions, so as the authorities meet their " targets ". That is NOT equality which is what this thread is about.

But and here is the but..........apart from the "friend" who told you that gay people are exempt (and I have made my opinion known on them being in that position if they want to turn a blind eye), where does it state in the procedures for adoption that gay people are exempt from the rest of the rules that straight folk have to adhere to?
If you can show me then I will agree it is not equal. If you can't then it is equal.
Dave_Notts
It does not Davey....everything seems equal, but behind closed doors they have to meet certain targets laid down by the Authorities.
Do you really think this does not go on?
It does and whilst I cannot prove it on here, I know it happens and that is what makes me so angry that decent hardworking straight couples have to be whiter than white, whereby some sections can be a subtle shade of grey.

21 May 2010

Quote by kentswingers777

But and here is the but.....gay couples can on occasion be exempt from those same conditions, so as the authorities meet their " targets ". That is NOT equality which is what this thread is about.

But and here is the but..........apart from the "friend" who told you that gay people are exempt (and I have made my opinion known on them being in that position if they want to turn a blind eye), where does it state in the procedures for adoption that gay people are exempt from the rest of the rules that straight folk have to adhere to?
If you can show me then I will agree it is not equal. If you can't then it is equal.
Dave_Notts
It does not Davey....everything seems equal, but behind closed doors they have to meet certain targets laid down by the Authorities.
Do you really think this does not go on?
It does and whilst I cannot prove it on here, I know it happens and that is what makes me so angry that decent hardworking straight couples have to be whiter than white, whereby some sections can be a subtle shade of grey.
So the people involved are willing to break the law and not report this? Sack the lot of them if they can not do the job..........sod their mortgages.
Dave_Notts

21 May 2010

Very easy to say that when it is not your job on the line Davey.
That is why the adoption process stinks in so many respects.

21 May 2010

I have been in that position before, and I had to take the responsibility for my actions. Some people can do the job with morals/principals, and some can't. It is all down to choice. If people let people break the law, then they are part of it if they have not done anything about it.
Dave_Notts

21 May 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
It does not Davey....everything seems equal, but behind closed doors they have to meet certain targets laid down by the Authorities.
Do you really think this does not go on?
It does and whilst I cannot prove it on here, I know it happens and that is what makes me so angry that decent hardworking straight couples have to be whiter than white, whereby some sections can be a subtle shade of grey.

I don't believe it goes on to any great extent. Very occasionally, when a really difficult placement occurs (ie. the child is virtually unplaceable) the rules might be slightly relaxed when there has been a match made that would fail if all the i's were dotted - it's called expediency. This can be for anyone, heterosexual or gay, and is in the interests of the child who would otherwise be unplaced to give them a chance of a family home. Sometimes the bollocks you talk is just too much to keep quiet about. Put up or shut up is a good way to look at discussion sometimes. State where your knowledge comes from, mine comes from being married to someone who was in respite care, in a fostering and adoption team, for 10 years.

21 May 2010

Quote by northwest-cpl
It does not Davey....everything seems equal, but behind closed doors they have to meet certain targets laid down by the Authorities.
Do you really think this does not go on?
It does and whilst I cannot prove it on here, I know it happens and that is what makes me so angry that decent hardworking straight couples have to be whiter than white, whereby some sections can be a subtle shade of grey.

I don't believe it goes on to any great extent. Very occasionally, when a really difficult placement occurs (ie. the child is virtually unplaceable) the rules might be slightly relaxed when there has been a match made that would fail if all the i's were dotted - it's called expediency. This can be for anyone, heterosexual or gay, and is in the interests of the child who would otherwise be unplaced to give them a chance of a family home. Sometimes the bollocks you talk is just too much to keep quiet about. Put up or shut up is a good way to look at discussion sometimes. State where your knowledge comes from, mine comes from being married to someone who was in respite care, in a fostering and adoption team, for 10 years.
What on a poxy forum??
Dont be so silly.
I may well talk bollocks as you so aptly put it, but I really really am not bothered in the slightest what you say.
I notice you say " was " in the fostering and adoption profession.
At the end of the day I do not give a " flying fuck " whether people believe what I say or not, I know and to me that is all that matters. I am certainly not going to get into a bickering arguement with you, you never have anything constructive to say about anything I post, in fact you only seem to post anything about my comments, still at least I get your attention.
You have a jolly good weekend...ya hear?

