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 Fri Mar 18, 2016 5:54 pm

aspca4ever wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:yes well...the problem we have is that tommy is "not normal"
Ok, have we all beat up this poor human quite sufficiently --- I mean it's not like he's flopped over and given up; he's just standing as resolute as any other SOS human with no basis of facts but do we need to keep

Seriously; he's not reading ANY of the information/links/stats that many of us have provided and he's not going to change his POV ---

Now that I've been made grossly aware that the Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action - Page 11 2981866455

's and TROLLING is how this place is managed and rewarded---I'll offer you Tommy, my sincere apology for my part in this on going NON-STOP /SHAMEFUL DISPLAY OF GANG WARFARE.

Sadly, the method of moderation is as low bar standard as the method for pack attack character assassination Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action - Page 11 2190311264

Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action - Page 11 2190311264

I might disagree with your opinion but your courage to stand your ground under such consistent -utter BS is commendable!!!

by Tommy Monk Fri Mar 18, 2016 6:37 pm

Didge... I will try to explain this one last time...

The laws/rules/regulations/criteria for REMOVING CHILDREN FROM their NATURAL PARENT/S and INTO CARE... are TOTALLY DIFFERENT to the laws/rules/regulations/criteria that an AUTHORITY HAS TO ADHERE TO WHEN CONSIDERING THE PLACING OF A CHILD with NON FAMILY MEMBERS who are essentially STRANGERS and OUTSIDE of DIRECT AUTHORITY CARE!!!

Not removing one child from one natural parent for one reason of potential risk/concern does not justify the giving away of another child from authority care to what is essentially A NON RELATED STRANGER!!! when there IS a known potential risk/concern!!!

Why do you continue failing to recognise this fundamental and distinct difference between the two separate issues and keep trying to conflate the two unless for further spurious argument...!?

Give it up now please Dodge...!!!

It's becoming a little tiresome...!

by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 20, 2016 1:54 pm

I take it you now understand this dodge...!?

by Victorismyhero Sun Mar 20, 2016 2:13 pm

yes tommy and we also know that you will seize on ANY rubbish to promote your hideous little agenda Rolling Eyes

by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 20, 2016 2:20 pm

Some will say that forcing children to grow up with homosexuals and intentionally denying them a normal and natural environment with a mother and father is a hideous agenda. ..

by Victorismyhero Sun Mar 20, 2016 2:26 pm

you mean they rapidly shrinking minority that you represent, who have a serious hang up about gays???

you would be happy to go back to the days of Alan Turing

by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 20, 2016 2:28 pm

I think the vast majority of people will consider the best interests of children will be to grow up with a mother and father rather than with a couple of poofs

by Victorismyhero Sun Mar 20, 2016 2:33 pm

and there you go, proving my point...

11 pages of inane waffle from you, in which your FAUX concern for children, is merely a mask for your rampaging homophobia.

sad really, I mean you could be honest about it Rolling Eyes

by Eilzel Sun Mar 20, 2016 2:43 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I think the vast majority of people will consider the best interests of children will be to grow up with a mother and father rather than with a couple of poofs

And if anybody ever needed any proof that you are a raging homophobe then there it is. 'A couple of poofs', says tommy. And thus destroys any shred of credibility he may have had.

Most people in the UK are ok with gay couples adopting. Just a few neanderthals and religious nuts who think otherwise.

by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 20, 2016 2:47 pm

Oh hey we go... lose the arguments and then claim to have won because I typed 'poofs'...

After all the insults I've had here...

Pathetic!!!

lol!

by eddie Sun Mar 20, 2016 2:57 pm

Lord Foul wrote:yes tommy and we also know that you will seize on ANY rubbish to promote your hideous little agenda

Just because he has an opnion doesn't mean he has an agenda.
He's not Tommy Trump, evil twin of Donald. Rolling Eyes

by Eilzel Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:00 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Oh hey we go... lose the arguments and then claim to have won because I typed 'poofs'...

