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 Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:53 am

Stormee wrote:I have not said that which you allege I said.

You said you were against two men

So now you are back tracking from your earlier point.

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

by eddie Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:23 am

Stormee wrote:
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

A trap? I don't set traps storm. I am exactly what you see and what I say I am.

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:27 am

Only a mother and a father will be able to provide a normal and natural home environment that is in the best interests of the child!

How many more times eddie...!?

by eddie Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:30 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Only a mother and a father will be able to provide a normal and natural home environment that is in the best interests of the child!

How many more times eddie...!?

How many more times can you repeat the same sentence yet have no opnion as to why!
No c&p's

Opnion: WHY is it wrong if the couple are loving abd nurturing?

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:43 am

Lord Foul wrote: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 ....

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

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:03 pm

It's quite simple... having a mother and a father set of parents is the only normal and natural way of things... and conclusively shown to be the best family structure for children to grow up in!

I don't know how you are finding this so hard you understand...!?

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:08 pm

define what YOU mean by "normal" and "natural"

you keep using those words....

but you wont define what you mean.....

primarily because you know damn well I'll eat you if you do..... Laughing

by eddie Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:10 pm

That's what I am trying to get at! What is your opinion of natural no normal Tommy?

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:12 pm

Oh my word... it's like swimming through custard...!

lol!

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:22 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:It's quite simple... having a mother and a father set of parents is the only normal and natural way of things... and conclusively shown to be the best family structure for children to grow up in!

I don't know how you are finding this so hard you understand...!?

I can't be much clearer that this!

by eddie Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:28 pm

"Conclusively shown" is not an opnion is it - unless you did a study and I've missed something.

And you normally say "because" after stating an opinion - then it tells us WHY you think something

You're being very evasive and hiding behind a wall of custard.

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:34 pm

There is plenty of evidence that children do best with a mother and father...

"Evidence is so strong that children raised in standard two-parent families fare best that it takes a wilful perversion to ignore it."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/9245973/The-village-can-help-but-children-raised-by-a-mum-and-dad-do-best.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/10/study-children-fare-better-traditional-mom-dad-fam/?page=all

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:40 pm

Evidence is so strong that children raised in standard two-parent families fare best that it takes a wilful perversion to ignore it."

by eddie Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:40 pm

http://qz.com/438469/the-science-is-clear-children-raised-by-same-sex-parents-are-at-no-disadvantage/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-gaymarriage-study-idUSKBN0P32AM20150623

And???

by eddie Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:41 pm

The science is clear: Children raised by same-sex parents are at no disadvantage

by eddie Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:43 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/33281770/same-sex-parents-have-no-negative-impacts-on-children-us-study-suggests

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:43 pm

And I posted a conclusive study earlier on this thread that shows considerable negative effects on children...

The pro gay studies have been shown to be seriously lacking in credibility...

by eddie Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:44 pm

Shall we just keep spamming with "studies" that we've found that backup our argument, or shall we go about this face to face?

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:44 pm

eddie wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/33281770/same-sex-parents-have-no-negative-impacts-on-children-us-study-suggests

Already given him 3 or 4 of those at the beginning of the thread, he chose to ignore them.

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:45 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:It's quite simple... having a mother and a father set of parents is the only normal and natural way of things... and conclusively shown to be the best family structure for children to grow up in!

I don't know how you are finding this so hard you understand...!?

I can't be much clearer that this!

then define what you mean by normal.

do you merely mean, the way it has always been done?

by natural do you mean in some way dictated by nature ?

or what?

by eddie Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:46 pm

sassy wrote:
eddie wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/33281770/same-sex-parents-have-no-negative-impacts-on-children-us-study-suggests

Already given him 3 or 4 of those at the beginning of the thread, he chose to ignore them.

Oh yes I know sassy. That's why I'll keep posting them until he grows bored of me!

Im asking him for a well thought-out opnion - I know he's capable of one - but he won't supply me.

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:57 pm

I've given plenty of opinion and evidence based facts...

And you may be able to show a couple of weak pro gay 'studies'... but what remains to be seen is that there is a huge question mark over whether the placing of children with homosexual couples as parents is in fact damaging to them or not... so when it is children's lives at stake... isn't it best not to take the risks...!?

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:59 pm

Why can you not define normal and natural?

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:59 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I've given plenty of opinion and evidence based facts...

