Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@jen_jen wrote:
Almost a year ago a customer in her mid twenties came into the shop, absolutely devasted…her sister, in her early thirties and a mum of 3, had thought she’d beaten cancer a couple of years previous but had been told that day that she had secondary cancer, that it was terminal and she had just a couple of years to live at most. My customer was devastated, I held her for at least 10 minutes as she sobbed. Needless to say she wasn’t looking forward to Christmas and all she could think about was losing her sister and the children being left without a loving mother. We talked about faith, life, death, the importance of a positive attitude and making the most of every day.
Roll forward a year…
My customer has just come in full of smiles, she hasn’t forgotten that day and she wanted to share the good news, that her sister has just had a check up and the cancer is significantly reduced and the whole family is looking forward to Christmas this year and planning a cruise for next year. :DA lovely post.
I’m serious, Terry.
The council had a duty of care to the children. You’ll note that I also stated that I didn’t necessarily share their conclusion, but it would have been completely unforgivable had they knowingly placed them in an environment that wasn’t supportive simply because they were cautious about being defined as part of the politically correct brigade. Looking out for the children’s needs can never be wrong in my book.
@terry wrote:
@mrs_teapot wrote:
does that then mean we have check on all peoples politics who deal with ethnic minorities?
A government spokesperson (Michael Gove) has described Rotherham council’s decision as “indefensible”.
And he’s right.
I’m sure there are members of the Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem parties who are foster carers too. Does PC Kenty think they should be removed from parenting too? I use “PC” in the ‘politically correct’ sense as opposed to the ‘police constable’ one.
I think their approach only appears ridiculous when we look at it in extremis. How can it be wrong to be sensitive about placing children with caregivers who may be unwilling to consider their specific needs? Just as it would be incompetent to place a child with learning difficulties with a family that believed that euthanasia for such children would have great economic benefit.
@jen_jen wrote:
That was the eighties…we had a contractor come to work for us, from Rochdale, more hair on his chest than his head, came to the office wearing shirts unbuttoned to below the chest to show off his gold medallion, offering the women that he fancied a ride in his Lotus Esprit that he’d changed the sound system in because “the one it comes with just isn’t good enough”…we called him the Rochdale Cowboy and whenever he was lounge lizarding his way over to our group whoever saw him first would hum the opening bars of Rhinestone Cowboy to warn the others.
Memories… :lol:
FYI Jen-Jen I no longer drive the Lotus Esprit.
@jen_jen wrote:
I have mixed feelings on this.
On the one hand I think that all children need is to know they are safe, that their needs will be met, and to be loved.
On the other hand…
When placing children for fostering, social services take into account the fit into the family. The children that were removed were not indigenous white British – the very kind of people that UKIP stand against being in this country, being a party that wants to end the active promotion of multiculturism. We can only assume that this is also important to the couple since they have joined UKIP and unfortunately this wasn’t known at the time that the children were placed. The couple will be allowed to foster other children in the future but presumably only white British.Political and religious views shouldn’t matter unless they are likely to have an adverse effect on the children. Imagine being a child who is already feeling vulnerable, confused, even unloved, then finding yourself with people caring for you who don’t think that you and your parents should have been allowed into the country?
Very thoughtful and eloquent post, Jen Jen.
I can only applaud Rotherham Council’s sensitivities to the issues involved in placing children with suitable caregivers. This is not to say that I concur with their final decision, which may have been rash, as it is possible to support a party and not agree with many of their stated beliefs.
I found it quite frightful when i read the following quote from Michael Gove:
“Rotherham council have made the wrong decision in the wrong way for the wrong reasons. Rotherham’s reasons for denying this family the chance to foster are indefensible,” he said. “The ideology behind their decision is actively harmful to children. We should not allow considerations of ethnic or cultural background to prevent children being placed with loving and stable families. We need more parents to foster, and many more to adopt.
How can a family environment ever be loving or stable if no consideration is made for the ethnic or cultural background of the children in need of sensitive treatment?
@mrs_teapot wrote:
Who’s that knocking? opens the door…… flutters eyelashes and smiles sweetly at rusty trawler….. accepts the Louboutin shoes and the giant Toblerone graciously …… avoids eye contact with the other girls and beats a hasty retreat.. :D :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:
Lol. Thank you, Mrs Teapot for so graciously accepting my gifts. I would have been rather shamefaced returning back to the blokes’ den of inequity with the shoes. They would have scoffed the choccies though.
@mrs_teapot wrote:
@simplysu wrote:
@jen_jen wrote:
They’re all lurking anyway, waiting to see what else gets disclosed that might give them an insight into how the female mind works…as if we would give such secrets away that easily! :wink: :lol:
and pinching our best interior design concepts for their smelly club … pfft
woe betide the intruders we capture … that’s all I’m saying.
Its ok… tinks has a gun 8)
She may have a gun indeed, but we have the perfect cunning foil to counter your security arrangements. We never enter your purdy little place unarmed. As tinks menacingly points her gun in my direction I wave a pair of Louboutin shoes in one hand and a family-size Toblerone in the other. Let’s see if she can coo and shoot straight at the same time.
@momentaryloss wrote:
I think we should install a turkish bath and a steam room.
I could do with one right now.
:?
Hmmmmm! Good idea in principle but i’m not too sure about that one, Brother ML. Before we eagerly make planning applications and identify which of our fellow brothers masquerade as dodgy builders, perhaps we should consider the following equation:
Turkish bath + (steam room) + (x * sweaty, beer swilling, hairy, fart-propelled man) + 1 bar of soap
Doesn’t sound too appealing now, does it? Now let’s add a little bit more drama and think what would happen, heaven forbid, should someone drop the bar of soap.
It will only end in tears and the ‘members’ swearing a new institutional oath never to speak of this outside these venerable walls.
The only plus side I can think of is that video might have some monetary value in certain circles.
@simplysu wrote:
<~~ too timid to venture into the veritable lions' den … however, would just like to send a missive stating:
Men who wear hats are adorable.
* dons a balaclava (best i could do at short notice), grips a rose betwixt me teeth, fills one of the new half pint glass with lady beer (i.e. 1 part timothy taylors to two parts Robinson’s Lemon Cordial), hands it to simply su, conjure up my best Leslie Phillips imitation and says…. Ding Dong!*