After all the insults I've had here...

Pathetic!!!

If you'd insulted someone that would be one thing, but you blanket insulted all gay people.

You wouldn't listen to a nazi's views on Jews; so why would anyone listen to a homophobes views on gay people?

by Victorismyhero Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:02 pm

@eddie.........

true but his "opinion" is the invalid opinion of the dinosaur

Trex....talking to apatosaurus....

"In my opinion....asteroids dont exist....

WTF is that bright light on the horizon??????"

so he can expect to be slated...

by eddie Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:03 pm

Lord Foul wrote:and there you go, proving my point...

11 pages of inane waffle from you, in which your FAUX concern for children, is merely a mask for your rampaging homophobia.

sad really, I mean you could be honest about it

I do agree with you here. If Tommy had no dislike for the "gay lifestyle" - I won't say "gays" because I don't think Tommy would be ignorant to Les for instance in a pub, and would buy him a drink - then he wouldn't be too concerned about this issue.

by eddie Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:05 pm

And that's brings me to another point: are you actually homophobic because you disapprove of a gay lifestyle?
What if you have no dislike of gays per se, that you would judge each you'd meet on merit like anyone else, but you do disapprove of their lifestyle?

Is that the same thing?

by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:08 pm

Blah blah blah bullshit les...

Not you eddie!

lol!

by eddie Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:09 pm

Pardon? Which part is bullshit?
So you are Tommy Trump, evil twin of Donald?

by Guest Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:19 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge... I will try to explain this one last time...

The laws/rules/regulations/criteria for REMOVING CHILDREN FROM their NATURAL PARENT/S and INTO CARE... are TOTALLY DIFFERENT to the laws/rules/regulations/criteria that an AUTHORITY HAS TO ADHERE TO WHEN CONSIDERING THE PLACING OF A CHILD with NON FAMILY MEMBERS who are essentially STRANGERS and OUTSIDE of DIRECT AUTHORITY CARE!!!

Not removing one child from one natural parent for one reason of potential risk/concern does not justify the giving away of another child from authority care to what is essentially A NON RELATED STRANGER!!! when there IS a known potential risk/concern!!!

Why do you continue failing to recognise this fundamental and distinct difference between the two separate issues and keep trying to conflate the two unless for further spurious argument...!?

Give it up now please Dodge...!!!

It's becoming a little tiresome...!

Never heard so much avoidance in all my life

Again it was you that is trying to break the law by your promotion of prejudice. based on no law either but a present subjective preference
People have a right to have a family., which includes adoption.
So it was you throughout this whole debate, thinking as per usual that you were being clever,when infarct continually made yourself look silly.
But through your poor conceived methodology who can and cannot adopt. Would then, if we applied your stupidity, because where it is a present the right of people to have a family, you by denying them adopting child by simple being single, homosexual render these groups then flagged as unfit to have families, by your own stupidity of course
This is what you fail to grasp and why then based on your incorrect claim on

You also stupidly think based on a subjective preference, that, to you, should automatically then disqualify these groups from being able to adopt, based on you simply failing to understand the law. Where in fact you want to break the law, openly being prejudiced, denying them, the right to have a family. You want the magistrates to to break the law rejecting applications, based off you view of the subjective view of a male and female preference. Thus again would mean even more children being in care based of your stupidity
Anyway on Adoption

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/38/contents

by Guest Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:21 pm

onsiderations applying to the exercise of powers

(1)

This section applies whenever a court or adoption agency is coming to a decision relating to the adoption of a child.

(2)

The paramount consideration of the court or adoption agency must be the child’s welfare, throughout his life.

(3)

The court or adoption agency must at all times bear in mind that, in general, any delay in coming to the decision is likely to prejudice the child’s welfare.

