BS: 'Gay' parents?

Subject: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 06:32 AM

Just in on BBC news.
A homosexual couple who were allowed to foster two boys have been jailed for their abuse.

Some time ago there was a long thread on the suitability of homosexual men to be given the care or adoption of children.
The general response then, was cries of bigot , homophobe, ect ect.

Is anyone troubled by this case? Or does "political correctness" take precedence over the welfare of our children....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: skipy
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 06:40 AM

Here it is:-
Homosexual Men Allowed to Foster Young Boys Despite Abuse Evidence Convicted of Sexual Abuse

by Hilary White

PONTEFRACT, UK, May 23, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Two homosexual men who volunteered to be foster parents to troubled children were convicted of multiple counts of sexual molestation of their charges. Ian Wathey, 40, and Craig Faunch, 32 were convicted of molesting and filming eight-year-old twins and two 14 year-old boys placed in their care by the Wakefield council.

The council is being criticized for having failed to act after accusations of abuse were made against the two men. The twin boys mother, identified only as "Mrs X," complained when she found suggestive photographs of her sons. An inquiry by social workers, however, cleared the now-convicted paedophiles and police were not called in.

The Telegraph quotes Kitty Ferris, speaking for the council, who said the men's applications had been approved "in accordance with statutory requirements and council policy."

The mother of one of the boys is suing the Wakefield Council and Hemsworth MP Jon Trickett has joined calls for an investigation. A total of 19 boys were placed with Wathey and Faunch since they were approved in 2003.

Mrs. X said she was shocked that social services failed to respond to the warning signs. "You just don't do that," she said. "You just don't take pictures of kids with no clothes on. Why would they want a picture of my son like that unless it's for something mucky."

Police found homosexual pornography featuring young adolescents in the men's house that they shared with the foster boys. One film featured a group of older men performing sex acts with young males. One of the couple's teenage victims claims he was made to watch one of these films while Wathey sexually abused him.

Describing the abuse, one of the victims said, "It hurt. Afterwards, I said 'Pack it in now,' and then I went to bed. I was gutted. I didn't want anything to do with anyone else. All I could do was sit there and cry."

On the application to become foster "carers" the two men specified that they wanted boys aged five to twelve but only two of the boys they cared for were in that age group, the rest were teenagers.

Social services in Wakefield were identified in a recent report as being among the worst in the country in a scathing report published in 2001. The Joint Review by the Audit Commission and the Social Services Inspectorate said the department was failing the city's most vulnerable people.

David Holmes, Chief Executive of The British Association for Adoption and Fostering, said it was important not to confuse the sexuality of the carers with committing sex crimes against children.

In Britain, as in Canada, anti-discrimination laws prevent social workers or parents from objecting to potential foster parents on the basis of their sexual 'orientation.'
STAYING OUT OF THIS ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: LilyFestre
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 06:45 AM

Are you kidding me? Have you seen how many STRAIGHT parents beat the hell out of their children? Do you have any idea of how many STRAIGHT fathers molest their daughters?

Being gay has nothing to do with the propensity to abuse children and if you feel it does perhaps you should get over your prejudice and meet some people who are gay. You will find that they are like any other human beings on the face of this earth, some lovely people, some assholes. Geez.

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 06:49 AM

I'm not surprised by this at all.Common sense went out the window years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 07:06 AM

Lily Festre....You are quite wrong to state unequivocably that there is no link between MALE homosexuality and the abuse of boys.

In my lifetime ,I have seen many cases which would sggest the opposite.

Sexual abuse of children is almost always committed by men.

To tackle this problem we must look at male and female psychology.
When dealing with sexual matters, the veneer of "civilisation" is very thin indeed.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: freda underhill
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 07:11 AM

Any quick check will find that a percentage children in foster care, in schools, in residential care, are all at risk of various forms of abuse from women and men, most of whom are married.

read on..

In an international study of allegations of abuse in foster care, 59 social services and social work departments returned questionnaires and identified 305 abuse investigations during the year under study; representing 4% of foster homes. Just over one-fifth of the cases (67) were substantiated and in a further fifth of cases investigating staff were not able to determine whether or not abuse had occurred (Nixon and Verity, 1996, p. 11; see also Verity and Nixon, 1995).