And you may be able to show a couple of weak pro gay 'studies'... but what remains to be seen is that there is a huge question mark over whether the placing of children with homosexual couples as parents is in fact damaging to them or not... so when it is children's lives at stake... isn't it best not to take the risks...!?

By your view all single parents should thus have their children taken into care.

I mean that is what you are saying, is it not?

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:01 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:"Evidence is so strong that children raised in standard two-parent families fare best that it takes a wilful perversion to ignore it."

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:01 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Evidence is so strong that children raised in standard two-parent families fare best that it takes a wilful perversion to ignore it."

By your view all single parents should thus have their children taken into care.

I mean that is what you are saying, is it not?

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:10 pm

Another false argument from dodgy Didge...

If you say 'a' then you are really saying 'b' and that means '46'...

Makes sense doesn't it...!?

lol!

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:12 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Another false argument from dodgy Didge...

If you say 'a' then you are really saying 'b' and that means '46'...

Makes sense doesn't it...!?

Wrong

You say its best to raise with a mother and father

If you only have a mother or a father, then it cannot be the best way to raise a child.

Thus by your view they should not be allowed to raise a child

Its that simple, you set the benchmark now what is only the right way according to you as to raise a child.

So how are you going to tell all these children they are not being raised well, by your ignorance and inexperience that they should be now taken into care until a a mother and father can be found for them?

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:13 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I've given plenty of opinion and evidence based facts...

And you may be able to show a couple of weak pro gay 'studies'... but what remains to be seen is that there is a huge question mark over whether the placing of children with homosexual couples as parents is in fact damaging to them or not... so when it is children's lives at stake... isn't it best not to take the risks...!?

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:16 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:I've given plenty of opinion and evidence based facts...

And you may be able to show a couple of weak pro gay 'studies'... but what remains to be seen is that there is a huge question mark over whether the placing of children with homosexual couples as parents is in fact damaging to them or not... so when it is children's lives at stake... isn't it best not to take the risks...!?

You have set the benchmark that the only way a child should be raised is by a mother and father, as to you this is the best.
If that is the way you only see children being raised, then all other methods become null and void.
Thus widowers lose their children
Mothers divorced lose their children
Thus fathers divorced lose their children
All based on the benchmark you have set.
If you view however all I have just stated as okay to raise children, then you can have no claim to say that two of each kind cannot raise children

Your fucked

Razz

by eddie Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:20 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I've given plenty of opinion and evidence based facts...

And you may be able to show a couple of weak pro gay 'studies'... but what remains to be seen is that there is a huge question mark over whether the placing of children with homosexual couples as parents is in fact damaging to them or not... so when it is children's lives at stake... isn't it best not to take the risks...!?

So my studies are "pro gay".
Ergo your studies are "anti-gay"

So let's chuck the studies out of the window and ask eachother questions which we will both answer.

I'll go first:

What are the main qualities that make a good parent?

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:27 pm

When we have children in care and they are considered to be handed out to potential adoptive parents... we have a duty of care and a responsibility by law to make sure that what is in the best interests of the child is paramount!!!

It is clear that a mother and father is best
.. that should be the only type of family home environment that should be considered placing an children when adopted!

To be placing any children to any other type of coupkes that are clearly not as good and neither a normal or natural parenting structure that a child would normally be expected to be born into...would not be fair on the child because they would not be getting the same level of best interest placement from the authorities...

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:29 pm

there we go again ...that undefined "normal and natural"

you have NO argument tommy...

becasue you cant say what normal or natural is.......

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:31 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I've given plenty of opinion and evidence based facts...

And you may be able to show a couple of weak pro gay 'studies'... but what remains to be seen is that there is a huge question mark over whether the placing of children with homosexual couples as parents is in fact damaging to them or not... so when it is children's lives at stake... isn't it best not to take the risks...!?

For eddie... if you cannot conclusively prove that being placed with homosexual couples as adoptive parents is free from any negative or damaging effects then it shouldn't be happening at all!!!

The law states that a child's best interests are paramount!!!

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:32 pm

I think it is obvious to everyone that a mother and a father is normal and natural...

by eddie Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:35 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
When we have children in care and they are considered to be handed out to potential adoptive parents... we have a duty of care and a responsibility by law to make sure that what is in the best interests of the child is paramount!!!