(4)

The court or adoption agency must have regard to the following matters (among others)—

(a)

the child’s ascertainable wishes and feelings regarding the decision (considered in the light of the child’s age and understanding),

(b)

the child’s particular needs,

(c)

the likely effect on the child (throughout his life) of having ceased to be a member of the original family and become an adopted person,

(d)

the child’s age, sex, background and any of the child’s characteristics which the court or agency considers relevant,

(e)

any harm (within the meaning of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41)) which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering,

(f)

the relationship which the child has with relatives, and with any other person in relation to whom the court or agency considers the relationship to be relevant, including—

(i)

the likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to the child of its doing so,

(ii)

the ability and willingness of any of the child’s relatives, or of any such person, to provide the child with a secure environment in which the child can develop, and otherwise to meet the child’s needs,

(iii)

the wishes and feelings of any of the child’s relatives, or of any such person, regarding the child.

(5)

In placing the child for adoption, the adoption agency must give due consideration to the child’s religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background.

(6)

The court or adoption agency must always consider the whole range of powers available to it in the child’s case (whether under this Act or the Children Act 1989); and the court must not make any order under this Act unless it considers that making the order would be better for the child than not doing so.

(7)

In this section, “coming to a decision relating to the adoption of a child”, in relation to a court, includes—

(a)

coming to a decision in any proceedings where the orders that might be made by the court include an adoption order (or the revocation of such an order), a placement order (or the revocation of such an order) or an order under section 26 (or the revocation or variation of such an order),

(b)

coming to a decision about granting leave in respect of any action (other than the initiation of proceedings in any court) which may be taken by an adoption agency or individual under this Act,

but does not include coming to a decision about granting leave in any other circumstances.

(

For the purposes of this section—

(a)

references to relationships are not confined to legal relationships,

(b)

references to a relative, in relation to a child, include the child’s mother and father

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/38/section/1

by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:23 pm

Waffle...

by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:26 pm

..(2)

The paramount consideration of the court or adoption agency must be the child’s welfare, throughout his life

by Victorismyhero Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:27 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Waffle...

tommy up a tree Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action - Page 11 3408175593

by Guest Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:28 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:..(2)

The paramount consideration of the court or adoption agency must be the child’s welfare, throughout his life

Which does not does not discriminate under the law, if single, gay, not married etc.

by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:32 pm

Children fare best with a mother and a father... to be intentionally denied this best interests environment is not looking after the welfare of a child.

The law is clear that ONLY the best interests are to be paramount!!!

Why can't you idiots understand this simple truth!!!???

by Guest Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:33 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Waffle...

Really?

You are saying the legislation is waffle????

Please point out within this legislation that single people, divorced, widowed people and homosexuals do not have the child's best interest at heart? (which is what you are claiming)

Here you go again

onsiderations applying to the exercise of powers

(1)

This section applies whenever a court or adoption agency is coming to a decision relating to the adoption of a child.

(2)

The paramount consideration of the court or adoption agency must be the child’s welfare, throughout his life.

(3)

The court or adoption agency must at all times bear in mind that, in general, any delay in coming to the decision is likely to prejudice the child’s welfare.

(4)

The court or adoption agency must have regard to the following matters (among others)—

(a)

the child’s ascertainable wishes and feelings regarding the decision (considered in the light of the child’s age and understanding),

(b)

the child’s particular needs,

(c)

the likely effect on the child (throughout his life) of having ceased to be a member of the original family and become an adopted person,

(d)

the child’s age, sex, background and any of the child’s characteristics which the court or agency considers relevant,

(e)

any harm (within the meaning of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41)) which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering,

(f)

the relationship which the child has with relatives, and with any other person in relation to whom the court or agency considers the relationship to be relevant, including—

(i)

the likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to the child of its doing so,

(ii)

the ability and willingness of any of the child’s relatives, or of any such person, to provide the child with a secure environment in which the child can develop, and otherwise to meet the child’s needs,

(iii)

the wishes and feelings of any of the child’s relatives, or of any such person, regarding the child.

(5)

In placing the child for adoption, the adoption agency must give due consideration to the child’s religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background.

