Predadory Gay couple fostering teenage boys....

[Loosehead]

What is going on? How dim are social services? Just reading in the Express (ok lefty's I don't think they made this one up) about a Gay couple being allowed to foster teenage boys which they subsequentlt abused, what planet are the fostering services people on? They'll refuse a normal couple on the flimsiest of reasons, predatory gay couple? No problem!

[purpose]

Woah... now hang on a minute.

That is your opinion, so good luck to you, but it is also offensive.

[Pippa68]

I suppose that at the time the couple weren't considered 'predatory'. It's the only conclusion I can come to..after all, not all gay couples would abuse children would they?

The same could be said for straight couples ~ I am sure there have been plenty of those who have abused their foster children, unfortunately :o(

[ICEMANSAV]

It was an article in the newspaper, purpose.

[Loosehead]

So Purpose, It's offensive to be alarmed that teenage boys are being given to sex abusing couples then is it?

What "opinion" do you find offensive.

Now answer the Question.

[flip-flop]

What's offensive purpose? The abuse? Or the supposed slight against gay people?

[purpose]

Ok - bear with me on this - i do not, and have never, read a newspaper - so i have no idea which ones are Left/Right/Whatever in tone, so excuse my ignorance!

Is Loosehead saying that this was the paper's appalling view?

[purpose]

They weren't there when i posted that last one!

I think you are entitled to your opinion - which is why i said 'good luck to you', but i find the fact that you call some couples 'normal' a little unnecessary and why the 'predatory' comment?

But most of all - i now find your 'Now answer the Question' positively laughable...

[B00]

Agree with purpose here I'm afraid, the Social Services woud not let this couple have children if they thought for a second the children would be abused.

I think (now I could be wrong here!) that Loosehead is implying that gay people should not be allowed to foster children, especially when straight couples were rejected. If this is his thinking then it's unbelievable that he thinks this opinion of his is a justifiable one.

[purpose]

Ditto Boo.

You worded it so much better!

[Pippa68]

I read Looseheads OP to mean 'Normal' as opposed to 'Predatory'.

I don't know his feelings on gay couples, nor do I need to..they are merely opinions which I don't have to agree with! to be honest I don't consider gay couples to be 'the norm'..in no way, shape or form am I a 'Gay Basher' (I could tell you I know a few gay friends but what would be the point?) however the majority of my coupled friends are straight, therefore it would be obvious to me that gay couples are not 'the norm' although I wouldn't say they weren't normal....

..I'll get me coat.

[B00]

Lol pippa, think I get what you mean!

However just because they don't conform to the ideal of a 2.4 family does it make them any less capable (aside this story of course!) of giving a loving home to unfortunate children?

[WaldoMcFroog]

If only the couple had ticked the "Predatory child abusers, plus we're in the gays - Y/N" tickbox, all this could have been avoided.

God bless the Express for exposing this willful abuse of power by loony lefties. They want nothing more than to see children abused, you know? When will we learn? It's 'political correctness gone mad', I tell you...

[Drusilla1S]

I think you have spoiled a perfectly legitimate question about the competence of Social Service checks with an unfortunate bias against 'gay couples', most of whom have proven to be effective foster parents.

The disgraceful actions of one couple should not be used as a bludgeon against gay fostering, generally. No one would attempt to prevent heterosexual couples babysitting after the recent conviction of one couple for photographing the rape and abuse of a helpless baby in their care.

I also disagree that 'normal couples' are refused the right to foster children on the flimsiest grounds. Social Services try very hard to fulfill their obligations and protect children in their care, but they are under resourced in a society that is more concerned with low taxation than effective levels of funding for the care of underprivelaged and abandoned children.

[Pippa68]

Totally agree with you BOO. As I said in my original reply (well I hope I intimated it!) gay couples are, in my opinion, just as valid parents as anyone.

I also pointed out that there have been plenty of straight couples guilty of abusing their foster/natural children. In fact I would go as far to say that this is probably more widespread.

For the record, one of the 2 gay couples I know have adopted 2 children..and fantastic parents they are ~ far better than me, I reckon!

[Loosehead]

This is not anyones opinion, it is fact that these 2 abused teenagers that they fostered.

I was highlighting the regularly demonstrated lack of "joined up thinking" by those who are empowered to decide who can foster. Time and again you hear of standard heterosexual couples refused for the flimsiest of reasons and yet a gay couple wanting to foster are not, it seems, worthy of further scrutiny. Might it not just slightly jar something in the thoughts that these potential fosterers may have an ulterior motive? Did not the fact that they only seemed to foster 13-14 year old boys not ring any alarm bells? What about when it was discovered that indecent pictures where taken, alarm bells yet? No, excuses where accepted and abuse continued.

Now if I was a prospective foster parent, I'd be barred if they found out my BMI was out of range!

Purpose, you seem determined to turn this into a Gay debate, rather than answering what I thought was a sensible question. You seem to have assumed that I am some sort of homophobe.

What "opinion" am I entitled too? The only one I am putting forward at the moment is that the authorities have very little common sense in these matters.

[Dolly1308]

I don't think anyone answered Loosehead's question properly ,he/she is concerned about the abuse of teenage boys M.ost of you were more concerned about the gay couple than the boys ,I wonder why ?

[B00]

Nicely put pippa! (now THAT purpose was way better than my reply!)

Sorry loosehead, but it did appear your post was twofold 1- That this couple should have been scrutinised further ( A fact which i'm sure none of can disagree with) and 2- That gay couples should be checked more than a straight couple, it's THAT point we disagree with you on.

Every couple should be checked with equal amount, regardless of their gender,race etc.

[purpose]

Not concerned about the gay couple.

Just concerned over the attitude TOWARDS gay couples in general... as displayed by this poster... this shouldn't be about the 'gayness', but about the abuse.

If the question had been asked differently, i, and probably many, wouldn't have felt the need to mention the gay couple!

[Pippa68]

I hope I answered the question in my OP.

There is no link to an article..I have no idea if social services had been alerted to certain behaviour..I could only answer on what had been presented to me in Looseheads OP.

My follow up posts regarding gay couples was in reply to others.

If kids have ben abused then it is, indeed, abhorrent. It really wasn't any concern of mine whether the foster parents were gay or straight. It is my belief (and hope) that social services have the same attitude Period.

[purpose]

Lol @ Boo... yeah, it WAS better!