Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action

by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 13, 2016 8:00 pm

First topic message reminder :

Richard Page, 69, who served as a magistrate in Kent, told the BBC last year it would be better for a man and a woman to be the adopted parents.

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office deemed this serious misconduct.

His lawyers say they will bring an employment tribunal for discrimination over his religious beliefs.

Mr Page, who served in Sevenoaks and Maidstone, sat on the Kent Central family panel and was a magistrate for 15 years. He was sacked earlier this month.

This followed a BBC interview in March 2015 in which he had said that it was his duty as a magistrate to act on the evidence alone, and that there had not yet been a proper analysis of the effects that placing children with same-sex couples had on the child's well-being.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-35796557

A child is better off in a stable home environment with a mother and a father... so it stands to reason that an adopted child should only be placed in the best environment for them too, which would be with mother and my father adoptive parents.

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:53 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Raggs... others would also have biased views if pro leftie or pro gay etc... should they also be sacked because it may influence their decisions etc...!?

Exactly Tommy. Nearly everyone has some kind of bias.

by HoratioTarr Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:54 pm

sassy wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

I know

Please enlighten me, his English is rubbish.

Durka Durka

by Guest Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:54 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Raggs... others would also have biased views if pro leftie or pro gay etc... should they also be sacked because it may influence their decisions etc...!?

Exactly Tommy. Nearly everyone has some kind of bias.

But, and here is the big but, everyone has equality under the law

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:55 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Exactly Tommy. Nearly everyone has some kind of bias.

But, and here is the big but, everyone has equality under the law

That's not the point that we're discussing.

by Guest Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:56 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
sassy wrote:

Please enlighten me, his English is rubbish.

Durka Durka

You mean where the penis goes? Odd thing is, when they are gathering semen for artificial insemination with animals, they massage the prostate, in the anal passage, to get the ejeculate. Kinda shows being gay works lol

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:56 pm

sassy wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Look up 'loaded question'... then tell us how your question was 'straight'... and I'll be more than happy to answer it..!!!

Your misconception of basic meanings in English may explain a lot about your perceived stupidity in general discourse...!

And your refusal to improve your education in such areas just confirms you unsuitability to enter any intellectual debate... because you quite simply refuse to allow yourself to understand exactly what it is that you are trying to argue about...!!!

Coward.

Is it normal and natural for a child to have 1 mum and 1 dad... or 2 mums or 2 dad's. ..!?

by Guest Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:57 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

But, and here is the big but, everyone has equality under the law

That's not the point that we're discussing.

Its the most important point, because the application of the law has to be applied equally to all

So if a person is openly biased that denies that equality under the law, then they are unfit to serve

by Guest Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:59 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
sassy wrote:

Coward.

Is it normal and natural for a child to have 1 mum and 1 dad... or 2 mums or 2 dad's. ..!?

Coward. I hate loathe and detest everything that Stormee stands for, but at least he has the courage to say, this is what I think even if it means I repulse you, so I have just a little respect for him. You Tommy are too cowardly to do that, you want to pretend you are not homophobic and hide behind waffle.

by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:00 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think that's fair. You would have to ban any Christian or anyone with any religious faith from being a magistrate.

only if i could be shown, or was admitted as in this case, that they were allowing their religious beliefs to interfere with their judgements and actions .....

He might be allowing one aspect of his faith to influence him, but that doesn't mean he allows other aspects to influence him.

pffft Ragga....

thats like saying if someones a thief and pinches your tools out of your shed...they wouldnt pinch your telly out of the house too, given the chance.....

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:00 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

That's not the point that we're discussing.

Its the most important point, because the application of the law has to be applied equally to all

So if a person is based that openly denies that equality under the law, then they are unfit to serve

Victor said this:

Not to mention that he simple fact he has shown religious bias in this case, renders him unfit to judge on ANY case.....

The implication is that his religious faith alone makes him unfit because he might be biased on other issues. Tommy and I were saying that many people have their own biased views. If they only wanted magistrates with no opinions at all, there wouldn't be any.

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:01 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Exactly Tommy. Nearly everyone has some kind of bias.

But, and here is the big but, everyone has equality under the law

Not the children it seems... when some are given the normal and natural best environment with a mother and a father and others are forced into a mixed up abnormal and unnatural home environment with 2 m or 2 f homosexuals...

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:01 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

He might be allowing one aspect of his faith to influence him, but that doesn't mean he allows other aspects to influence him.
pffft Ragga....

thats like saying if someones a thief and pinches your tools out of your shed...they wouldnt pinch your telly out of the house too, given the chance.....

So if you were a magistrate, you wouldn't mind being fired for being sympathetic to those who want to go hunting with dogs then?

