https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...ncil-3gcp6l8cs


--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 14:09:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...ncil-3gcp6l8cs

I'm surprised The Times has sunk to such inflammatory journalism.

Phrases such as 'niqab-wearing foster carer' and 'scandal-ridden
borough of Tower Hamlets' do nothing to suggest balanced reporting and
sound more like something in 'The Sun'.

Both papers have the same owner.

Has The Times reported on how many Muslim children have been fostered
by white Protestant families, or how many Catholic children have been
fostered by Jewish families and vice-versa? I doubt it.

And what's wrong with learning Arabic? Are we to deny our children the
opportunity to learn foreign languages just because a very few of them
are terrorist extremists? Perhaps we should stop teaching German in
schools because of Hitler, the SS and the Holocaust.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 8/28/2017 3:20 PM, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 14:09:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...ncil-3gcp6l8cs

I'm surprised The Times has sunk to such inflammatory journalism.

Phrases such as 'niqab-wearing foster carer' and 'scandal-ridden
borough of Tower Hamlets' do nothing to suggest balanced reporting and
sound more like something in 'The Sun'.

Has The Times reported on how many Muslim children have been fostered
by white Protestant families, or how many Catholic children have been
fostered by Jewish families and vice-versa? I doubt it.

And what's wrong with learning Arabic? Are we to deny our children the
opportunity to learn foreign languages just because a very few of them
are terrorist extremists? Perhaps we should stop teaching German in
schools because of Hitler, the SS and the Holocaust.

Well said.

On 28/08/17 15:20, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 14:09:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...ncil-3gcp6l8cs

I'm surprised The Times has sunk to such inflammatory journalism.

Phrases such as 'niqab-wearing foster carer' and 'scandal-ridden
borough of Tower Hamlets' do nothing to suggest balanced reporting and
sound more like something in 'The Sun'.

You mean they arent factual?



Has The Times reported on how many Muslim children have been fostered
by white Protestant families, or how many Catholic children have been
fostered by Jewish families and vice-versa? I doubt it.


In general this won't happen because social servives wont let it.
Remember the howls of angyuish when a white couple wanted to foster a
mixed-race baby?

And what's wrong with learning Arabic?

Nothomng.

But being forced to is somnething else.


Are we to deny our children the
opportunity to learn foreign languages just because a very few of them
are terrorist extremists? Perhaps we should stop teaching German in
schools because of Hitler, the SS and the Holocaust.


You spin better than a whirling dervish.


--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

On 28/08/2017 17:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I'm surprised The Times has sunk to such inflammatory journalism.

Phrases such as 'niqab-wearing foster carer' and 'scandal-ridden
borough of Tower Hamlets' do nothing to suggest balanced reporting and
sound more like something in 'The Sun'.

You mean they arent factual?

It can be true and inflammatory.

On Monday, 28 August 2017 18:22:29 UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 28/08/2017 17:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I'm surprised The Times has sunk to such inflammatory journalism.

Phrases such as 'niqab-wearing foster carer' and 'scandal-ridden
borough of Tower Hamlets' do nothing to suggest balanced reporting and
sound more like something in 'The Sun'.

You mean they arent factual?

It can be true and inflammatory.

So truth has to be suppressed to fit in with PC ideals?

On 28/08/2017 18:29, harry wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2017 18:22:29 UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 28/08/2017 17:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I'm surprised The Times has sunk to such inflammatory journalism.

Phrases such as 'niqab-wearing foster carer' and 'scandal-ridden
borough of Tower Hamlets' do nothing to suggest balanced reporting and
sound more like something in 'The Sun'.

You mean they arent factual?

It can be true and inflammatory.

So truth has to be suppressed to fit in with PC ideals?


I can say "that's a typical Harry post" or I can say "that's yet another
daft post from Harry". They are both true statements, but one is more
inflammatory than the other. So, please tell us which you prefer?

On 28/08/17 18:22, GB wrote:
On 28/08/2017 17:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I'm surprised The Times has sunk to such inflammatory journalism.

Phrases such as 'niqab-wearing foster carer' and 'scandal-ridden
borough of Tower Hamlets' do nothing to suggest balanced reporting and
sound more like something in 'The Sun'.

You mean they arent factual?

It can be true and inflammatory.

Ah so now it's not 'unbalanced' it's just 'inflammatory'

Now remind me of who just got their website closed in Germany? The
'anti-fascists'?

Never mind. Merkel's Mumsnet is till discussing breast milk I hear.
You could join in that.


--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

On 28/08/17 19:12, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , GB
wrote:

On 28/08/2017 18:29, harry wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2017 18:22:29 UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 28/08/2017 17:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I'm surprised The Times has sunk to such inflammatory journalism.

Phrases such as 'niqab-wearing foster carer' and 'scandal-ridden
borough of Tower Hamlets' do nothing to suggest balanced reporting
and
sound more like something in 'The Sun'.

You mean they arent factual?

It can be true and inflammatory.