It is clear that a mother and father is best
.. that should be the only type of family home environment that should be considered placing an children when adopted!

To be placing any children to any other type of coupkes that are clearly not as good and neither a normal or natural parenting structure that a child would normally be expected to be born into...would not be fair on the child because they would not be getting the same level of best interest placement from the authorities...

Okay well firstly, lol at your ignorance to how many children are abused/killed/harmed by their "biological" parent??!!
You use google so habe you ever googled the statistics for this????

Secondly, what is your version of Normal?
You do know that "normal" is objective don't you?

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:35 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
When we have children in care and they are considered to be handed out to potential adoptive parents... we have a duty of care and a responsibility by law to make sure that what is in the best interests of the child is paramount!!!

It is clear that a mother and father is best
.. that should be the only type of family home environment that should be considered placing an children when adopted!

To be placing any children to any other type of coupkes that are clearly not as good and neither a normal or natural parenting structure that a child would normally be expected to be born into...would not be fair on the child because they would not be getting the same level of best interest placement from the authorities...

That did not answer my points on you setting the benchmark

You have set the benchmark that the only way a child should be raised is by a mother and father, as to you this is the best.
If that is the way you only see children being raised, then all other methods become null and void.
Thus widowers lose their children
Mothers divorced lose their children
Thus fathers divorced lose their children
All based on the benchmark you have set.
If you view however all I have just stated as okay to raise children, then you can have no claim to say that two of each kind cannot raise children

Your fucked

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:38 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I've given plenty of opinion and evidence based facts...

And you may be able to show a couple of weak pro gay 'studies'... but what remains to be seen is that there is a huge question mark over whether the placing of children with homosexual couples as parents is in fact damaging to them or not... so when it is children's lives at stake... isn't it best not to take the risks...!?

For eddie... if you cannot conclusively prove that being placed with homosexual couples as adoptive parents is free from any negative or damaging effects then it shouldn't be happening at all!!!

The law states that a child's best interests are paramount!!!

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:39 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:I've given plenty of opinion and evidence based facts...

And you may be able to show a couple of weak pro gay 'studies'... but what remains to be seen is that there is a huge question mark over whether the placing of children with homosexual couples as parents is in fact damaging to them or not... so when it is children's lives at stake... isn't it best not to take the risks...!?

For eddie... if you cannot conclusively prove that being placed with homosexual couples as adoptive parents is free from any negative or damaging effects then it shouldn't be happening at all!!!

The law states that a child's best interests are paramount!!!

You set the precedent on who should raise children and now you are backing out like the coward you are lol

You have set the benchmark that the only way a child should be raised is by a mother and father, as to you this is the best.
If that is the way you only see children being raised, then all other methods become null and void.
Thus widowers lose their children
Mothers divorced lose their children
Thus fathers divorced lose their children
All based on the benchmark you have set.
If you view however all I have just stated as okay to raise children, then you can have no claim to say that two of each kind cannot raise children

Your fucked

by eddie Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:41 pm

Tommy are you listening to yourself?
How can you conclusively prove that placing a child with anyone of any gender or sexuality won't put them in danger?

I have just said to you,that the statistics for children being harmed or abused by a biological parent are depressingly high. So going by that logic shoud we all stop having Children?

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:44 pm

It is clear that a mother and father is best
.. that should be the only type of family home environment that should be considered placing an children when adopted!

To be placing any children to any other type of coupkes that are clearly not as good and neither a normal or natural parenting structure that a child would normally be expected to be born into...would not be fair on the child because they would not be getting the same level of best interest placement from the authorities...

It is unfair to be placing some children in the best mother and father family environments and then to place other children not in this same best environment...

I can't wait for these children to grow up and Sue the authorities for millions for being given a lesser standard of care by not being placed in the best motger father environments that others were given...

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:47 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:It is clear that a mother and father is best
.. that should be the only type of family home environment that should be considered placing an children when adopted!

To be placing any children to any other type of coupkes that are clearly not as good and neither a normal or natural parenting structure that a child would normally be expected to be born into...would not be fair on the child because they would not be getting the same level of best interest placement from the authorities...

It is unfair to be placing some children in the best mother and father family environments and then to place other children not in this same best environment...

I can't wait for these children to grow up and Sue the authorities for millions for being given a lesser standard of care by not being placed in the best motger father environments that others were given...