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:02 pm

sassy wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Is it normal and natural for a child to have 1 mum and 1 dad... or 2 mums or 2 dad's. ..!?

Coward. I hate loathe and detest everything that Stormee stands for, but at least he has the courage to say, this is what I think even if it means I repulse you, so I have just a little respect for him. You Tommy are too cowardly to do that, you want to pretend you are not homophobic and hide behind waffle.

Why won't you just answer the straight question...!?

by Guest Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:04 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
sassy wrote:

Coward. I hate loathe and detest everything that Stormee stands for, but at least he has the courage to say, this is what I think even if it means I repulse you, so I have just a little respect for him. You Tommy are too cowardly to do that, you want to pretend you are not homophobic and hide behind waffle.

Why won't you just answer the straight question...!?

Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action - Page 8 3489511464

You have some nerve!

by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:10 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

He might be allowing one aspect of his faith to influence him, but that doesn't mean he allows other aspects to influence him.
pffft Ragga....

thats like saying if someones a thief and pinches your tools out of your shed...they wouldnt pinch your telly out of the house too, given the chance.....

So if you were a magistrate, you wouldn't mind being fired for being sympathetic to those who want to go hunting with dogs then?

AHH...BUT..... you make the mistakes of assuming that i would allow any "sympathy" I may have for them to interfere with what is prescribed in law....

What I personally beleive in has no place in a court of law....If i thought that my own "bias" would interfere I would admit "prior interest" and stand down from that case...something ALL magistrates can and indeed are expected to do....

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:12 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So if you were a magistrate, you wouldn't mind being fired for being sympathetic to those who want to go hunting with dogs then?

AHH...BUT..... you make the mistakes of assuming that i would allow any "sympathy" I may have for them to interfere with what is prescribed in law....

What I personally beleive in has no place in a court of law....If i thought that my own "bias" would interfere I would admit "prior interest" and stand down from that case...something ALL magistrates can and indeed are expected to do....

Well you're making the mistake of assuming this chap would be biased on all issues just because he's biased on one issue.

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:15 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Raggs... others would also have biased views if pro leftie or pro gay etc... should they also be sacked because it may influence their decisions etc...!?

Exactly Tommy. Nearly everyone has some kind of bias.

Or is it the case that only some 'decisions' are 'allowed'...?

And anyone who doesn't 'freely' make the decision in the only pre determined and 'approved' permissable way... will be punished!!!

While those who are 'just following orders' will be rewarded... by not being punished!!!

lol!

All in the name of equality mind...!!!

And of course... the only way to stop a fascist dictatorship...!!!

lol!

by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:16 pm

no the issue is that he did NOT stand down from a case where his bias applied

had he ben sacked for saying he was biased and therfore would not sit on that case, I would be supporting him...

now he admitted that he still sat and heard that case.......AND allowed his bias to operate....

that makes him unreliable what other issues does he have that he HASNT admitted to?

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:18 pm

For sassy again...

Is it normal and natural for a child to have 1 mum and 1 dad... or 2 mums or 2 dad's. ..!?

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:21 pm

Lord Foul wrote:no the issue is that he did NOT stand down from a case where his bias applied

had he ben sacked for saying he was biased and therfore would not sit on that case, I would be supporting him...

now he admitted that he still sat and heard that case.......AND allowed his bias to operate....

that makes him unreliable what other issues does he have that he HASNT admitted to?

It doesn't make him unreliable. You can't assume he has other issues just because of that one. I don't know if they allow magistrates to pick and choose which cases they get involved with.

by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:23 pm

first define what is "normal" and show your reasoning for that definition of YOURS.......

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:27 pm

Lord Foul wrote:no the issue is that he did NOT stand down from a case where his bias applied

had he ben sacked for saying he was biased and therfore would not sit on that case, I would be supporting him...

now he admitted that he still sat and heard that case.......AND allowed his bias to operate....

that makes him unreliable what other issues does he have that he HASNT admitted to?

No the issue is that he says he made his decision based on the evidence alone... but was then religiously persecuted for it...!

The evidence is clear that a mf couple parent home environment is in the best interests of a child...!!!

And the law requires the best interests are paramount!

by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:29 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:no the issue is that he did NOT stand down from a case where his bias applied

had he ben sacked for saying he was biased and therfore would not sit on that case, I would be supporting him...

now he admitted that he still sat and heard that case.......AND allowed his bias to operate....

that makes him unreliable what other issues does he have that he HASNT admitted to?