(6)

The court or adoption agency must always consider the whole range of powers available to it in the child’s case (whether under this Act or the Children Act 1989); and the court must not make any order under this Act unless it considers that making the order would be better for the child than not doing so.

(7)

In this section, “coming to a decision relating to the adoption of a child”, in relation to a court, includes—

(a)

coming to a decision in any proceedings where the orders that might be made by the court include an adoption order (or the revocation of such an order), a placement order (or the revocation of such an order) or an order under section 26 (or the revocation or variation of such an order),

(b)

coming to a decision about granting leave in respect of any action (other than the initiation of proceedings in any court) which may be taken by an adoption agency or individual under this Act,

but does not include coming to a decision about granting leave in any other circumstances.

(

For the purposes of this section—

(a)

references to relationships are not confined to legal relationships,

(b)

references to a relative, in relation to a child, include the child’s mother and father

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/38/section/1

by Eilzel Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:33 pm

eddie wrote:And that's brings me to another point: are you actually homophobic because you disapprove of a gay lifestyle?
What if you have no dislike of gays per se, that you would judge each you'd meet on merit like anyone else, but you do disapprove of their lifestyle?

Is that the same thing?

The term 'gay lifestyle' is problematic, because my (any other gay man's) lifestyle is no different to anyone elses. We just have relationships with people of the same sex. Everything else is the same mundane stuff that makes up everyone elses life.

He cannot approve of a 'gay lifestyle' because such a thing doesn't exist.

But he refers to gay people as 'poofs' which he wouldn't do if he didn't have a problem with gay people at all.

by Victorismyhero Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:34 pm

The flaw in your argument Tommy ...is that you havnt proved that a gay family is NOT in any childs best interest....

so your whole argument is a "house of cards"

by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:39 pm

I said you talk waffle dodge I pointed out the bit of legislation that is key...

And Lord fool... you have hit the argument round the wrong way... children shouldn't be placed without a mother and a father unless it can be conclusively proved that the alternatives are just as beneficial. .. if in doubt then it should certainly not be happening. .

by Eilzel Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:40 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I said you talk waffle dodge I pointed out the bit of legislation that is key...

And Lord fool... you have hit the argument round the wrong way... children shouldn't be placed without a mother and a father unless it can be conclusively proved that the alternatives are just as beneficial. .. if in doubt then it should certainly not be happening. .

So just leave them in care in definitely then, if no 'mother and father' couple comes along?

by eddie Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:42 pm

Eilzel wrote:
eddie wrote:And that's brings me to another point: are you actually homophobic because you disapprove of a gay lifestyle?
What if you have no dislike of gays per se, that you would judge each you'd meet on merit like anyone else, but you do disapprove of their lifestyle?

Is that the same thing?

The term 'gay lifestyle' is problematic, because my (any other gay man's) lifestyle is no different to anyone elses. We just have relationships with people of the same sex. Everything else is the same mundane stuff that makes up everyone elses life.

He cannot approve of a 'gay lifestyle' because such a thing doesn't exist.

But he refers to gay people as 'poofs' which he wouldn't do if he didn't have a problem with gay people at all.

You've just explained to me what i already knew Rolling Eyes

It's people like Tommy who think gays have a different lifestyle - that's why I used that word

by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:43 pm

Oh... back to this argument again...

Round and round we go...

How many times have i said that plenty more mother father couples would be available if they were not prevented from adopting for spurious reasons like one smoking an e cig... etc...

by Eilzel Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:48 pm

There still wouldn't be enough tommy. And you are evading the point. Whatever, a homophobe is never going to consider how a child in care suffers while a child with a gay couple will thrive like any other.

by Guest Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:48 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I said you talk waffle dodge I pointed out the bit of legislation that is key...

And Lord fool... you have hit the argument round the wrong way... children shouldn't be placed without a mother and a father unless it can be conclusively proved that the alternatives are just as beneficial. .. if in doubt then it should certainly not be happening. .

