The glamour's the first thing that you learn when you take on the left hand path

[alexsarll]

If going through a red light, in the wrong lane, over the speed limit, and breaking a pedestrian's leg does not constitute dangerous driving, then what exactly does? Do you have to be smoking sticks of TNT while being fellated by a sabretooth tiger at the same time? Or did he maybe get off because he's a sporting celeb, and they must be excused the consequences of their congenital idiocy and aggression, just like the Victoria line's early closing is suspended when Arsehole are playing, because sport always gets special fvcking treatment?

"Russell T Davies was at a wedding recently when a guest complained about what he'd done to Doctor Who, an otherwise wholesome family drama. "She told me she was shocked because Captain Jack is bisexual and wouldn't let her children watch it," says Davies. "I had such a go at her. I said: 'You're an unfit mother. You're ignorant. Your children are cleverer than you.'" A handy reminder that, fundamentally, we should still consider the man responsible for the Slitheen and Catherine sodding Tate to be one of the good days.
(Though obviously nothing RTD writes is likely to compare to a Moffat-scripted meeting between the Fifth and Tenth Doctors, on TV November 16th. Why is the internet not more excited about this?)

Comments

[my-name-is-anna.livejournal.com]

Oh I think that's quite a shame that that's happened.
There are plenty of parents who won't discuss homosexuality with their children, but their children don't have to leave.
Seems very unfair on the foster children that they don't have the right to remain where they are placed because of a clash of opinion, when if they were the birth child then they could.

[pippaalice.livejournal.com]

I think it is a shame they took the child they were currently fostering off of them, but as these children are very vulrable it is important that the people they are placed with are good enough, and TBH being homophobic does mean you are not good enough imho.

[puzzled-anwen.livejournal.com]

What Pippa said, really. If they had been asked to sign a thing saying they agreed to tell the kids they fostered that black people were just as good as white people or women were just as good as men, or indeed that non-Christians were just as good as Christians, and refused, they shouldn't be allowed to continue fostering. They shouldn't be allowed to express bigoted views just because of their religion, or to refuse to teach a tolerant view.

[my-name-is-anna.livejournal.com]

I was thinking about the child really.
Looked after children are usually punted around from one place to another - this child has been taken away from experienced foster carers and is now in a children's home because the council's beliefs and the couple's religious beliefs don't fit.
At 11, I think that some continuety and consistency are more important for him / her than anything else.

Also I think the council are stupid to just take them off the list. They should find a way to work with the couple so that everyone is happy.
There are many biological parents who don't want to teach their children sex education, and their children aren't taken away from them, why should this looked after child not be entitled to that?

No I don't agree with this couple's viewpoint but I think if foster carers are expected to be perfect then that explains why there is a shortage of them. Councils should work with them to make sure the child recieves the best care, rather than moving children in and out of care homes because they demand all or nothing treatment for them. I imagine the kid will come out of this much more damaged now.

[puzzled-anwen.livejournal.com]

See above re: what Pippa said - no, I don't think they should have automatically taken the kid away from foster parents he was already settled with.

But what if he or subsequent foster children is gay? He would be brought up in an environment which is obviously not going to be exactly helpful in that situation. I agree that the council should engage with the couple and other parents to try and improve the situation rather than automatically disqualifying them, but ultimately if they are going to stick to their views then what can be done?

[billywhizz.livejournal.com]

because the council's beliefs and the couple's religious beliefs don't fit

I would worry about comparing human equality with superstitious bullshit.

Either way, foster carers have to sign an agreement, a de facto legal contract, which includes a commitment to promote equality. This agreement is reiterated every time a child is placed. DOH rules. They've broken that agreement. No, it's not ideal for the placement to break down, but if concerns about the placement overweigh the benefits of continuity then it has to happen.

[puzzled-anwen.livejournal.com]

Also, it's not the council's beliefs, it's the law.

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but just look at those mean, pinched faces. They just look like proper bigots, don't they? Not basically nice people who don't want to hire gay p0rn for the kids - real Mary Whitehouses.

[my-name-is-anna.livejournal.com]

As time goes on I wonder more and more whether Mary Whitehouse might have had the right idea.
Look at what the depravity of Hollyoaks, Big Brother etc... has done to this once great nation.

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

Not even in jest, Anna. Not even in jest. The woman was evil to the core. If rubbish reality TV is the price to pay for a country with gay rights and mixed race relationships, then I consider it a paltry price and one well worth paying. And it's not as if she only opposed trash. HBO is (or at least has been) the best TV channel in the world - and you can be damn sure she'd have hated every one of their programmes. The Sopranos, Deadwood, The Wire - works of art every one, but to her petty little mind (if one can even use the word 'mind' of a poisonous worm) they have swearing and sex and violence so they ought to be banned.

I almost wish I believed in Hell, just so I could be sure that Mary Whitehouse was there.