Social services have removed two young children from the care of their grandparents and arranged for them to be adopted by a homosexual couple.Because that’s somehow better. Though I think we can all imagine just who for…
The five-year-old boy and his four-year-old sister were being looked after by their grandparents because their mother, a recovering drug addict, was not considered capable.I guess it’s ok to be ‘ageist’ in some circumstances? Must be, as I don’t hear any squeals from the usual suspects.
But social workers stepped in after allegedly deciding that the couple, who are aged 59 and 46, were "too old" to look after the children.
Naturally, it’s not enough for the SS that they can gleefully break up a family – they have to indulge in a little ideological bullying too:
They were allegedly stripped of their carer's rights and informed they would be barred from seeing the children altogether unless they agreed to the same-sex adoption.Wow! Try that with Mr and Mrs Khan or Patel sometime!
Oh, I forgot – ‘protected minorities’. These two grandparents must not fit into the right category…
The distraught grandfather said: "It breaks my heart to think that our grandchildren are being forced to grow up in an environment without a mother-figure.It’s not – but it is in the best interests of the kind of people who go into these jobs to advance their ideas and pet theories of human behaviour, and to indulge in a little social engineering.
"We are not prejudiced, but I defy anyone to explain to us how this can be in their best interests.
"The ideal for any child is to have a loving father and a loving mother in their lives."
Social workers at the City of Edinburgh Council have been accused of waging a "two-year campaign" through the courts to strip the grandparents of their legal rights as carers of the children.You mean, they don’t qualify for legal aid to fight this? Another success on the ‘justice’ front for NuLab! And I thought it was the Tories who were always accused of favouring the rich...
Social services intervened because of concerns over the age and health of the grandparents, who cannot be named to protect the identity of the children.
The grandfather is a farmhand who has angina while his wife is receiving medication for diabetes.
The children have been in foster care for two years while their grandparents battled the social services department in court.
However, the cost of legal bills forced them to drop the case and relinquish their rights.
And it transpires that this isn’t even a ‘last resort’ case – they have other heterosexual couples available, but have discounted these in favour of ticking a ‘diversity’ box somewhere:
Social workers dealing with the case told them that approved heterosexual couples had also been keen to adopt the children.Ahh, can’t you just feel the intolerance here. And no, I’m not talking about the grandparents…
When he protested to social workers, the grandfather alleges he was told: "You can either accept it and there's a chance you'll see the children twice a year, or you can take that stance and never see them again."
On another occasion he was allegedly told: "If you couldn't support the children [back the gay adoption], if you were having contact and couldn't support the children, and showing negative feelings, it wouldn't be in their best interests for contact to take place."
A Catholic Church spokesman has accused social services of "politically correct posturing".Why not just call it what it really is? Dogma-led institutional inhumanity.
And yet another step on the road to authoritarianism..
12 comments:
I feel for you in your current predicament. It must be difficult not knowing which prejudice should trump which.
Firstly, some facts. Whilst 46 is not particularly old, 59 is quite old to take care of two small children. Secondly, both grand-parents suffer from serious chronic diseases (diabetes, and heart disease, respectively). This may at least have some relevance to the council's actions.
Finally, presumably you are no less privy to the details of the people on the council's list of prospective foster parents than I am, so your comments on the prospective adoptive couple are presumably based on nothing specific to this case.
If so, I'd be interested to know what you think makes a generic homosexual couple less suitable to raise these children than a generic heterosexual couple.
"It must be difficult not knowing which prejudice should trump which."
Well, I'll go with pointing out the overweening power of the State to force a severence of familial links on spurious grounds - whch I'd have done even if the couple they wanted to adopt weren't gay, frankly. The fact that they are throws yt another social engineering spanner in the works, of course.
"Whilst 46 is not particularly old, 59 is quite old to take care of two small children."
And if this had been the result of a natural birth (not out of the realms of possibility, plus there's IVF, as Iain Dale points out), would the SS have swooped in? I think not...