Finally, more general research on residential and foster care has identified abuse. In their study of special residential schools, Grimshaw and Berridge found that 4% of children and young people had definitely suffered physical abuse and 6% sexual abuse. One fifth (21%) were reported to have "experienced some form of suspected or confirmed abuse; 13% had experienced suspected or confirmed physical abuse and 13% similarly sexual abuse..." (Grimshaw and Berridge, 1994, pp. 103-104), although the research did not identify the perpetrator of the abuse. Triseliotis et al studied social work services to a sample of 116 teenagers over a 12 month period. Fifty-five young people experienced 78 residential care placements and, in interviews, "two young people spoke of incidents when they had been assaulted by staff and both had formally complained about it" (Triseliotis et al, 1995, p. 181). Twenty-seven young people experienced 37 foster care placements and two girls were sexually abused, one by the male foster carer, and one by "a family friend who had taken her in on a private fostering basis" (Triseliotis et al, 1995, p. 190). In a general survey of residential child care services in Scotland, Lindsay asked about allegations of sexual abuse by staff in the previous year. Thirteen services (6%) indicated that there had been a total of 16 allegations of abuse (Lindsay, 1997, p. 32). Macaskill studied 66 foster families caring for sexually abused children. The placements of 80 children were studied in depth and the research found 8 cases of abuse in previous foster or adoptive placements. The abuser was the foster or adoptive father in 5 cases and in the other cases, the foster mother, the foster mother's boyfriend or a foster brother (Macaskill, 1991). A study of 204 referrals to the child sexual abuse unit of a London hospital between 1981 and 1984 found that 4% of the perpetrators abusing girls and 3% of those abusing boys were classified as a foster father or foster brother. In addition to this, three adoptive fathers perpetrated the sexual abuse. This compares to only one case where the perpetrator was a worker in a children's home (La Fontaine, 1990, p. 121)

from http://www.sircc.strath.ac.uk/research/kendrick.html

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 07:50 AM

Figures as to the sexual propensities of child abusers don't change anything. It especially doesn't help to compare the habits of one sexual orientation with that of another as to the frequency of this perversion.
It is equally wrong whichever one does it, it is not anti homomsexual to publish an article that mentions them any more than it is anti hetereosexual to publish stories of abuse by that community.
What so many people seem to miss in their pursuit of political correctness is the fact thet this involves REAL children and not abstract statistics,
The thing that is wrong in this instance is that the council didn't act quuickly enough, and as a consequence more children were harmed, and not the fact of who actually carried out the abuse.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: LilyFestre
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 08:40 AM

I don't think it has anything to do with sexual preference and my view certainly has NOTHING to do with political correctness. I've been a social worker for over 10 years working specifically with children who have been abused in many, MANY ways....so...my point of view comes from my experience.

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: freda underhill
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 08:53 AM

I hope those figures showed that no generalisations can be made about people who abuse children. And the nature of child abuse is so widespread, unfortunately, that I don't think there is any of us who would not know someone who has been abused.


freda

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: alanabit
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 08:58 AM

The issue is one of child care, not of sexual orientation. There are gay people, whom I would quite happily leave my children with. There are straight people with whom I would not.
I do not completely go along with the thinking, "Gay people have a right to have children too." I think that is an emotive statement, which clouds the real issue of putting the childrens' needs first. Nobody has a "right" to have children. I certainly do not. I have just been lucky. However, there are cases when placing children in the hands of gay people is the best option. The issue addressed in the initial post here is one of child abuse. Sexual orientation should be left out of it.
I forget the exact words that lawyers use to express the idea, but it is along the lines of, "Exceptional cases make bad law".
Writing the headline, "Gay parents molest children", is as crass as writing, "Black gunman shoots bank clerk". In both cases, the use of the first word as a near perjorative is biased and unnecessary.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: freda underhill
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 09:02 AM

perfect, alan.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Wesley S
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 09:07 AM

Ake - Correct me if I'm wrong. But I suspect that reguardless of the facts of this one particular case that you would prefer that homosexuals not be allowed to be foster parents. Or adopt for that mater. Am I correct ? If not please let me know.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: LilyFestre
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 09:32 AM

Well said Alan.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 10:01 AM

There is one particulary disturbing fact in this case, which unfortunatly is being repeated across the country at this minute.

