Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haydee:
As I said a number of times to Saul ( ), why not read the judegment? Including the point where the social worker asked how they would support young people in the following situations:
1 Someone who is confused about their sexuality and thinks they may be gay.

2 A young person who is being bullied in school regarding their sexual orientation.

3 A young person who bullies others regarding the above.

4 Someone in their care whose parents are gay

They weren't able to give examples of what, in practice, they might do or say to support the child. it wasn't saying "we think homosexuality is wrong" that caused concerns.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haydee:
As I said a number of times to Saul ( ), why not read the judegment? Including the point where the social worker asked how they would support young people in the following situations:
1 Someone who is confused about their sexuality and thinks they may be gay.

2 A young person who is being bullied in school regarding their sexual orientation.

3 A young person who bullies others regarding the above.

4 Someone in their care whose parents are gay

They weren't able to give examples of what, in practice, they might do or say to support the child. it wasn't saying "we think homosexuality is wrong" that caused concerns.

---

Yes, and as I said earlier, those are good reasons why it would not be a good idea to place gay children in their care.

Unless the majority of foster children are gay I don't think it is a good enough reason (on its own) to prevent them from being foster parents altogether though.

(Pace Orfeo who has maintained that this is not necessarily about their views on homosexuality.)

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
They included refusal to take a child to a mosque, and refusal to give up going to church twice on Sundays despite the fact that most respite care occurs on weekends.

I think it was entirely reasonable for the council to feel that their suitability IN GENERAL was questionable. There was a consistent pattern of refusing to budge from any of their own usual behaviours to consider the different needs of a child.

---

Yes, and for that reason it looks like they probably aren't suitable as foster parents. In which case it has very little to do with their views on homosexuality.

And to be fair to you Orfeo, you have pretty much maintained that throughout this thread.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

"Eunice and Owen are kind and hospitable people, who would always do their best to make a child welcome and comfortable. They would endeavour, I am sure, to respond sensitively to a child and would take their responsibilities as carers seriously. The possible shortfalls described in this report in relation to their potential as foster carers do not detract from the fact that they are well-meaning and caring people, who are clearly well-regarded by their family and friends.

It is fair to say that I retain a number of reservations about their potential to meet the wide range of expectations we have of carers to fulfil this very demanding and complex role and would struggle to recommend them for approval as mainstream foster carers.

Panel may wish to consider, however, whether as respite carers for a child matching a specific profile, where the demands and difficulties are likely to be less intense and the role more circumscribed, approval would be appropriate. The question to be considered is whether for a somewhat less challenging role we demand the same degree of demonstrable insight and skill as for full time carers.

In addition Mr and Mrs Johns' views on same sex relationships, which are not in line with the current requirements of the National Standards, and which are not susceptible to change, will need to be considered when panel reaches it's conclusion."

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by iGeek:
Parents who have non-foster children are granted wide latitude and autonomy as to how to raise them. The bar is set quite high before the state can step in. Teaching your children to be religious bigots isn't sufficient cause, at least in Texas, USA. Beating them up or sexually abusing them is. Emotional abuse, depending on the nature and severity, might be.

I'm certainly not arguing for the bar to be lowered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
But what do you mean by 'religious bigots'? I assume you mean that that would be a good enough reason to prevent fostering children by the state, but not intervention by the state.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Well what Derby council actually decided, insofar as it decided anything, was this:

quote:

---

"Eunice and Owen are kind and hospitable people, who would always do their best to make a child welcome and comfortable. They would endeavour, I am sure, to respond sensitively to a child and would take their responsibilities as carers seriously. The possible shortfalls described in this report in relation to their potential as foster carers do not detract from the fact that they are well-meaning and caring people, who are clearly well-regarded by their family and friends.

It is fair to say that I retain a number of reservations about their potential to meet the wide range of expectations we have of carers to fulfil this very demanding and complex role and would struggle to recommend them for approval as mainstream foster carers.

Panel may wish to consider, however, whether as respite carers for a child matching a specific profile, where the demands and difficulties are likely to be less intense and the role more circumscribed, approval would be appropriate. The question to be considered is whether for a somewhat less challenging role we demand the same degree of demonstrable insight and skill as for full time carers.

In addition Mr and Mrs Johns' views on same sex relationships, which are not in line with the current requirements of the National Standards, and which are not susceptible to change, will need to be considered when panel reaches it's conclusion."