"I'd be interested to know what you think makes a generic homosexual couple less suitable to raise these children than a generic heterosexual couple."
One word: nature.
Also, as the 'Mail' points out, "Social workers themselves have admitted that the little girl is 'more wary' of men than women."
But hey, who cares about the welfare of the children? There's diversity brownie points to score here!
Right...?
Anon: why go for the prejudice angle?
Why go for the irrelevance of comparing a homosexual foster couple to a heterosexual couple? The point is not concerned with which couple adopts.
The point is that these children are taken from the care of their family and put with strangers, using the force of law and outright threats against their grandparents. There is no evidence of abuse or mistreatment of the children at all.
The health issues are also irrelevant. If you regard them as that important then you will naturally extend this to the removal of all children from any sick parents, no matter what the circumstances.
You will then extend this to the removal of children from any parents who are at risk of becoming ill in future. Smokers are now unable to foster, so logically, smoking parents are unfit parents, yes? They might become sick.
Parents whose store cards show purchases of more than the approved limits of alcohol are also unfit parents in your view, yes? They might become sick.
As to age, women much older than 46 are offered IVF treatment. The age is a red herring, as you know.
This is simply more experimentation on human beings, Mengele-style, carried out by social services. They have used threats against an elderly couple in order to obtain subjects for their experiments. You are fine with this, yes?
Your wording is far more eloquent than the usual 'racist-bigot-homophobe' putdown although the message is the same: any opposition is a slight against the homosexual couple, even though it's clear they are not responsible for any of this. The blame lies entirely with the thugs of the SS.
It's good to see some literate Righteousness for a change. I look forward to future meetings.
"They have used threats against an elderly couple in order to obtain subjects for their experiments. "
Threats to get people to comply with the position of the moment seem to be de rigueur lately, with the State, don't they..?
59 and 46? Thats not old at all
Have Social services gone completely barmy?
No Henry, they haven't.
They're just a shower of bastards.
Oh and I'm not surprised the grandparents are in poor health with the strain of this hanging over them.
Social Services kidnapping children for the sake of homosexual equality.
This is why tolerating homosexuality, as "normal" is wrong.
I'm furious about this. Children should stay with family wherever possible. It's cruel! They should take it to the court of human rights, as I consider this a breach.
If social services don't think the grandparents are able to cope, then they should provide them with help when they need it. The righteous will bend over backwards to help anyone else!
It's not lifetime care we talking of here, kids do grow up into adults eventually!
The BBC during the PM programme yeaterday, unbiased as always, said that the Catholic Church was "stirring up controversy" when they criticised the decision.
Nice choice of phrase there. Not loaded at all. Perfectly neutral. They use it all the time to describe the interventions of race hustlers, equality thugs, etc.
I feel for you in your current predicament. It must be difficult not knowing which prejudice should trump which.
....
If so, I'd be interested to know what you think makes a generic homosexual couple less suitable to raise these children than a generic heterosexual couple.
Yeah nice try liberal, now back in your box.
The coercion is the deal breaker. If they try and fight it they get no visitation rights. Why is that then? The two things are unrelated. Its blatant, naked aggression. Evil in fact.
Would that coercion be applied where it a gay couple trying to keep a natural relative vs adoption to a straight couple? Of course not and you know it.
As for them pulling this s**t on a muslim family, no chance.
The SS turds have got form on this sort of thing - lest we forget Craig Faunch.
Hi. Does anyone know of any campaigns or campaigning groups that deal with this kind of Big Brother family-destruction that the Marxists are about? Ones akin to Families Need Fathers or the Campaign for Real Education? If so, please send me links to their sites, etc at Britaincando@yahoo.co.uk so I can publicise them here:
http://citizensandneighbours.blogspot.com/2009/01/campaigns-and-campaigners.html
Or post them on the site.
(Shameless plug.)
Campaign resources (ie contacts) for this awful case here, if you want to make a fuss.
http://citizensandneighbours.blogspot.com/2009/02/edinburgh-adoption-row-2009.html
Post a Comment