So truth has to be suppressed to fit in with PC ideals?

I can say "that's a typical Harry post" or I can say "that's yet
another daft post from Harry". They are both true statements, but one
is more inflammatory than the other. So, please tell us which you prefer?

It's neither, actually, and why don't you answer harry's question?

The child in question, according to the Times, didn't want to go with
either foster carer, especially as one of them didn't even speak
English. It had a piece of jewellery (a cross on a chain) confiscated
and was told that Christmas, Jesus, etc etc were all ****e (or words to
that effect).

And white women were drunken whores.
Presumably referring to the kids mother.



--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

In article , Tim Streater
writes
In article , GB
wrote:

On 28/08/2017 18:29, harry wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2017 18:22:29 UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 28/08/2017 17:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I'm surprised The Times has sunk to such inflammatory journalism.

Phrases such as 'niqab-wearing foster carer' and 'scandal-ridden
borough of Tower Hamlets' do nothing to suggest balanced reporting and
sound more like something in 'The Sun'.

You mean they arent factual?

It can be true and inflammatory.
So truth has to be suppressed to fit in with PC ideals?

I can say "that's a typical Harry post" or I can say "that's yet
another daft post from Harry". They are both true statements, but one
is more inflammatory than the other. So, please tell us which you prefer?

It's neither, actually, and why don't you answer harry's question?

The child in question, according to the Times, didn't want to go with
either foster carer, especially as one of them didn't even speak
English. It had a piece of jewellery (a cross on a chain) confiscated
and was told that Christmas, Jesus, etc etc were all ****e (or words to
that effect).

And all European women are alchies - according to the DT.
--
bert

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 14:09:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...ncil-3gcp6l8cs

I'm surprised The Times has sunk to such inflammatory journalism.

Phrases such as 'niqab-wearing foster carer' and 'scandal-ridden
borough of Tower Hamlets' do nothing to suggest balanced reporting and
sound more like something in 'The Sun'.

Has The Times reported on how many Muslim children have been fostered
by white Protestant families, or how many Catholic children have been
fostered by Jewish families and vice-versa? I doubt it.

And what's wrong with learning Arabic?

Stupid to impose that on a kid that has just lost both its parents.

On 28/08/17 21:05, bert wrote:
In article , Tim Streater
writes
In article , GB
wrote:

On 28/08/2017 18:29, harry wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2017 18:22:29 UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 28/08/2017 17:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I'm surprised The Times has sunk to such inflammatory journalism.

Phrases such as 'niqab-wearing foster carer' and 'scandal-ridden
borough of Tower Hamlets' do nothing to suggest balanced
reporting and
sound more like something in 'The Sun'.

You mean they arent factual?

It can be true and inflammatory.
So truth has to be suppressed to fit in with PC ideals?

I can say "that's a typical Harry post" or I can say "that's yet
another daft post from Harry". They are both true statements, but one
is more inflammatory than the other. So, please tell us which you
prefer?

It's neither, actually, and why don't you answer harry's question?

The child in question, according to the Times, didn't want to go with
either foster carer, especially as one of them didn't even speak
English. It had a piece of jewellery (a cross on a chain) confiscated
and was told that Christmas, Jesus, etc etc were all ****e (or words to
that effect).

And all European women are alchies - according to the DT.

It is amazing how far some people will go in order to turn a clear case
of child abuse into an instance of 'white racism'


--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

On 28/08/2017 19:12, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , GB
wrote:

On 28/08/2017 18:29, harry wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2017 18:22:29 UTC+1, GBÂ* wrote:
On 28/08/2017 17:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I'm surprised The Times has sunk to such inflammatory journalism.

Phrases such as 'niqab-wearing foster carer' and 'scandal-ridden
borough of Tower Hamlets' do nothing to suggest balanced reporting
and
sound more like something in 'The Sun'.

You mean they arent factual?

It can be true and inflammatory.

So truth has to be suppressed to fit in with PC ideals?

I can say "that's a typical Harry post" or I can say "that's yet
another daft post from Harry". They are both true statements, but one
is more inflammatory than the other. So, please tell us which you prefer?

It's neither, actually, and why don't you answer harry's question?

I don't doubt for one moment that this placing was outside the normal
guidelines for fostering, which would seek to take into account the
ethnic origin of the child and foster parents. However, I don't know
what constraints the council was under. This may have been the best
placement available.

However, as somebody who often buys the Times, I noticed that there have
been a number of articles and headlines that are really the sort of crap
that appear in other newspapers. I expect the Times to tell me the news,
not what I ought to think about it. Most Times readers would expect the
same.

Telling us, for example, that the council is 'scandal-ridden' is a value
judgement that I really don't want thrust down my throat. It's certainly
not balanced reporting, because it pre-disposes readers to the view that
this must be yet another ****-up. It may be, or there may be a sensible
explanation.

I can believe that a muslim family would not allow a christian symbol on
display in their home. This is reasonable on their part, but it makes
the placing extremely problematic.