You mean now you are just making poor deflections and excise, as you cannot answer my question.
Show me the legislation that claims, groups like singles gays, divorcees, widowers etc, are automatically rejected for adoption. With also legislation backing your stance, that groups like singles gays, divorcees, widowers etc are unfit to adopt, because according to you only married heterosexual people are the only ones capable, simply by signing a contract?

How does that work Tommy?

by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:54 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 Victorismyhero Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:54 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I said you talk waffle dodge I pointed out the bit of legislation that is key...

And Lord fool... you have hit the argument round the wrong way... children shouldn't be placed without a mother and a father unless it can be conclusively proved that the alternatives are just as beneficial. .. if in doubt then it should certainly not be happening. .

the point I think is...that "doubt" is only contained in the feeble minds of yourself and your fellow disgusting homophobes.....

by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:55 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 Victorismyhero Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:55 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."

a flawed quote from an agenda driven, flawed study

but then you beleive the daily fails crap too....so....

by Guest Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:59 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."

Show me the legislation that claims, groups like singles gays, divorcees, widowers etc, are automatically rejected for adoption. With also legislation backing your stance, that groups like singles gays, divorcees, widowers etc are unfit to adopt, because according to you only married heterosexual people are the only ones capable, simply by signing a contract?

How does that work Tommy?

by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 20, 2016 4:00 pm

Only an agenda driven study that shows gays are great is allowed in the mind of Lord fool...

And it was a quote from here...

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

by Victorismyhero Sun Mar 20, 2016 4:06 pm

In any case, there is an avenue open for singletons and gay couples who yearn to provide a home for a child. Adoption rules have been altered, correctly so. But there’s a difference between providing a home for an existing child, and creating a new one through artificial insemination.

selective blindness then Tommy.....

since the artical yoiu are on about is entirely in reference to LESBIAN couples having IVF babies, and, more specifically the hoo ha about there being a mix up and one such couple having one black and one white due to a clusterfuck at the clinic....

you really are a disingenious little worm.....

DiDge ...go read that link and see what I mean......

by Victorismyhero Sun Mar 20, 2016 4:07 pm

I gotta go for a bit...fetch a sofa for the daughter....

I'll leave you to play with tommy....be nice now.......

by Guest Sun Mar 20, 2016 4:07 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Only an agenda driven study that shows gays are great is allowed in the mind of Lord fool...

And it was a quote from here...

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

Again

Show me the legislation that claims, groups like singles gays, divorcees, widowers etc, are automatically rejected for adoption. With also legislation backing your stance, that groups like singles gays, divorcees, widowers etc are unfit to adopt, because according to you only married heterosexual people are the only ones capable, simply by signing a contract?

How does that work Tommy?

Surely you can find the legislation that claims all these groups, and the law also backing up your absurd claim, that these groups would be incapable of ensuring the child's welfare?

I mean surely you can show this Tommy, as your whole claim is born this view??

by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 20, 2016 4:12 pm

The best interests of a child are paramount!!!

The law!!!

by Guest Sun Mar 20, 2016 4:19 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:The best interests of a child are paramount!!!

The law!!!

Which as you are unable to produce any legislation as requested.
Or even provide a law that disqualifies groups like singles gays, divorcees, widowers from adoption.

Again

Show me the legislation that claims, groups like singles gays, divorcees, widowers etc, are automatically rejected for adoption. With also legislation backing your stance, that groups like singles gays, divorcees, widowers etc are unfit to adopt, because according to you only married heterosexual people are the only ones capable, simply by signing a contract?

How does that work Tommy?

Surely you can find the legislation that claims all these groups, and the law also backing up your absurd claim, that these groups would be incapable of ensuring the child's welfare?

I mean surely you can show this Tommy, as your whole claim is born this view??

by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 20, 2016 4:22 pm

The best interests of the child are paramount!!!

by Guest Sun Mar 20, 2016 4:30 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:The best interests of the child are paramount!!!

Which as applications are approved for single people, homosexuals etc fundamentally means they clearly are approved and seen as having the best interest of the child.;