A complaint was made, but they were cleared to carry on as foster carers, and now it is shown the original complaint was well founded.
The fact the original complaint may well have been based on bigotry is irrelevant.

The couples sexuality is, in my opinion, irrelevant. It has been shown time and time again that some people of every Gender, Race and Sexuality have abused children

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Sorcha
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 10:07 AM

Thank you Alan.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: John P
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 10:28 AM

Has anyone done any studies on hair color in adults who abuse children? Perhaps every article about child abuse should list the hair color of the perpetrator, so we could say that people with red hair, or whatever, shouldn't be allowed to be caregivers for children. How about geography? Are people in warm climates more inclined to hit thier kids? I really don't think we should let folks in warm climates be foster parents! What about race? Are there more child abusers among mixed-race couples? Perhaps the news article should say "Confirmed child abuse by mixed-race couple who were allowed to be foster parents"

Akenaton, if you can't see the illogic of your statements, you need to buy a ticket on the clue bus. Well, maybe it's more ignorance than illogic, I'm not sure. To automatically equate homosexuality with pedophilia bespeaks a vast lack of normal information as well as an astonishing ability to believe something for which there is no evidence, and which has been disproved many, many times.

I am not particularly politically correct, unless political correctness means treating people with respect, and treating them as individuals instead of as a member of some group. To say that gay folks being allowed to foster children is political correctness run amok is a smokescreen. You want to have your bigotry accepted as something other than your bigotry, so you try to ally it with some popular catch phrase so you can deflect our attention from your sad perversity.

Yes, you are a bigot and you are a sexual pervert. The bigotry should be obvious -- look it up, and then substitute "black" everywhere you use "gay". See how it sounds. Your sexual perversion is demonstrated by your public interest in what other people are doing in bed. Kind of sick, isn't it? Try subsituting the phrase "people who do things in bed that I don't" everywhere you use the word "gay" and it becomes pretty obvious that any discussion about what gays should be allowed to do is really about what they do in bed. Yeah, kinda sick.

Get your mind out of the gutter, take a logic class, read a book, and go meet some people. Please.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 10:57 AM

I agree that the issue is this case is the incompetence of the agency. Obviously, their investigation and followup were incomplete. The article says that only one of the children was not in his or her teens- and thus they were well able to articulate the situation- if the ball had not been dropped. That is where the scandal is.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 11:49 AM

Akenaton says

"Sexual abuse of children is almost always committed by men"

Logic dictates then that men should not be allowed to care for children.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: LilyFestre
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 12:04 PM

I agree that the ball was dropped by social services. Part of the problem with social services is that case workers have far too many cases to take care of each of them well. I believe that most social workers do the very best that they can but sometimes the caseload is so heavy that mistakes are going to happen, things are going to be inadvertantly overlooked. Children are being hurt, inappropriate homes/people are being approved for foster care (that's a whole other ball of wax...not enough foster homes), families are falling through the cracks and the list goes on. We need more social workers to handle the incredible amount of caseloads that exist. The burnout rate is high and the pay sucks...there simply is no incentive for people to join this profession or to stay with it. It's a system with many weaknesses.   This has been an ongoing problem in the US for YEARS. I don't know what the caseload of a UK worker looks like...anyone know?

LQF

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Rasener
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 05:14 PM

Its all about checking all people that foster children very carefully. The people that should have done that cocked up big time.

Unfortunately those foster parents did a big diservice to the gay society.
That is the trouble today, the minority are creating big issues for the vast majority of decent people in this world.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 05:22 PM

Lilyfestre has just about said everything I would have. This is about bad people not about whether they were gay or straight. As we live in Pontefract which is only a small town we will no doubt here much about this case in the weeks to come and I am saddened that it may mean that good foster parents are victimised because of their sexuality.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: NH Dave
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 05:38 PM

One of the problems we face is that the definition of abuse generally varies by the age of both the abuser and the abused. Thus people classed as abuse may only fall into this category because of the age of the child, and the fact that the older person committing the acts should have known better. Similar conducts between consenting adults bears no criminal liability.