To give a non-contentious example, I wouldn't expect a vegetarian child
to be placed in a meat-eating family. Nor would I expect the family to
entirely change their eating habits to accommodate the child. Or a
meat-eating child might be very unhappy in a veggie family. I expect
these things occur, though, without the emotive language.






The child in question, according to the Times, didn't want to go with
either foster carer, especially as one of them didn't even speak
English. It had a piece of jewellery (a cross on a chain) confiscated
and was told that Christmas, Jesus, etc etc were all ****e (or words to
that effect).


Is

On 29/08/2017 16:25, Tim Streater wrote:

I can believe that a muslim family would not allow a christian symbol
on display in their home. This is reasonable on their part ...

This is not in the slightest way reasonable. D'ye mean that any
non-islamic person would be obliged to remove any non-islamic religious
symbol on entry to a muslim family's home? Is this what "religious
tolerance" means?


It's not a matter of religious tolerance, but what is allowed inside a
Muslim household.

I would not ask a Christian visiting my house to remove a Christian
symbol, but possibly someone living here. Particularly, a child that I
had to dress, etc. My house, so my rules. If I were fostering, this
might make me unsuitable for some children. That, plus my curmudgeonly
behaviour!

The Times has this story again, on the front page. I glimpsed it, as DW
has the paper. Some whinge about the child not being allowed bacon. What
nonsense! Nobody is allowed to bring bacon into my house. Of course, the
Muslims won't allow bacon in their house, and they won't set foot in a
restaurant where it is served, so that's not an option either.

The foster parents are acting entirely reasonably. Whether they should
have been chosen for this child is another matter altogether. There
ought to have been a compelling reason. We will find out eventually.

On 29/08/2017 18:46, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , GB
wrote:

On 29/08/2017 16:25, Tim Streater wrote:

I can believe that a muslim family would not allow a christian
symbol on display in their home. This is reasonable on their part ...

This is not in the slightest way reasonable. D'ye mean that any
non-islamic person would be obliged to remove any non-islamic religious
symbol on entry to a muslim family's home? Is this what "religious
tolerance" means?

It's not a matter of religious tolerance, but what is allowed inside a
Muslim household.

Clearly unsuitable as foster parents. And further evidence, if any were
needed, of the shambles at TH.


You mean unsuitable for this child? That's probably true, but there may
be compelling reasons why they were chosen, despite the drawbacks. One
reason may simply be that the pool of more suitable foster parents in
the area was used up. Maybe, the child could have been placed with more
suitable fosterers far away, but then that would be something else for
you to complain about.

These fosterers could be perfect for a child from the right background,
but there are probably rather fewer of those children that need fostering.

On 29/08/2017 19:24, Tim Streater wrote:

Clearly unsuitable as foster parents. And further evidence, if any were
needed, of the shambles at TH.

You mean unsuitable for this child?Â* That's probably true, but there
may be compelling reasons why they were chosen, despite the drawbacks.
One reason may simply be that the pool of more suitable foster parents
in the area was used up. Maybe, the child could have been placed with
more suitable fosterers far away, but then that would be something
else for you to complain about.

These fosterers could be perfect for a child from the right
background, but there are probably rather fewer of those children that
need fostering.

This person, by contrast, looks suitable to me.

Â*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41085638

Ye have to remember these people are fosterers - they are not adopting
the child in question.


She sounds almost saintly, to be frank. However, even she might be
unsuitable for a very devout Muslim child, who might find her household
too lax in its religious observance.

I can see that trying to find exactly the right foster parent within a
mile or two of the child's school must be well-nigh impossible. So, it's
always going to be a compromise. Maybe TH could have done better, but I
suspect this was just a bit of a non-story at a time when there's not
that much news.

In article ,
GB wrote:
To give a non-contentious example, I wouldn't expect a vegetarian child
to be placed in a meat-eating family. Nor would I expect the family to
entirely change their eating habits to accommodate the child. Or a
meat-eating child might be very unhappy in a veggie family. I expect
these things occur, though, without the emotive language.

Good grief. Both my nieces have one vegetarian child in a meat eating
household.

Would you say only diabetic foster parents should be allowed a diabetic
child?

--
*The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 30/08/2017 11:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
GB wrote:
To give a non-contentious example, I wouldn't expect a vegetarian child
to be placed in a meat-eating family. Nor would I expect the family to
entirely change their eating habits to accommodate the child. Or a
meat-eating child might be very unhappy in a veggie family. I expect
these things occur, though, without the emotive language.

Good grief. Both my nieces have one vegetarian child in a meat eating
household.

Indeed. And we have one vegetarian child. A child brought up in a veggie
household might well find it difficult if fostered in a meaty household.

I have seen it said: "Well, you can't eat the meat, but have a roast
potato." Then giving the veggie a potato that's been cooked in beef fat.

Also, the fosterers might find it hard to prepare a suitably nutritious
diet. Cooking *decent* veggie food involves a lot more work than meaty.