---

Source: para 16.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by iGeek:
What ought to be consider religiously informed bigotry is subjective. I'm reasonably certain we would come up with different lists.

---

I don't get that. Isn't saying that it is subjective admitting that it would be a minefield to make a decision on this?

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
If that last paragraph was not there I would drop off this thread. Why is there a need to say 'in addition'? Surely this means that regardless of their general suitability views on same-sex relationships is a deal breaker, in and of itself?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by iGeek:
What ought to be consider religiously informed bigotry is subjective. I'm reasonably certain we would come up with different lists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I don't get that. Isn't saying that it is subjective admitting that it would be a minefield to make a decision on this?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't know what it means. The main thing it means is that you're going over a document from the decision-making process with a fine toothcomb.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

But I doubt that any court would instantly jump on that particular paragraph and say "AHA! See? They were excluded because of their VIEWS".

Unlike legislative drafters, council workers are not expected to weigh every single word they use with that kind of precision.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by iGeek:
But we're talking apples an oranges.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
But that is my point. You are discussing this as a legal case (and I agree with you it is a pretty botched one). I'm far more interested in the policy that the council has. The ruling seems to suggest that the council does have a policy to do with religious beliefs about sexuality.

Clearly any council policy will reflect the law but, as you say, council workers will tend to use a much more blunt instrument.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by iGeek:
But we're talking apples an oranges.

---

If this was the other way round and the courts had made a decision that this couple could foster gay children

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:


You can't mean the court judgment, because that's not the council's policy.

---

quote:

---

In addition Mr and Mrs Johns' views on same sex relationships, which are not in line with the current requirements of the National Standards, and which are not susceptible to change, will need to be considered when panel reaches it's conclusion.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:


You can't mean the court judgment, because that's not the council's policy.

---

Correct.

I was referring to this, quoted earlier by Ricardus:

quote:

---

In addition Mr and Mrs Johns' views on same sex relationships, which are not in line with the current requirements of the National Standards, and which are not susceptible to change, will need to be considered when panel reaches it's conclusion.

---

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

The fostering service ensures that children and young people, and their families,
are provided with foster care services which value diversity and promote equality.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

It is important to note that, in answer to a specific question we put to him, Mr Diamond confirmed to us in terms that none of these instruments was challenged as being either not compliant with the Convention or otherwise unlawful. So there is no suggestion that the defendant's policies as set out in the instruments Mr Weston relies upon are unlawful; Mr Diamond's challenge is only to the way in which the defendant is (or, to put the point more accurately, may be) proposing to apply the legislation and the policies to the claimants' application.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Which makes it all the more strange that here on the Ship, in the media and elsewhere, people are trying to talk about the 'wider implications' of the decision. If they were only challenging the application of these policies in this one, specific, case, then how are there ANY wider implications? They explicitly disavowed any challenge to the actual policy documents of the council, or the National Standards, or the relevant regulations, or anything else in a long list of policy material.

QED.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
the reality of life is that right across society other people with similar (although different) decisions to make are taking notice and trying to draw conclusions

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Low Treason:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bran Stark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Low Treason:
Are you seriously suggesting that 'personal religious views' should supersede "human rights"?

---

Well anyone who believes that God is telling him one thing and secular society another thing, and then chooses to follow secular society, is a very strange person indeed.

So from the standpoint of individual persons, that view is certainly correct.

---

OK, so if God tells me to put you to death, that is perfectly acceptable?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It's also worth noting that in the judgment, the Jones' lawyer specifically said they were not challenging the policy!

quote:

---

It is important to note that, in answer to a specific question we put to him, Mr Diamond confirmed to us in terms that none of these instruments was challenged as being either not compliant with the Convention or otherwise unlawful. So there is no suggestion that the defendant's policies as set out in the instruments Mr Weston relies upon are unlawful; Mr Diamond's challenge is only to the way in which the defendant is (or, to put the point more accurately, may be) proposing to apply the legislation and the policies to the claimants' application.

---

Which makes it all the more strange that here on the Ship, in the media and elsewhere, people are trying to talk about the 'wider implications' of the decision. If they were only challenging the application of these policies in this one, specific, case, then how are there ANY wider implications? They explicitly disavowed any challenge to the actual policy documents of the council, or the National Standards, or the relevant regulations, or anything else in a long list of policy material.

QED.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bran Stark:
[QB]You're missing the point. If I believe God tells me to do something, then by definition I believe that thing is right.