It doesn't make him unreliable. You can't assume he has other issues just because of that one. I don't know if they allow magistrates to pick and choose which cases they get involved with.

thats not what the law would think...potentially.....albeit unlikely, EVERY case he has sat on could now need to be referred back to court....since there is the potential for anyone who doesnt like the decisions made to claim that the reult of THEIR case was influenced by his religious bias and therfore unlawful....

whilst magistrates dont get to pick and choose as such...they ARE expected to declare anything that will influence their judgement on a case, and they are expected to step down from any case that may thus be affected.... the same applies to jurors in crown cases.....

by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:31 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:no the issue is that he did NOT stand down from a case where his bias applied

had he ben sacked for saying he was biased and therfore would not sit on that case, I would be supporting him...

now he admitted that he still sat and heard that case.......AND allowed his bias to operate....

that makes him unreliable what other issues does he have that he HASNT admitted to?

No the issue is that he says he made his decision based on the evidence alone... but was then religiously persecuted for it...!

If the "evidence" he based his decision on is the same biased crap YOU used....I'm not surprised he's been sacked...

The evidence is clear that a mf couple parent home environment is in the best interests of a child...!!!

And the law requires the best interests are paramount!

by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:36 pm

oh and ......

from the O/P link

Mr Page had been reprimanded in 2014 after he was found to have been influenced in an adoption case by his religious beliefs as a Christian.

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:39 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:For sassy again...

Is it normal and natural for a child to have 1 mum and 1 dad... or 2 mums or 2 dad's. ..!?

Sassy...?

And Vic... punished before for not following orders...

by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:46 pm

tommy...what does the LAW say?

by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:49 pm

and ......

first define what is "normal" and show your reasoning for that definition of YOURS.......

by Guest Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:53 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

No the issue is that he says he made his decision based on the evidence alone... but was then religiously persecuted for it...!

LF stated >>> If the "evidence" he based his decision on is the same biased crap YOU used....I'm not surprised he's been sacked...

The evidence is clear that a mf couple parent home environment is in the best interests of a child...!!!
And the law requires the best interests are paramount!

And 7 wasted pages later...this was in wee-little Tommy's first post and from his very own linked/quotated sections >>>

This followed a BBC interview in March 2015 in which he had said that it was his duty as a magistrate to act on the evidence alone, and that there had not yet been a proper analysis of the effects that placing children with same-sex couples had on the child's well-being.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-35796557

Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action - Page 8 2581891615

and still running the very same mantra; because wee-little Tommy managed to twist what the magistrate stated into justification for 'HIS OWN OPINION' and valid reason for the judge to be biased...when that was not what the magistrate clearly stated!

But wee-little Tommy picked it up like a starving dog with a beef bone and ran with it as --- 'Here's my proof for why the magistrate was correct in his ruling!'
And dragging one minuscule blog and a limited number of humans polled as PROOF for an "proper analysis" is just grasping at straws and showing a willful disregard for FACTS and the LACK OF FACTS to prove his narrow-minded POV. Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action - Page 8 2297536688

Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action - Page 8 2297536688

by eddie Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:57 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Try asking a straight question and not a loaded one...

How about you answer this for a taste...

Would you prefer a child to be brought up with a mother and father in a stable and loving home environment that is in the child's best interests... or not...!?

I would prefer every child on this planet was brought up in a loving and stable home.
It doenst matter who provides it you numpty.

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:59 pm

Law says child's best interests are paramount...!

Explain how it is best to deprive a child of a mother father set of parents in favour of an abnormal 2 mum or 2 dad set up...!?

by eddie Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:04 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Law says child's best interests are paramount...!

Explain how it is best to deprive a child of a mother father set of parents in favour of an abnormal 2 mum or 2 dad set up...!?

Been there done it
Explain how gender makes a difference? (Not c&p's cos they bore the pants off me)

Night Tommy dont let the bed bugs bite

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:04 am

what else does the law say tommy???

what little piece are you missing???

could it be that the LAW says that gay couples,are as suitable as straight? (given the same degree of checks )

and therfore the childs best interests are determined SOLEY by other factors than the sexual orientation of the prospective parents...

that THAT is irrelevant???

I mean...if you are going to invoke law then you had better understand law..........

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:06 am

I'll ask you once again...define normal...and show your working......

or do you not dare...becasue you know you actualy cant......

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:07 am

Is it normal and natural for a child to have 1 mum and 1 dad... or 2 mums or 2 dad's. ..!?

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:11 am

"... the childs best interests are determined SOLEY by other factors than the sexual orientation of the prospective parents..."

Yes... determined by the child's best interests being served by only being placed with a mother and father...

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:20 am

Tommy Monk wrote:

Is it normal and natural for a child to have 1 mum and 1 dad... or 2 mums or 2 dad's. ..!?

your whole argument swings on "normal" and "natural"

define them

and stop evading that point....

how do you expect me to give you an answer to what seems to me to be an entirely irrelevant question unless you tell me what YOU consider those things to be???