Would you say only diabetic foster parents should be allowed a diabetic
child?

On Monday, 28 August 2017 18:22:29 UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 28/08/2017 17:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I'm surprised The Times has sunk to such inflammatory journalism.

Phrases such as 'niqab-wearing foster carer' and 'scandal-ridden
borough of Tower Hamlets' do nothing to suggest balanced reporting and
sound more like something in 'The Sun'.

You mean they arent factual?

It can be true and inflammatory.

So best ignored.

On Monday, 28 August 2017 19:48:02 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/08/17 18:22, GB wrote:
On 28/08/2017 17:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I'm surprised The Times has sunk to such inflammatory journalism.

Phrases such as 'niqab-wearing foster carer' and 'scandal-ridden
borough of Tower Hamlets' do nothing to suggest balanced reporting and
sound more like something in 'The Sun'.

You mean they arent factual?

It can be true and inflammatory.

Ah so now it's not 'unbalanced' it's just 'inflammatory'

Now remind me of who just got their website closed in Germany? The
'anti-fascists'?

Never mind. Merkel's Mumsnet is till discussing breast milk I hear.
You could join in that.

yeah make a tit of yourself ;-)

On Tuesday, 29 August 2017 14:27:16 UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 28/08/2017 19:12, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , GB
wrote:

On 28/08/2017 18:29, harry wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2017 18:22:29 UTC+1, GBÂ* wrote:
On 28/08/2017 17:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I'm surprised The Times has sunk to such inflammatory journalism.

Phrases such as 'niqab-wearing foster carer' and 'scandal-ridden
borough of Tower Hamlets' do nothing to suggest balanced reporting
and
sound more like something in 'The Sun'.

You mean they arent factual?

It can be true and inflammatory.

So truth has to be suppressed to fit in with PC ideals?

I can say "that's a typical Harry post" or I can say "that's yet
another daft post from Harry". They are both true statements, but one
is more inflammatory than the other. So, please tell us which you prefer?

It's neither, actually, and why don't you answer harry's question?

I don't doubt for one moment that this placing was outside the normal
guidelines for fostering, which would seek to take into account the
ethnic origin of the child and foster parents. However, I don't know
what constraints the council was under. This may have been the best
placement available.

But whose view of what is best, best for the council ? They should be doing the best for the child no one else.

However, as somebody who often buys the Times, I noticed that there have
been a number of articles and headlines that are really the sort of crap
that appear in other newspapers. I expect the Times to tell me the news,

You don't consider this sort of thing news.


not what I ought to think about it. Most Times readers would expect the
same.

So yuo want the times to filter the news for you.


Telling us, for example, that the council is 'scandal-ridden' is a value
judgement that I really don't want thrust down my throat.

You mean it's not news .

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...r-Hamlets.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32428648

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...on-fraud-alert


It's certainly
not balanced reporting, because it pre-disposes readers to the view that
this must be yet another ****-up. It may be, or there may be a sensible
explanation.

unlikely, but should it take years to prove like hillborough, or the saville case.


I can believe that a muslim family would not allow a christian symbol on
display in their home. This is reasonable on their part, but it makes
the placing extremely problematic.

Why, I'd heard the problem with refugees is that there aren't enough foster homes for them because muslims rarely foster.

Lets see we can;t ban the burka but they can ban a cross, seems fair to some I supose.



To give a non-contentious example, I wouldn't expect a vegetarian child
to be placed in a meat-eating family.

Why not, if the family are prepared to let the child be vegetarian then there shouldn;t be a problem.
A friend of mine said to here mum when she was 7 or 8 that she didnlt want to eat animals so she became vegetarian, niether her mum or dad or 2 brothers were vegetarian, she goes back at easter and chritmas and can still be vegetarian.


Nor would I expect the family to
entirely change their eating habits to accommodate the child.

They shouldn't need to.


Or a
meat-eating child might be very unhappy in a veggie family.

Might do. But if brought up with a vegetarian family they may well beome vegetarian should that be a problem ?



I expect
these things occur, though, without the emotive language.



Not amonst animal rights protestors.
There's a bit more to being a vegetarian than what goes in your mouth.

On Tuesday, 29 August 2017 19:06:05 UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 29/08/2017 18:46, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , GB
wrote:

On 29/08/2017 16:25, Tim Streater wrote:

I can believe that a muslim family would not allow a christian
symbol on display in their home. This is reasonable on their part ...

This is not in the slightest way reasonable. D'ye mean that any
non-islamic person would be obliged to remove any non-islamic religious
symbol on entry to a muslim family's home? Is this what "religious
tolerance" means?

It's not a matter of religious tolerance, but what is allowed inside a
Muslim household.

Clearly unsuitable as foster parents. And further evidence, if any were
needed, of the shambles at TH.


You mean unsuitable for this child?

Not unsuitable I'd say. Whether not they are suitable for other races or religion even their own would need to be checked.


That's probably true, but there may
be compelling reasons why they were chosen, despite the drawbacks.