Additionally, many recent headlines about teachers "abusing" their students have been about a woman carrying on a sexual relationship with one of her pupils, contrary to the notion that women aren't abusers.

Lastly, our newspapers have been filled with cases where otherwise well meaning social workers and foster parents lose complete track of each other. This is frequently due to case overload of the social worker, so that behavior that could have been caught early, had the two enjoyed a working relationship, ends up with children abused or killed, and everyone asking what went wrong.

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 05:39 PM

Trouble is that these two give homosexuals a bad name, as homosexuals and paedophiles are two totally different types of people.
I suspect that these two may have been masquerading as homosexuals in order to gain access to children.
A very difficult situation for the Social Services to deal with.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 06:49 PM

Lilyfestre ...I can't believe what you have posted. Do you know nothing of this case , or will you say anything to protect the political correctness which rules the social services?
"I believe that most social workers do the very best that they can but sometimes the caseload is so heavy that mistakes are going to happen, things are going to be inadvertantly overlooked"

The mother of one of the boys discovered a photograph taken by one of the "foster parents" showing her son urinating.
She took the photo to the social work dept, who took no action against the couple allowing abuse to continue.
This photograph should have been taken straight to the police, and in my opinion the reason it was not is the climate of PC endemic to the social services.

Peekstock...you are a devious person who cares more about imagined wrongs to self-made minority, than the very real danger posed to vulnerable children.
"Your sexual perversion is demonstrated by your public interest in what other people are doing in bed."

I have no interest whatsoever in what you or your friends do in bed, but I have very great concern as to what they do to our children.

Alan dont let us mince our words, the real issue is whether or not male homosexuals can be trusted with the personal care of young children.

We are talking percentages here, there is no point in doing as Lilyfestre has done and comparing numbers of "straight" abusers and Homosexual abusers
"there are cases when placing children in the hands of gay people is the best option." Would you mind explaining that comment, I would have thought that placing children in a secure conventional family situation would always be the best option

I stand by what I have already said, that the link between male homosexuality and child abuse is a fact borne out by the daily abuse of boys by homosexual clergy, youth workers and others in positions of authority over children.
Lilyfestre talks of ten years experience in social work, well I have over sixty years experience of life and bringing up a family of four boys.
My family are all grown now but we talked on this subject lately and they told me that as children they had to ward of the attentions of adult homosexuals on several occasions.
I also remember as a child myself being subjected to an attempted sexual assault by a man who although "married" was known by the local chidren as a "fiddler"
Unbelievably this man fostered over a dozen boys during his time in our area. I spoke to some of these boys in later life and all said that they had been sexually abused by the man during their stay in his home. I have no reason to believe that this pattern is not duplicated nationwide....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 07:21 PM

No problem here. While we're at it, let's be checking those biological parents as well!!! Are they fit to parent children? Let's put them to rigorous pre-fucking screening and have no copulation without authorization. This would solve all of these pesky problems with Foster Care and those other unsavory types....you know, the Adoptive parents!

Now we need someone to play God on all of this and I nominate Akenaton there!!! Just remember that if you or your staff screws the pooch on any of these decisions you will be shot and then replaced by another God-like broke-dick mamalucca.

Listen up .......When you've been in the trenches of children's services and have seen a collection of multiple sides to the same story as well as fighting uphill battles with too few qualified people, damn near no money, and being hounded by watchdog groups of "do-gooder know-nothings" like yourself (many of whom have been clients of the system!), then feel free to condemn at your leisure. Til that time, have a Coke and a smile and shut the fuck up!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 07:27 PM

Thanks, Spaw, JohnP and Alan.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 07:30 PM

Well thats put me in my place....But said fuck all about the matter under discussion.

Who do you think you are to tell anyone to "shut the fuck up"

Maybe if your heros in social service had not "shut the fuck up" these children would not have had to suffer continued abuse.