---

quote:

---

So I was full of trouble, full as I could be; and didn't know what to do. At last I had an idea; and I says, I'll go and write the letter - and then see if I can pray. Why, it was astonishing, the way I felt as light as a feather right straight off, and my troubles all gone. So I got a piece of paper and a pencil, all glad and excited, and set down and wrote:

Miss Watson, your runaway nigger Jim is down here two mile below Pikesville, and Mr. Phelps has got him and he will give him up for the reward if you send. Huck Finn.

I felt good and all washed clean of sin for the first time I had ever felt so in my life, and I knowed I could pray now. But I didn't do it straight off, but laid the paper down and set there thinking - thinking how good it was all this happened so, and how near I come to being lost and going to hell. And went on thinking. And got to thinking over our trip down the river; and I see Jim before me all the time: in the day and in the night-time, sometimes moonlight, sometimes storms, and we a-floating along, talking and singing and laughing. But somehow I couldn't seem to strike no places to harden me against him, but only the other kind. I'd see him standing my watch on top of his'n, 'stead of calling me, so I could go on sleeping; and see him how glad he was when I come back out of the fog; and when I come to him again in the swamp, up there where the feud was; and suchlike times; and would always call me honey, and pet me, and do everything he could think of for me, and how good he always was; and at last I struck the time I saved him by telling the men we had smallpox aboard, and he was so grateful, and said I was the best friend old Jim ever had in the world, and the only one he's got now; and then I happened to look around and see that paper.

It was a close place. I took it up, and held it in my hand. I was a-trembling, because I'd got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself:

"All right, then, I'll go to hell" - and tore it up.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Now obviously other people will often use religion to justify things I oppose, and in such cases I obviously think they are deluded in fancying God supports them. But I can't fault them as far as being logically consistent goes.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne:
I've just watched this couple interviewed on the 'One Show'. Mrs Johns stated explicitly, in answer to a direct question, that their religious beliefs would come before the needs of any child that they fostered. She added that their religious beliefs in fact came before their own children.

Whatever your views of their steadfast adherence to their faith, it is difficult to see how any fostering authority could ignore that kind of statement.

anne

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
So if the rules for fostering are X and they feel God is telling them to do not-X, why the hell would they sign up at all?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bran Stark:
You're missing the point. If I believe God tells me to do something, then by definition I believe that thing is right.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bran Stark:
You're missing the point. If I believe God tells me to do something, then by definition I believe that thing is right.

---

That rather depends on what you think God is like.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bran Stark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bran Stark:
You're missing the point. If I believe God tells me to do something, then by definition I believe that thing is right.

---

That rather depends on what you think God is like.

---

Haha well I guess you could believe in a God who tells His people to do evil... but that one would be hardly worthy of worship.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Now obviously other people will often use religion to justify things I oppose, and in such cases I obviously think they are deluded in fancying God supports them. But I can't fault them as far as being logically consistent goes.

---

So if the rules for fostering are X and they feel God is telling them to do not-X, why the hell would they sign up at all?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by chukovsky:
they think the rules are an ass.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chukovsky:
they think the rules are an ass.

---

Tough.

Rule of law does not mean 'I'll follow the rules that I personally think are good ones, and I get to ignore the others'.

What it means is there are avenues for advocating change of the rules you don't like.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by shipscat:
Firstly, as a foster carer, I was asked at the beginning of just one placement, where the children's mother had stated that she was Catholic and preferred her children to attend Catholic Mass on Sundays, if I was willing to take the children to Catholic Mass. This question was presented as a deal breaker.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

Nazir Ali continues his persecution complex. The more I hear of him, the more I wish he would do what he promised to do upon retirement, that is to support Christians facing persecution. I could give him a list of countries to which he could go and leave us alone.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
He slags plenty of other people off.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
He thinks multiculturalism is a 'mish-mash' - which, being interpreted, means he wants Christianity to continue to rule the roost.

According to Peter Tatchel, "He has repeatedly spoken and voted against gay human rights in the House of Lords, defending homophobic laws like the unequal age of consent, criticising civil partnership legislation and opposing IVF fertility treatment for lesbian couples."

He supported the war against Iraq.

He told the Sunday Telegraph that legislation should be introduced giving some officials the power to remove the veil worn by Muslim women.

In 2000, he said married couples had a duty to have children, and those who remained childless were "self-indulgent".

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Although i am quite clear on what Scripture says about the issue as well as the Church fathers over two millennia.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I do maintain the closing of Catholic foster agencies was an utter tragedy though.

---