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:22 am

Tommy Monk wrote:

"... the childs best interests are determined SOLEY by other factors than the sexual orientation of the prospective parents..."

Yes... determined by the child's best interests being served by only being placed with a mother and father...

thats a logical paradox and therefor rubbish.....

by Eilzel Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:26 am

Whatever you say tommy, the only REAL outcome if adopting followed your rules is that more children would be left wallowing in care.

You are either happy with this because you think gay couples adopting is worse or would accept gay couples being allowed to adopted as a better life for a child.

by veya_victaous Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:39 am

I think there should be a campign to take away the kids from Tommy and Stormee(and those that hink like them)
one ony has to read there post to see IF the interests of the child are Paramount then hands down they will be better of with eilzel. neither Stormee or Tommy could make a case to keep the kids

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:54 am

Well folks...there we have it

tommy monk holds forth an appaling homophobic proposition, who's central tenet is a logical paradox
supported by false association to somr UNDEFINED claim of normality and natural.
NEITHER of which he will define for further analysis...

case closed ....

Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action - Page 8 2581891615

anything further would be mere commentary......

by eddie Thu Mar 17, 2016 6:33 am

Okay Tommy keep asking and can't find the answer so here's the question again:

Is it:

A Two men you oppose
B Two women
C doesn't matter either is unacceptable to adopt

by Major Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:44 am

Two men mainly.

by eddie Thu Mar 17, 2016 8:24 am

Stormee wrote:Two men mainly.

Why?

by Major Thu Mar 17, 2016 9:23 am

eddie wrote:
Stormee wrote:Two men mainly.

Why?

It is inborn, natural for man/woman to look after/nurture children, not 2 men.

I smell a rat, a trap here if I honestly scribe things as I see them which I have said many times before and they still stand.

Am I right lol!

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 9:38 am

Stormee wrote:
eddie wrote:

Why?

It is inborn, natural for man/woman to look after/nurture children, not 2 men.

I smell a rat, a trap here if I honestly scribe things as I see them which I have said many times before and they still stand.

Am I right

So its natural for a man to raise a child, but not two men?

How does that work?

As you do realise that some men who lose their wives to death, raise their children on their own?

Are you saying that is wrong?

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:30 am

National Facts:

402,000 kids in U.S. foster care system
102,000 eligible for adoption
23,000 "aged out" before finding a family in 2012.

Same-sex couples raising children are four times more likely than their different-sex counterparts to be raising an adopted child.

Same-sex couples are six times more likely than their different sex counterparts to be raising foster children.

Many states currently have barriers restricting the ability of LGBT people and same-sex couples to adopt children

http://www.familyequality.org/get_informed/families_for_all/50_states_of_adoption/

Loads of statistical facts and data included in that link; and as interesting as this 7+ pages have been to read --- the facts remain and are proved my this really detailed one --- there aren't any finite/detailed reports collected for what percentage of crimes are committed by LGBT community and the children within those homes.

Google/Bing/STFW for Crimes Against Children and there's a large data base by: race/single/foster/divorced/adoptive parents in the United States --- but not enough data for any that have to do with being LGBT ---
The data just hasn't been correlated due to the lack of evidentiary stats and not every state has approved single household adoptions, let alone the LGBT community either.

Jump to: navigation, search
Laws regarding LGBT adoption in the United States vary, as adoption in the United States is regulated and licensed at the state level. In 2006, adoption by gay couples was illegal in Nebraska, Florida, Michigan, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Utah.Adoption by single LGBT individuals is now legal in every jurisdiction in the United States, while adoption by same-sex couples is legal in 49 states with the exception of Mississippi, and legal in the District of Columbia as well as of June 26, 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption_in_the_United_States

So yet again --- as with everyone's prior posted OPINIONS; the magistrate had ZERO basis for is opinions other then his religious ones and that's NOT A LEGAL METHOD FOR ADJUDICATING ANY CASE...period.

by Major Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:31 am

Didge wrote:
Stormee wrote:

It is inborn, natural for man/woman to look after/nurture children, not 2 men.

I smell a rat, a trap here if I honestly scribe things as I see them which I have said many times before and they still stand.

Am I right

So its natural for a man to raise a child, but not two men?

How does that work?

As you do realise that some men who lose their wives to death, raise their children on their own?

Are you saying that is wrong?

You know EXACTLY that which I am saying, don't even think of twisting things.

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:36 am

Stormee wrote:
Didge wrote:

So its natural for a man to raise a child, but not two men?

How does that work?

As you do realise that some men who lose their wives to death, raise their children on their own?

Are you saying that is wrong?

You know EXACTLY that which I am saying, don't even think of twisting things.

No I am asking you a very simple point

If you have no issue with one male raising children, then why would you with two?

by Major Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:49 am

I have not said that which you allege I said.