5 Jun 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Cannot see any problem at all with her not voting on those issues!
It is her right to do so, or are we saying that minorities have to have the upper hand?
The things that she voted against do not sit comfortably with me either.
Are people now going to scream " bigot " at me now?
I am entitled to my opinion on anything that I do not find myself being comfortable with, but then again am I really bothered?

I'm not going to scream "bigot"; I'm just going to remind you that swingers are a minority too - and one many people disagree with. How would you fancy legislation that actively discriminated against swingers? Different age of consent perhaps, or a ban on adopting children? How about a ban on marriage and the dissolution of existing ones if anyone is found 'guilty' of swinging (after all, they've obviously broken their marriage vows)?
Not souunding so good now, is it, Mr Kentswinger?

5 Jun 2010

Quote by brightonbiboy

Cannot see any problem at all with her not voting on those issues!
It is her right to do so, or are we saying that minorities have to have the upper hand?
The things that she voted against do not sit comfortably with me either.
Are people now going to scream " bigot " at me now?
I am entitled to my opinion on anything that I do not find myself being comfortable with, but then again am I really bothered?

I'm not going to scream "bigot"; I'm just going to remind you that swingers are a minority too - and one many people disagree with. How would you fancy legislation that actively discriminated against swingers? Different age of consent perhaps, or a ban on adopting children? How about a ban on marriage and the dissolution of existing ones if anyone is found 'guilty' of swinging (after all, they've obviously broken their marriage vows)?
Not souunding so good now, is it, Mr Kentswinger?
The words you have to say
The minimum vows required for your civil marriage to be legal are as follows. These words must be said by both of you in your ceremony. You will usually be allowed to add your own choice of vows before or after the statutory ones.
In England and Wales the statutory declaration is:
I do solemnly declare that I know not of any lawful impediment why I, __may not be joined in matrimony to __
It is followed by these contracting words:
I call upon these persons here present to witness that I, __do take thee, __, to be my lawful wedded husband/wife.
There are also two legal alternative declarations.
Declarations: I know of no legal reason why I, __, may not be joined in marriage to __.
Or by relying ‘I am’ top the question: Are you, __ free lawfully to marry__?
These are followed by the contract:
I, __, take you,__ to be my wedded wife/husband.
Or
I, __ take thee, __ to be my wedded wife/husband
In Scotland the couple say:
I solemnly declare that I know of no legal impediment why I, __, may not be joined in matrimony to__. I accept.
In Northern Ireland the statutory declaration is:
I know of no lawful impediment why I, __, may not be joined in matrimony to, __, to be my lawful wedded husband/wife.
Please point out the brocken vows? wink

5 Jun 2010

Quote by brightonbiboy

Cannot see any problem at all with her not voting on those issues!
It is her right to do so, or are we saying that minorities have to have the upper hand?
The things that she voted against do not sit comfortably with me either.
Are people now going to scream " bigot " at me now?
I am entitled to my opinion on anything that I do not find myself being comfortable with, but then again am I really bothered?

I'm not going to scream "bigot"; I'm just going to remind you that swingers are a minority too - and one many people disagree with. How would you fancy legislation that actively discriminated against swingers? Different age of consent perhaps, or a ban on adopting children? How about a ban on marriage and the dissolution of existing ones if anyone is found 'guilty' of swinging (after all, they've obviously broken their marriage vows)?
Not souunding so good now, is it, Mr Kentswinger?
Sounds superb to me....as I am not the kind of person to scream anything just because something does not go my way.
Anyway your just saying hypothetical nonsense to be honest.