Those can be even more worrying.

One
reason may simply be that the pool of more suitable foster parents in
the area was used up. Maybe, the child could have been placed with more
suitable fosterers far away, but then that would be something else for
you to complain about.

Well even children should have some rights in the UK.
One problem recently was when the UK was going to let 3000 odd orphoned 'children' allowed into the UK from syria, they couldn't find enough foster homes for them.


These fosterers could be perfect for a child from the right background,
but there are probably rather fewer of those children that need fostering.

I think there are far more, there are also a lot of black children that need fostering more than white children, but finding such stats would be difficult.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 28 August 2017 18:22:29 UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 28/08/2017 17:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I'm surprised The Times has sunk to such inflammatory journalism.

Phrases such as 'niqab-wearing foster carer' and 'scandal-ridden
borough of Tower Hamlets' do nothing to suggest balanced reporting and
sound more like something in 'The Sun'.

You mean they arent factual?

It can be true and inflammatory.

So best ignored.

Dunno. IMO putting a child of that age with a foster family
that doesnt even speak english and has silly ideas about
whether the child can continue to have religious symbols
like a cross on a chain around its neck etc is the last thing
that should happen with a child being fostered at that age.

The kid is already having its life severely disrupted without
that other stuff added.

On 30/08/2017 14:25, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 August 2017 14:27:16 UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 28/08/2017 19:12, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , GB
wrote:

On 28/08/2017 18:29, harry wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2017 18:22:29 UTC+1, GBÂ* wrote:
On 28/08/2017 17:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I'm surprised The Times has sunk to such inflammatory journalism.

Phrases such as 'niqab-wearing foster carer' and 'scandal-ridden
borough of Tower Hamlets' do nothing to suggest balanced reporting
and
sound more like something in 'The Sun'.

You mean they arent factual?

It can be true and inflammatory.

So truth has to be suppressed to fit in with PC ideals?

I can say "that's a typical Harry post" or I can say "that's yet
another daft post from Harry". They are both true statements, but one
is more inflammatory than the other. So, please tell us which you prefer?

It's neither, actually, and why don't you answer harry's question?

I don't doubt for one moment that this placing was outside the normal
guidelines for fostering, which would seek to take into account the
ethnic origin of the child and foster parents. However, I don't know
what constraints the council was under. This may have been the best
placement available.

But whose view of what is best, best for the council ? They should be doing the best for the child no one else.

The BBC manages to explain the constraints rather more even-handedly and
without resort to emotive language:
1. Placement needs to be near child's school.
2. Placement needs to be made within 24 hours.

How much choice do you think the council has?



However, as somebody who often buys the Times, I noticed that there have
been a number of articles and headlines that are really the sort of crap
that appear in other newspapers. I expect the Times to tell me the news,

You don't consider this sort of thing news.

I do, but the emotive language does not belong in news reports.




not what I ought to think about it. Most Times readers would expect the
same.

So yuo want the times to filter the news for you.

No. I want them to give me a balanced report of the facts.





Telling us, for example, that the council is 'scandal-ridden' is a value
judgement that I really don't want thrust down my throat.

You mean it's not news .

No, it's a value judgement.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...r-Hamlets.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32428648

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...on-fraud-alert


It's certainly
not balanced reporting, because it pre-disposes readers to the view that
this must be yet another ****-up. It may be, or there may be a sensible
explanation.

unlikely, but should it take years to prove like hillborough, or the saville case.


I can believe that a muslim family would not allow a christian symbol on
display in their home. This is reasonable on their part, but it makes
the placing extremely problematic.

Why, I'd heard the problem with refugees is that there aren't enough foster homes for them because muslims rarely foster.

Lets see we can;t ban the burka but they can ban a cross, seems fair to some I supose.

You can certainly ban burkas (and crosses) in your home.





To give a non-contentious example, I wouldn't expect a vegetarian child
to be placed in a meat-eating family.

Why not, if the family are prepared to let the child be vegetarian then there shouldn;t be a problem.
A friend of mine said to here mum when she was 7 or 8 that she didnlt want to eat animals so she became vegetarian, niether her mum or dad or 2 brothers were vegetarian, she goes back at easter and chritmas and can still be vegetarian.

What if she is revolted by the sight?




Nor would I expect the family to
entirely change their eating habits to accommodate the child.

They shouldn't need to.


Or a
meat-eating child might be very unhappy in a veggie family.

Might do. But if brought up with a vegetarian family they may well beome vegetarian should that be a problem ?



I expect
these things occur, though, without the emotive language.



Not amonst animal rights protestors.
There's a bit more to being a vegetarian than what goes in your mouth.

Exactly my point!

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
It can be true and inflammatory.

So best ignored.

Dunno. IMO putting a child of that age with a foster family
that doesn‘t even speak english

According to a civil servant, that is impossible. All foster parents are
vetted, and have to be able to speak English for this.