You may be some kind of "folk hero" to the simple minded, but to me you're nothing but an ignorant arsehole.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: alanabit
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 08:14 PM

"Alan dont let us mince our words, the real issue is whether or not male homosexuals can be trusted with the personal care of young children.
..."there are cases when placing children in the hands of gay people is the best option." Would you mind explaining that comment, I would have thought that placing children in a secure conventional family situation would always be the best option."
The answer I would give to the first sentence is simply "Yes". That is not the same as saying they should always be trusted. There are bakers, electricians and clergymen, who I would not want to be left alone with my children, because they are a potential threat. If we put the adjective "perverted" in front of any of those groups, there can be no question of it. So I am also quite happy to concede that perverted homosexuals would not be allowed to care for my children. I believe that most homosexuals are not perverted though.
In certain cases, where the child feels happiest being cared for by two people, who happen to be homosexual, I think that can be the best solution for the child.
In the love and physical affection I offer and receive from my children, sexuality plays no part at all. Otherwise I would - and should be - disbarred from caring for children. Why should that be any different in the case of homosexuals?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 08:44 PM

"In certain cases, where the child feels happiest being cared for by two people, who happen to be homosexual, I think that can be the best solution for the child"
How often do you think that situation might arise Alan
Given the numbers of children being fostered the percentage must be minimal. And what about the children who are too young or too disturbed to make any rational decision on happiness security or anything else.

Can you honestly say with hand on heart that as a child you or any of your friends have never recieved unwelcome attention from homosexuals.
I and most of my friends had these experiences. We would talk between ourselves of those men who should be avoided or make sure never to be in their company alone.
The whole idea of placing children in what could turn out to be a hazardous situation, seems far too much of a risk.

In a conventoinal family, if the father turns out have abusive tendencies, the presence of the mother must act as a safeguard for the child, as few mothers would condone this behaviour...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: freda underhill
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 08:52 PM

Lilyfestre said "case workers have far too many cases to take care of each of them well. I believe that most social workers do the very best that they can but sometimes the caseload is so heavy that mistakes are going to happen"

In Australia the situation is exactly the same - it's also about the will of the government to fund social services and in NSW our DOCs (Dept of community services) child protection workers have a very high burnout rate, as they are overworked and understaffed. The other problem we have is that there aren't enough foster carers - so some children get notified as being at risk and there's nowhere to send them.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 08:54 PM

In a conventoinal family, if the father turns out have abusive tendencies, the presence of the mother must act as a safeguard for the child, as few mothers would condone this behaviour...Ake

That statement alone shows how little you know. So when the Mom does NOT act as a safeguard, what happens? More to the point, abusive Dads are more often as not abusive husbands as well. And even more to the point, lots of Moms side with the Dad.

Why not just admit you're a homophobe of the first order and let it go?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: LilyFestre
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 09:13 PM

Hey Ake,

   Since you have 60 years of experience raising your own 4 boys, you are likely old enough to be retired. Instead of running your ignorant mouth about a system which you have no hands on experience in, why not spend YOUR time helping out? HMMM? Get a look at the real world up close and in person instead of from your rocker.

And Spaw....right on, man...RIGHT ON!!!

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 09:14 PM

Congratulations... 31 posts and the first use of "homophobe"

The very word is a cop out...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 09:35 PM

Lilyfestre...Retire!! you must be joking.
I'll die with my boots on...I spend my days on high roofs Scottish castles and such like, in all weathers, while you softies are toasting your arses and getting stressful about when the next holiday or "training course" is coming up :0)...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 11:36 PM

Ake - The best way to change a system is from the inside. What are you doing to fix the "problem" ? Or do you just like to complain ?

And let me repeat my earlier questions -"Correct me if I'm wrong. But I suspect that reguardless of the facts of this one particular case that you would prefer that homosexuals not be allowed to be foster parents. Or adopt for that matter. Am I correct ? If not please let me know."

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 05:38 AM

Many of you are still using the word homosexual when you mean paedophile.
I say again they are different, by calling a homosexual a paedophile you denigrate them.
Sorry to be pedantic but in this case it is very important, I blame the newspapers for a lot of the confusion on this one.

