How To Be Responsible Person In...
Jobs & Education0 min ago
This just about takes the biscuit
why are social workers etc so lacking in common sense? I mean where do they get these numpties? I mean let's put a known child abuser with a family with young children. Oh and we'd better not tell them about the history, might put them off!
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Foste r-Family-Horror-Vale-of-Glamorgan-Council-Admi ts-Errors-After-Disturbed-Teen-Attacked-Kids/A rticle/200903115232944?lpos=UK_News_First_Home _Article_Teaser_Region_9&lid=ARTICLE_15232944_ Foster_Family_Horror%3A_Vale_of_Glamorgan_Coun cil_Admits_Errors_After_Disturbed_Teen_Attacke d_Kids
Jesus on bicycle! what were they thinking?
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Foste r-Family-Horror-Vale-of-Glamorgan-Council-Admi ts-Errors-After-Disturbed-Teen-Attacked-Kids/A rticle/200903115232944?lpos=UK_News_First_Home _Article_Teaser_Region_9&lid=ARTICLE_15232944_ Foster_Family_Horror%3A_Vale_of_Glamorgan_Coun cil_Admits_Errors_After_Disturbed_Teen_Attacke d_Kids
Jesus on bicycle! what were they thinking?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There's a lack of logic in that analysis, flip_flop.
Your conclusion that social services chose the gay couple because they were gay is based on nothing. Literally nothing.
Apologies if I'm underestimating you here, but I suspect you have no knowledge of any of the couples who were in the frame - apart from the fact that one couple was gay.
And yet without knowing anything about the suitability of otherwise of any of the parties, you've decided that the straight ones were just as, if not more, suitable and were overlooked for politically correct reasons - rather than, say, the size of their homes, the fact they smoke, the amount of time they spend at home, their income per child, their age, or any of the many many other factors that make up the final decision.
Because the idea of right-on positive discrimination bothers you so much (as well it might), you've decided that that's exactly what happened. That's not logical.
Your conclusion that social services chose the gay couple because they were gay is based on nothing. Literally nothing.
Apologies if I'm underestimating you here, but I suspect you have no knowledge of any of the couples who were in the frame - apart from the fact that one couple was gay.
And yet without knowing anything about the suitability of otherwise of any of the parties, you've decided that the straight ones were just as, if not more, suitable and were overlooked for politically correct reasons - rather than, say, the size of their homes, the fact they smoke, the amount of time they spend at home, their income per child, their age, or any of the many many other factors that make up the final decision.
Because the idea of right-on positive discrimination bothers you so much (as well it might), you've decided that that's exactly what happened. That's not logical.
A circle of viciousness that puts off candidates applying, you're not suggesting these failings be covered up are you?
This matter is of grave importance to anyone who is thinking of fostering a child, if there are "mistakes" then these mistakes need to be identified and dealt with.
And as tax payers funding this service we have a right to know when they fail, do we not?
This matter is of grave importance to anyone who is thinking of fostering a child, if there are "mistakes" then these mistakes need to be identified and dealt with.
And as tax payers funding this service we have a right to know when they fail, do we not?
You are absolutely right Quinlad, it is based on nothing, other than a supposition.
My contention is, as all four couples managed to make it so far in the process, and therefore were all, presumably, vetted to the nth degree, why were the gay couple chosen over the three perfectly acceptable (we assume) heterosexual couples?
Unless we are made aware that the three heterosexual couples displayed something that wasn't quite right, such as being a bit lardy or enjoying the occasional cigarette (which I strongly suspect is not the case because they made it so far), then why choose the gay couple over the heterosexual couples?
I could, quite rigtly, be accused of falling into the post hoc ergo propter hoc trap as well (and we all know there are many on this site who do follow this 'logic'), but I just don't get it!
Let's assume. merely for the sake of the argument, that all four couples were equally qualified to care for these children - if we assume this, and it is merely an assumption, then why were the gay couple singled out as being more suitable for the children concerned than the three heterosexual couples?
You do see what I'm trying to (probably clumsily) say, don't you?
Unfortunately, I suspect the couple were chosen simply because they were gay - which insults them.
My contention is, as all four couples managed to make it so far in the process, and therefore were all, presumably, vetted to the nth degree, why were the gay couple chosen over the three perfectly acceptable (we assume) heterosexual couples?
Unless we are made aware that the three heterosexual couples displayed something that wasn't quite right, such as being a bit lardy or enjoying the occasional cigarette (which I strongly suspect is not the case because they made it so far), then why choose the gay couple over the heterosexual couples?
I could, quite rigtly, be accused of falling into the post hoc ergo propter hoc trap as well (and we all know there are many on this site who do follow this 'logic'), but I just don't get it!
Let's assume. merely for the sake of the argument, that all four couples were equally qualified to care for these children - if we assume this, and it is merely an assumption, then why were the gay couple singled out as being more suitable for the children concerned than the three heterosexual couples?
You do see what I'm trying to (probably clumsily) say, don't you?
Unfortunately, I suspect the couple were chosen simply because they were gay - which insults them.
Using that assumption, that's obviously a question worth asking. But there's no reason to believe that's a valid assumption.
You've plucked it out of the air, because it's the only information you have.
What if all we knew was their addresses and the chosen couple was the one that lived closest to the social worker's house? Would you assume that all their claims were of equal weight? And that it's the fact they lived in the social worker's town (the only information you have) that swung it for the chosen couple?
No, you'd think, there are other factors at play that we don't know about.
But here it seems to be different. Because the sexuality of the couple tallies with the ogre of positive discrimination, you're assuming that was the deciding factor. That strikes me as a weird assumption.
You've plucked it out of the air, because it's the only information you have.
What if all we knew was their addresses and the chosen couple was the one that lived closest to the social worker's house? Would you assume that all their claims were of equal weight? And that it's the fact they lived in the social worker's town (the only information you have) that swung it for the chosen couple?
No, you'd think, there are other factors at play that we don't know about.
But here it seems to be different. Because the sexuality of the couple tallies with the ogre of positive discrimination, you're assuming that was the deciding factor. That strikes me as a weird assumption.
You're probably (possibly) right, and I'm happy to put this down to a flaw in my argument that I haven't recognised, but you can see where i'm coming from, can't you?
I hope the kids were placed where they were because the couple were the most appropriate option - but unfortunately I don't think they were.
I think they were placed where they were for entirely different reasons.
I hope the kids were placed where they were because the couple were the most appropriate option - but unfortunately I don't think they were.
I think they were placed where they were for entirely different reasons.