--
*To err is human. To forgive is against company policy.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 31/08/2017 10:39, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
It can be true and inflammatory.

So best ignored.

Dunno. IMO putting a child of that age with a foster family
that doesn€˜t even speak english

According to a civil servant, that is impossible. All foster parents are
vetted, and have to be able to speak English for this.


My parents were refugees. They spoke perfect English, but at home they
often spoke German together. Maybe, the foster parents are the same?

On 31/08/17 13:02, GB wrote:
On 31/08/2017 10:39, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
It can be true and inflammatory.

So best ignored.

Dunno. IMO putting a child of that age with a foster family
that doesn€˜t even speak english

According to a civil servant, that is impossible. All foster parents are
vetted, and have to be able to speak English for this.


My parents were refugees. They spoke perfect English, but at home they
often spoke German together. Maybe, the foster parents are the same?


What the rules are and what actually happens in e.g. orphanages are two
very different things as paedophiles well know.


--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 21:56:30 UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 30/08/2017 14:25, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 August 2017 14:27:16 UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 28/08/2017 19:12, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , GB
wrote:

On 28/08/2017 18:29, harry wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2017 18:22:29 UTC+1, GBÂ* wrote:
On 28/08/2017 17:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I'm surprised The Times has sunk to such inflammatory journalism..

Phrases such as 'niqab-wearing foster carer' and 'scandal-ridden
borough of Tower Hamlets' do nothing to suggest balanced reporting
and
sound more like something in 'The Sun'.

You mean they arent factual?

It can be true and inflammatory.

So truth has to be suppressed to fit in with PC ideals?

I can say "that's a typical Harry post" or I can say "that's yet
another daft post from Harry". They are both true statements, but one
is more inflammatory than the other. So, please tell us which you prefer?

It's neither, actually, and why don't you answer harry's question?

I don't doubt for one moment that this placing was outside the normal
guidelines for fostering, which would seek to take into account the
ethnic origin of the child and foster parents. However, I don't know
what constraints the council was under. This may have been the best
placement available.

But whose view of what is best, best for the council ? They should be doing the best for the child no one else.

The BBC manages to explain the constraints rather more even-handedly and
without resort to emotive language:
1. Placement needs to be near child's school.

But there are families that can't get a place in the nearest school for their own kids let alone someone elses.

2. Placement needs to be made within 24 hours.

Like that will ever happen.


How much choice do you think the council has?

Depends who you're talking about. IS THE council ONE person or a group of many that have to arrange a meeting.


However, as somebody who often buys the Times, I noticed that there have
been a number of articles and headlines that are really the sort of crap
that appear in other newspapers. I expect the Times to tell me the news,

You don't consider this sort of thing news.

I do, but the emotive language does not belong in news reports.

News is news most news is emotive otherwise it;d hardly be considered newsworhty.

not what I ought to think about it. Most Times readers would expect the
same.

So yuo want the times to filter the news for you.

No. I want them to give me a balanced report of the facts.

Doesn't that depend on where they get their facts from.
I don't remmeber The Times reporting the Hilsborough incident very accuratley at the time, but that was a long time ago. Seems it took a while and then the Time s didn't actually want to report it.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...t-page-twitter

So while you may see the Time sas some sort of leading light I thibnk they are just another 'rag' owned by Rupert Murdoch making money from the news and that is it.


Telling us, for example, that the council is 'scandal-ridden' is a value
judgement that I really don't want thrust down my throat.

You mean it's not news .

No, it's a value judgement.

A correct judgement, if one has values that is.
So why believe the Times. They use headlines too to get peole to buy the paper.
Headlines are meant to be emotive.




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...r-Hamlets.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32428648

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...on-fraud-alert


It's certainly
not balanced reporting, because it pre-disposes readers to the view that
this must be yet another ****-up. It may be, or there may be a sensible
explanation.

unlikely, but should it take years to prove like hillborough, or the saville case.


I can believe that a muslim family would not allow a christian symbol on
display in their home. This is reasonable on their part, but it makes
the placing extremely problematic.

Why, I'd heard the problem with refugees is that there aren't enough foster homes for them because muslims rarely foster.

Lets see we can;t ban the burka but they can ban a cross, seems fair to some I supose.

You can certainly ban burkas (and crosses) in your home.

But can you ban them in your school, no.



To give a non-contentious example, I wouldn't expect a vegetarian child
to be placed in a meat-eating family.

Why not, if the family are prepared to let the child be vegetarian then there shouldn;t be a problem.
A friend of mine said to here mum when she was 7 or 8 that she didnlt want to eat animals so she became vegetarian, niether her mum or dad or 2 brothers were vegetarian, she goes back at easter and chritmas and can still be vegetarian.

What if she is revolted by the sight?

Then that is her problem, as it was when she went to Peru with friends one who ate a ginea pig in front of her, if it had of smelt she might not have been able to sit at the same table like she did.

This is one of the differencies beteen race and culture that most miss.


Nor would I expect the family to
entirely change their eating habits to accommodate the child.

