[quote="thoreau" post=176277
hmm new thread needed perhaps cos my initial reaction is why not let single men adopt tbh - would be interesting to read others views.[/quote]

Quick reply, tho debate probs best in another place.
It's not about the principle, it's about the 'execution' and a lack of safe-guards
(I've even seen 'advertising' children for fostering and adoption in a local supermarket foyer (£110 - £175 p/w) )
Children are simply another commodity - the latest cash generator- which is why G4S and the like now run children's homes.

Weeman wrote:
I laughed this morning at that and still am.

Refugee wrote:
thanks for the reply added context which must have missed

thoreau wrote:
Thats right , why not ? Is there an implication that the child will be abused ? so every single male is a target ?

i'd be aswell handing myself in for a crime of someonelse's thoughts

Apologs Thoreau- some of us have researched on Js and related csa threads for a long while now. We have uncovered the hidden stories and 'gatekeepers' within the Institutional system. We almost have a short-hand red flag indicator, which I should have explained more clearly.

Scal- tsk, tsk, tsk. You using the wrong lures on this one.

Gonna need a rapala with WD40 at very least.

Refugee wrote:
is that swahilli ?

wtf

oh right i get it now , you think i'm fishing , i see , i thought it was a valid question and point to make .

oh maybe this isn't a thread for debate , maybe we are just to be told by the jimmy saville experts

scaltura wrote:
www.rapala.com/

i said anders is facticious , i get ranted at , i ask a question and told i'm fishing

this is a fuking laugh

Refugee wrote:
you sound like dicke

gatekeepers etc

scaltura wrote:
refugee did add context to what she? ment by it - but it is a valid question if people are saying single men should not adopt which i don't think thus far anyone has said given the context refugee ment it in - i reckon we will eventually catch up with all the research that has been done previously, just need to be a little accommodating and give benefit of the doubt until then imho

scaltura wrote:
sanctumzone.co.uk/forum/General/93946-co...tml?start=160#176345

The posts above give context - it' not the principle - it's the execution - and it's probs better debated in a sep thread - as suggested. And no-one is telling anyone what to think. The flag re the Ritchie prog was about TpV coverage of the issues surrounding child abuse- as per OP.
The point being made -my opinion only - was that TPV isn't tackling the issue - it's spinning the Tatchell/Currie/child stealing by the state is Ok version.

So.my short-hand ref was shit. It only makes sense to those who've in-depth researched the problems. Mea culpa.
It doesn't change my view- nor my opinion.

Refugee wrote:
my initial post on the subject never even quoted you , it was 2 other posters

so don't give me all your context pish

look at my post , again

tsk tsk tsk my arse

know what? It's not your arse that's at risk - it's about abused children.

Refugee wrote:
i really don't know what to say

i said i wasn't refering to you in my initial post , but you jumped in as if your the only authority , on this matter and subject

and now ya wana play the guilt trip , i know children get abused , but what has that to do with my question ?

is what i'm saying so hard to understand ?

Perhaps there's a potential confusion between your ref's to 'thought crime' and the topic - which is TPV coverage of child abuse?

Refugee wrote:
well by the fact that if people are saying single men should not be able to adopt or foster , thats just as good as saying all single men WILL abuse children

being single i resent being tarred by that brush

haud yer wheesht
I think I will

I'm a single male who would love to have my own children one day, if circumstances are right, but having seen the Savile stuff for about a year and a half now am still disgusted by this 'single males can adopt stuff'. because now I know the implications and where this is coming from. It's not a case of an in-crowd at all imho - it's either seeing this on the surface or knowing what lies deeper. If you don't, please believe me you're in many ways better off not knowing...but it's up to our own individual consciences whether to start to look into this or not.

I don't blame anyone who chooses not to. The stuff I've learned gives me nightmares at night.

And, much as I would like to, just to make ONE child safe from 'the State' now that they've given me the opportunity (and I will consider it) at the same time I know that by engaging with this 'program' (which absolutely stinks to high heaven for me) I'm seen as endorsing it - and I will never do that. So, I choose to fight it instead.

Indeed scaltura - once we know what has being on, very very sadly (it's heartbreaking) we realise we definitely cannot automatically trust men (and women - just look at some of the most prominent female MPs and TV personalities like Esther Rantzen who have been necks up to this stuff with Savile and his 'pals'!) who attach themselves to any youth clubs, schools, childrens' charities, school fetes - ANYTHING.

This mostly all comes from above - as above so below. It trickles down (unlike the money). And they spoon off the victims at the bottom, because that then reassures the public that paedophilia is being dealt with. Occasionally we get a limited hangout when people realise what's been going on for so very long.

And so many people have woken up to this now, it's not going back in the box until it's all aired, dealt with and resolved.

I understand your revulsion as a single male feeling 'suspected', because I'm in the very same boat, and every aspect of this is repugnant. But the answer isn't to rail against the people who are trying to show what is really going on for me, but rather to realise that now the only way things are going to change is to help to change them.

Please understand that some of us have just come here having spent a year and a half of our lives (or more) fighting institutional (which reaches throughout society) and establishment paedophilia. Did you know about Edward Heath? One of Margaret Thatcher's closest aides Peter Morrison? How about her great friend and confidant, and also to Prince Philip, Charles and Di, Fergie (etc) Jimmy Savile (I'm sure you'll know that one)? What do you think of the late Lord McAlpine's child nude 'art' painting collection? Have you heard of Sir Anthony Blunt? I could go on and on.

I'm just saying that many of us know so much already about all this, because we've researched it and know just what we're looking at here. You seem interested, so I can only say that if you'd like to know more and genuinely hope to understand (and this extends to everybody - not only here, not 'only on the internet, but everyone) we'll absolutely work with you to share and try to bring us all along to a deeper understanding, together

Refugee wrote:
Did you happen to watch the episode of Sonia Paulton when she was interviewing someone who had their children taken away by tptb, Sonia also looking at other cases, then during the phone in, a man with an Irish accent phoned in. he said that they must be bad parents and that tptb are being helpful to the children, I think this was Richie Allen trolling Sonia's phone in. Did you see it?

EDIT or it could have been another muffled voiced Irishman, just a hunch that's all