Still failed to answer

You set the precedent on who should raise children and now you are backing out like the coward you are lol

You have set the benchmark that the only way a child should be raised is by a mother and father, as to you this is the best.
If that is the way you only see children being raised, then all other methods become null and void.
Thus widowers lose their children
Mothers divorced lose their children
Thus fathers divorced lose their children
All based on the benchmark you have set.
If you view however all I have just stated as okay to raise children, then you can have no claim to say that two of each kind cannot raise children

Your fucked

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 17, 2016 2:50 pm

Already answered a number of times... a does not equal b and then 46...

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 3:13 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Already answered a number of times... a does not equal b and then 46...

Wrong

Try again

You set the precedent on who should raise children and now you are backing out like the coward you are lol

You have set the benchmark that the only way a child should be raised is by a mother and father, as to you this is the best.
If that is the way you only see children being raised, then all other methods become null and void.
Thus widowers lose their children
Mothers divorced lose their children
Thus fathers divorced lose their children
All based on the benchmark you have set.
If you view however all I have just stated as okay to raise children, then you can have no claim to say that two of each kind cannot raise children

Your fucked

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 17, 2016 3:24 pm

The benchmark is for children given to new adoptive homes... as the law says the child's best interests are paramount... and the mother father home is the best!

So why shouldn't all children being placed through adoption have the same best level as each other..!?

It's not fair on some to be forced into a mm or ff parenting environment which is of questionable detriment to the child... while others are given the best mother and father set of parents...!

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 3:26 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:The benchmark is for children given to new adoptive homes... as the law says the child's best interests are paramount... and the mother father home is the best!

So why shouldn't all children being placed through adoption have the same best level as each other..!?

It's not fair on some to be forced into a mm or ff parenting environment which is of questionable detriment to the child... while others are given the best mother and father set of parents...!

Wrong, you stated emphatically over the best way to raise children, being a mother and father

That nullifies all other ways to raise children

So stop being a ignorant twat and answer the questions

You set the precedent on who should raise children and now you are backing out like the coward you are lol

You have set the benchmark that the only way a child should be raised is by a mother and father, as to you this is the best.
If that is the way you only see children being raised, then all other methods become null and void.
Thus widowers lose their children
Mothers divorced lose their children
Thus fathers divorced lose their children
All based on the benchmark you have set.
If you view however all I have just stated as okay to raise children, then you can have no claim to say that two of each kind cannot raise children

Your fucked

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 3:30 pm

Has the ignorant twat Tommy not realised yet single parents can adopt too?

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 3:35 pm

There is nothing unusual about single parenting – around 25% of households in the UK with dependent children are headed by a single parent. Many people plan to have children but as the years pass by they may not find the right partner. Others may be happily single and not looking for a partner. The desire to build a family, to love, nurture and care for a child is not limited to heterosexual couples, and nowadays the diversity of family life is recognised and accepted.

It has been possible for single people to adopt from the earliest days of adoption and over the years many single people have successfully adopted. 10% of children, 420 children, adopted between 2012 and 2013 were adopted by single adopters. Single people should not experience discrimination on the grounds that they are single, whatever their gender or sexual orientation, and adoption agencies welcome enquiries from single people.

http://www.first4adoption.org.uk/being-an-adoptive-parent/how-do-i-decide/single-thinking-adoption/

So on top of of the fact Tommy has rendered 10% of children adopted now null and void and by his idiotic views, by having them being placed them back into care,. He also by his benchmark of a child being raised, has to be by a mother and father then renders 25% of households, who are single parents losing their children by being placed into care.

All because he is one ignorant fuckwit

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 17, 2016 4:10 pm

I know what happens... I'm just saying that maybe it shouldn't. .. because the best interests of the child are not necessarily being met...

And you do realise that in most cases with one parent... the other parent is normally still involved too...!?

So still a mother and a father...!

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 4:13 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I know what happens... I'm just saying that maybe it shouldn't. .. because the best interests of the child are not necessarily being met...

And you do realise that in most cases with one parent... the other parent is normally still involved too...!?

So still a mother and a father...!

Bullshit alert

Single means raising that child either when with one or the other singularly has the children

You stated the best way is with a mother and father, when separated that is not possible and many times they are at odds with each other the parents, showing you have no comprehension what you are talking about.

You just got owned big time and you know it