They shouldn't need to.


Or a
meat-eating child might be very unhappy in a veggie family.

Might do. But if brought up with a vegetarian family they may well beome vegetarian should that be a problem ?



I expect
these things occur, though, without the emotive language.



Not amonst animal rights protestors.
There's a bit more to being a vegetarian than what goes in your mouth.

Exactly my point!

Which you failed to make other than believing that one newspaper will give you the unbiased facts like the Times did with Hillsborough and without being emotive.

On 31/08/2017 13:17, whisky-dave wrote:

I don't doubt for one moment that this placing was outside the normal
guidelines for fostering, which would seek to take into account the
ethnic origin of the child and foster parents. However, I don't know
what constraints the council was under. This may have been the best
placement available.

But whose view of what is best, best for the council ? They should be doing the best for the child no one else.

The BBC manages to explain the constraints rather more even-handedly and
without resort to emotive language:
1. Placement needs to be near child's school.

But there are families that can't get a place in the nearest school for their own kids let alone someone elses.

You're being very hard-hearted. This is a child who has been removed
from her parents. The child was already in school, and the school
provided some stability for the child.



2. Placement needs to be made within 24 hours.

Like that will ever happen.


That often happens. Emergency fostering is even faster.



So while you may see the Time sas some sort of leading light I thibnk they are just another 'rag' owned by Rupert Murdoch making money from the news and that is it.

Seems to be, sadly.




Telling us, for example, that the council is 'scandal-ridden' is a value
judgement that I really don't want thrust down my throat.

You mean it's not news .

No, it's a value judgement.

A correct judgement, if one has values that is.

But still not news.



Lets see we can;t ban the burka but they can ban a cross, seems fair to some I supose.

You can certainly ban burkas (and crosses) in your home.

But can you ban them in your school, no.

I've no idea. Can you? Do school children wear them?



What if she is revolted by the sight?

Then that is her problem,

So, a child is ripped from her parents' arms and placed in an
environment she finds disgusting - and that's *her* problem? What a
weird sense of values you have.

On 31/08/17 14:02, GB wrote:

So, a child is ripped from her parents' arms and placed in an
environment she finds disgusting - and that's *her* problem? What a
weird sense of values you have.


Well in some senses it is.

Ownership of a problem can be decided in different ways - on sopme
arbitrary moral basis - the socialist imperative - or on a pragmatic
basis as to who is best placed to solve it - the conservative position.

For6unately in this case both views coincide. The poor kid can do ****
all about it and unless you believe rammiing minority cultures down the
majority throat is moral, the child needs proetction from this also.

Of course pragmatically when Islam gets to be a majority UK culrure, it
will be rammed down our throats as it wiull be too costly to stop.

And we will be the victims in a nasty little race war.


--
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

On 31/08/2017 14:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/08/17 14:02, GB wrote:

So, a child is ripped from her parents' arms and placed in an
environment she finds disgusting - and that's *her* problem? What a
weird sense of values you have.


Well in some senses it is.

Ownership of a problem can be decided in different ways - on sopme
arbitrary moral basis - the socialist imperative -Â* or on a pragmatic
basis as to who is best placed to solve it - the conservative position.

For6unately in this case both views coincide. The poor kid can do ****
all about it and unless you believe rammiing minority cultures down the
majority throat is moral, the child needs proetction from this also.

I agree this was not an ideal placement. However, you seem to think that
no practising Muslim should ever foster a Christian child, and that's
daft unless you look at what the options are.

On Thursday, 31 August 2017 14:02:29 UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 31/08/2017 13:17, whisky-dave wrote:

I don't doubt for one moment that this placing was outside the normal
guidelines for fostering, which would seek to take into account the
ethnic origin of the child and foster parents. However, I don't know
what constraints the council was under. This may have been the best
placement available.

But whose view of what is best, best for the council ? They should be doing the best for the child no one else.

The BBC manages to explain the constraints rather more even-handedly and
without resort to emotive language:
1. Placement needs to be near child's school.

But there are families that can't get a place in the nearest school for their own kids let alone someone elses.

You're being very hard-hearted.

Nah I can be much harder.

This is a child who has been removed
from her parents. The child was already in school, and the school
provided some stability for the child.

So they give the child to a couple who tell her to remove her jewlery,
which could mean as much to her as a burka to a muslim child,
learn arabic and eat off the floor, and you think I'm hard ?



2. Placement needs to be made within 24 hours.

Like that will ever happen.


That often happens. Emergency fostering is even faster.

Then how come they couldnlt even find foster parents for 300 refugees ?

The length of the application process can vary from carer to carer. On average, it takes around 4 €“ 6 months to complete your assessment and be approved as a foster carer. Visit our fostering process page to find out more about what's involved.
Frequently asked questions about foster care - Fostering People
https://www.fosteringpeople.co.uk/wh...ked-questions/


So while you may see the Time sas some sort of leading light I thibnk they are just another 'rag' owned by Rupert Murdoch making money from the news and that is it.

