boyfriday Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 No they arent. This from the British Association of Social Workers "Sadly, there are more black children waiting to be adopted because black children are over represented in the care system." http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed95941 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Convict Edd Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 This from the British Association of Social Workers "Sadly, there are more black children waiting to be adopted because black children are over represented in the care system." http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed95941 Over represented tends to suggest an unfairness. Like saying blacks and ethnic minorities are over represented in prisons. They arent over represented, they just commit more crime. Same with kids, they have more taken off them in general because they obviously arent up to the job of parenting? Ill bet good money though that no non white family would lose their kids in the way the women in the op is going to, you know just for their beliefs. Prove me wrong mate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Over represented tends to suggest an unfairness. Like saying blacks and ethnic minorities are over represented in prisons. They arent over represented, they just commit more crime. Same with kids, they have more taken off them in general because they obviously arent up to the job of parenting? Ill bet good money though that no non white family would lose their kids in the way the women in the op is going to, you know just for their beliefs. Prove me wrong mate You're a bit dim aren't you? 'Over represented' has no sentimental overtone at all, it's simply a statistical reference. "having representatives in a proportion higher than the average" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/overrepresented Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Convict Edd Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 You're a bit dim aren't you? No................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 No................ Apologises, I meant very dim So do you now agree that blacks are over represented in the care system and black parents aren't granted special dispensation to be abusive to their children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 The woman in question has already had three children to three different fathers. Those children have been removed from her care, for unknown reasons. Surely her priority should be to prove she has been a decent parent to those children in order to get them back. If she is deemed fit to care for them, then her baby would be at less risk of being removed. Her parenting skills shouldn't be too difficult to prove, she can't have brought her children up in isolation. I don't know their ages, but health visitors, nurseries, schools and doctors are likely to have been involved at some point and will have records. However, we don't know if the children were already on social services 'at risk' register. Reading this excerpt from the newspaper, makes me think they may have been: The 25-year-old has a string of convictions for violence, including butting and biting a police officer after an EDL march in 2010 and she has been banned from owning dogs after setting a pit bull on a former partner. Not exactly good credentials for being a mum. However, I think the media, once again, are concentrating (for very obvious reasons) on the wrong issues here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Convict Edd Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 Apologises, I meant very dim Again. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Again. No. I'm afraid the proof of the pudding is there for all the world to see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 The woman in question has already had three children to three different fathers. Those children have been removed from her care, for unknown reasons. Surely her priority should be to prove she has been a decent parent to those children in order to get them back. If she is deemed fit to care for them, then her baby would be at less risk of being removed. Her parenting skills shouldn't be too difficult to prove, she can't have brought her children up in isolation. I don't know their ages, but health visitors, nurseries, schools and doctors are likely to have been involved at some point and will have records. However, we don't know if the children were already on social services 'at risk' register. Reading this excerpt from the newspaper, makes me think they may have been: The 25-year-old has a string of convictions for violence, including butting and biting a police officer after an EDL march in 2010 and she has been banned from owning dogs after setting a pit bull on a former partner. Not exactly good credentials for being a mum. However, I think the media, once again, are concentrating (for very obvious reasons) on the wrong issues here. Totally agree, and it would appear that any reference to her political activities and what she gets up to when participating in them are merely aggravating factors, not the reason for the care orders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Over represented tends to suggest an unfairness. Like saying blacks and ethnic minorities are over represented in prisons. They arent over represented, they just commit more crime. Same with kids, they have more taken off them in general because they obviously arent up to the job of parenting? Ill bet good money though that no non white family would lose their kids in the way the women in the op is going to, you know just for their beliefs. Prove me wrong mate That's a fairly offensive statement. Have you considered that many children identified as black actually have 50% white parentage? Many of those children have most in common with their white families, yet many social workers have seemed unable to grasp that fact. This is a case in point: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2122464/Social-workers-snatched-white-parents-I-loved-make-live-black-family-How-colour-obsessed-foster-care-sentenced-Dawn-life-regret.html Black and ethnic minority children are over represented because of rules that didn't allow the majority of adoptive parents (white) to adopt children whose skin didn't match theirs. Thankfully those rules are being done away with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.