Homosexual
Paedophile

Giok

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: LilyFestre
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 06:59 AM

I know LOTS of working people who volunteer time....so what's your excuse now?

Yeah...that's what I thought....all talk and no action.

LQF

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 01:15 PM

I always considered myself a "gay" parent. A very happy period of my life.

How an adjective was allowed to also become a noun is somewhat of a mystery to me. Homosexual and Lesbian seem appropiate, don't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 01:29 PM

hear hear

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 01:36 PM

Wesley I'm not obliged to take part in an inquisition conducted by you,

Read my posts and my viewpoint is perfectly obvious.
I am quite happy to conduct a discussion with folk like Alan, who takes a different stance on this matter, but always conducts his arguments on a basis of reason and without the padding of abuse used by many on this thread.

The main point in this case is the abuse of the children, regardless of the sexual orientation of the abusers.
But just as shocking is the rank cowardice of the Social services, who just like the politicians are prepared to abdicate responsibility
tosave their useless jobs.

When presented with photographic evidense of abuse they were too craven to involve the police or have a proper investigation.
The reason being, that in the all pervasive climate of political correctness regarding homosexuals, they were afraid the whole mess would bounce back on them.

They thought the whole affair could be "contained"
The whole pack of them should be sacked forthwith. To say "they dropped the ball" is the understatement of the year, they never wanted the ball to begin with.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 01:41 PM

Happily retired from my Child Care career but with many memories of abused children put into my care. Abusers..male and female....who use and abuse physically/emotionally and sexually come is many guises. Admittedly male abusers were in the majority but not a large majority over the women who also abuse in all three ways. Women and sexual abuse rarely come to light inasmuch as boys who are abused by women tend to keep it quiet...and I have seen more than one case where women have been exposed as sexual abusers but their 'situations' have been hushed up...hidden from the public eye. Can I also suggest that there are a larger number of abusers out in the big wide world than we give credit for.
Whilst working with teenage girls who were pregnant or had babies (as young as eleven yrs old) Almost a third of them were pregnant by their own fathers and most of them pregnant by men much..much older than them. Many of the mothers had some idea it was happening but said nothing for fear of bringing problems on themselves and their families by speaking up.
I have thought for many years that learning about human relationships should be part of formal education from a young age, not just left to family and friendships. If children particularly are taught what is right and what is wrong in physical/sexual and emotional lives....and how/who to approach when they are abused....it would make such scenarios less likely.
Some of those abused grow to be abusers..that cycle needs breaking NOW.
Best wishes. Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 02:56 PM

The mother of one of the boys discovered a photograph taken by one of the "foster parents" showing her son urinating.

(This is proof positive of sexual abuse? I don't find it necessarily erotic or even having "sexual content" without some additional information. Obviously it gets Ake excited, but is it sexual excitement? It sounds like it must be, but I'd hate to see Ake convicted on such scant evidence.)

She took the photo to the social work dept, who took no action against the couple allowing abuse to continue.

(Obviously castration, hanging from a tree, and removal of the children was the only thing that would constitute "taking action" for Ake. But maybe the foster parents claimed they were just trying to show the kid he wasn't hitting the pot? Only subsequent evidence indicates that the first picture might have been an indication of reason for suspicion for which the social work dept may not have found cause at the time to take action. It's also possible, that there was an inadequate investigation. While the photo may or may not be incriminating, without additional evidence it's hardly basis for a conviction.)

This photograph should have been taken straight to the police, and in my opinion the reason it was not is the climate of PC endemic to the social services.

(Urinating is a crime in Ake's town? Or maybe it's just communicating with one's children about body functions that's illegal? Or perhaps nobody should take pictures of their children without a chaperone? And does Ake think any picture of a naked child is erotic? That seems certainly enough for social sevices and the police to take action, according to the "solutions" recommended.)

"Political Correctness" is NOT THE SAME THING as "Due Process." Sometimes criminals are clever enough, or inconspicuous enough, to evade detection; and sometimes they lie believably to avert suspicion; but punishing people on the basis of what some other pervert thinks might be happening is not an acceptable answer in most of our cultures.

The social survice responsible may not have had sufficient credible evidence to place an investigation high enough on their priorities to devote resources to one. They may also have not recognized the need for more than casual investigation, on the basis of the evidence they had. They may have made an investigation and not found sufficient evidence for action - whether or not crimes were being committed. For the cited evidence, it's virtually certain that the police could have taken NO ACTION for the "incriminating photo" other than to refer the report back to social services to make the decision whether to investigate.

The social services people will certainly get "dobetter" letters from the boss, and may even be punished or discharged. It's probably a given the service won't get better funding, better equipment, more agents, or a better pool from which to select foster guardians for the children they try to care for. So what else is new?

John

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 03:08 PM

I take no sides in this one John, but do remember there was such a climate of fear here in the UK at one time, that an assistant in a photo laboratory reported naked pictures of children in the bath that had been taken by the parents. The police investigated them too, took the whole thing seriously, and now parents are afraid to take pictures of their children in any state of undress.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Scoville
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 03:10 PM

I think I read somewhere that, statistically, the most dangerous parent-child combination is a stepfather with a young stepdaughter.

Homosexuality and pedophilia are two utterly different things. One has no connection to the other (which is not to say they are mutually exclusive, but then neither, obviously, are heterosexuality and pedophilia). Holy crap, am I tired of trying to explain that to people . . .

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 08:07 PM

Thanks John in Kansas for showing your true colours!!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 08:31 PM

I agree with Giok and Scoville.

Most Paedophiles are not homosexual in the accepted meaning of the word. Leaving aside the father/daughter, or mother/son proportion which are definitely not a gay issue, the man/boy or woman/girl perpetrators are rarely actively homosexual with adults. They are paedophiles because their sexual orientation is child based.

Most homosexuals are not paedophiles, as their orientation is based on adult members of the same sex.

If you see homosexuals as more likely to indulge in child molestation, it seems to me that this says more about your innate fear of "the different" than about your grasp of the situation.

I once commented to a friend, who happens to be gay, that before I came to know him well, I had dreaded the possibility that he might one day make a pass, and I feared that I might handle the situation badly.

He laughed and said, "Would you make a pass at a gay man?..Of course you wouldn't. So what makes you think I would have any interest in a straight man?...You just ain't my type mate.

IMHO, for the vast majority of gay men, kids just ain't their type. That's the province of paedophiles.

The cockup in this case was in the failure of social services to investigate allegations of abuse. The sexual orientation of the abuser is outwith the parameters of that, and rightly so.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 08:32 PM

I just realized the blatant evidence of bias- Ake, if you had titled this thread Gay "Parent", I would take seriously your viewpoint. The point is that these were people in the guise of parent and who betrayed the role. The fact that they were homosexual had nothing whatever to do with it. Paedophiles come (no pun intended) in both sexes.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jun 06 - 03:54 AM

Don...Alot of sense there.

BUT..."The cockup in this case was in the failure of social services to investigate allegations of abuse. The sexual orientation of the abuser is outwith the parameters of that, and rightly so."

Must take issue with you there.
In my opinion The "cockup" and failure of Social services was BECAUSE of the sexual orientation of the abusers.
This is exactly the point which I have been trying to bring out since the start of this thread.

If these people had been a conventional couple, Social services would have been quite rightly swarming all over them...(there had been other complaints about these men before the photographic evidense appeared)...But political correctness dictated that because of their sexual orientation, they were "handled with kid gloves"

Ebbie ...I'm sorry but I don'tunderstand the point you are making in your last post. I agree that appointed "parents" are not the same as natural parent, AND that child abusers can come from any sexual grouping
Maybe you could spare a minute to explain? either on the thread or by PM....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: freda underhill
Date: 25 Jun 06 - 05:30 AM

The problem is making a widespread generalisation against a whole "social group" based on the actions of two people. The law should respond specifically with any persons who break the law, and not impose generic punishments, witchhunts, on others who may seem to share similar characteristics.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 25 Jun 06 - 06:11 AM

Much thought and wisdom has gone into this thread. Freda, you have brought it to a good conclusion, Don't you agree Ake?