Seems to be, sadly.




Telling us, for example, that the council is 'scandal-ridden' is a value
judgement that I really don't want thrust down my throat.

You mean it's not news .

No, it's a value judgement.

A correct judgement, if one has values that is.

But still not news.

People arenlt interested in pure news they want infromation on what's going on that they are interested in, that's why there are things called headlines.





Lets see we can;t ban the burka but they can ban a cross, seems fair to some I supose.

You can certainly ban burkas (and crosses) in your home.

But can you ban them in your school, no.

I've no idea. Can you? Do school children wear them?

Yes they do, well I've seen quite a few.


What if she is revolted by the sight?

Then that is her problem,

So, a child is ripped from her parents' arms and placed in an
environment she finds disgusting - and that's *her* problem? What a
weird sense of values you have.

It is same as it';s Harrys problem if he doesn't like seeing peole with darker skin than he's.

Who's problem is it if someone see a cross on a chain around a 5 years olds neck, is it like carrying a knife or a bottle of acid, would you have he arrested and charged for wearing a cross.

On Thursday, 31 August 2017 14:22:48 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/08/17 14:02, GB wrote:

So, a child is ripped from her parents' arms and placed in an
environment she finds disgusting - and that's *her* problem? What a
weird sense of values you have.


Well in some senses it is.

Ownership of a problem can be decided in different ways - on sopme
arbitrary moral basis - the socialist imperative - or on a pragmatic
basis as to who is best placed to solve it - the conservative position.

For6unately in this case both views coincide. The poor kid can do ****
all about it and unless you believe rammiing minority cultures down the
majority throat is moral, the child needs proetction from this also.

Of course pragmatically when Islam gets to be a majority UK culrure, it
will be rammed down our throats as it wiull be too costly to stop.

It nearly is and was in Tower Hamlets where I work. Strange how it was ignored for quite a while, in a similar way to how those reporting the child exploitation claims in some cities were ignored, they was a reason(s) for this.


And we will be the victims in a nasty little race war.

There will be many victims, and the kids shouldn't be the main victims if at all.

On Thursday, 31 August 2017 14:46:42 UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 31/08/2017 14:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/08/17 14:02, GB wrote:

So, a child is ripped from her parents' arms and placed in an
environment she finds disgusting - and that's *her* problem? What a
weird sense of values you have.


Well in some senses it is.

Ownership of a problem can be decided in different ways - on sopme
arbitrary moral basis - the socialist imperative -Â* or on a pragmatic
basis as to who is best placed to solve it - the conservative position.

For6unately in this case both views coincide. The poor kid can do ****
all about it and unless you believe rammiing minority cultures down the
majority throat is moral, the child needs proetction from this also.

I agree this was not an ideal placement.

It was a **** placement arranged by the imcompendent.

However, you seem to think that
no practising Muslim should ever foster a Christian child, and that's
daft unless you look at what the options are.

They shouldn't, any more than a muslim child should be sent to christians or JW or mormans or white-supermisists.

On 31/08/2017 16:24, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 31 August 2017 14:46:42 UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 31/08/2017 14:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/08/17 14:02, GB wrote:

So, a child is ripped from her parents' arms and placed in an
environment she finds disgusting - and that's *her* problem? What a
weird sense of values you have.


Well in some senses it is.

Ownership of a problem can be decided in different ways - on sopme
arbitrary moral basis - the socialist imperative -Â* or on a pragmatic
basis as to who is best placed to solve it - the conservative position.

For6unately in this case both views coincide. The poor kid can do ****
all about it and unless you believe rammiing minority cultures down the
majority throat is moral, the child needs proetction from this also.

I agree this was not an ideal placement.

It was a **** placement arranged by the imcompendent.

However, you seem to think that
no practising Muslim should ever foster a Christian child, and that's
daft unless you look at what the options are.

They shouldn't, any more than a muslim child should be sent to christians or JW or mormans or white-supermisists.

You don't know what the options were, do you? How many fosterers do you
think were available in the area? Maybe the choice was a Muslim family
close to the child's family and school, or a more suitable family 50
miles away?

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 21:56:30 UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 30/08/2017 14:25, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 August 2017 14:27:16 UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 28/08/2017 19:12, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , GB

wrote:

On 28/08/2017 18:29, harry wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2017 18:22:29 UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 28/08/2017 17:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I'm surprised The Times has sunk to such inflammatory
journalism.

Phrases such as 'niqab-wearing foster carer' and 'scandal-ridden
borough of Tower Hamlets' do nothing to suggest balanced
reporting
and
sound more like something in 'The Sun'.

You mean they arent factual?

It can be true and inflammatory.

So truth has to be suppressed to fit in with PC ideals?

I can say "that's a typical Harry post" or I can say "that's yet
another daft post from Harry". They are both true statements, but
one
is more inflammatory than the other. So, please tell us which you
prefer?

It's neither, actually, and why don't you answer harry's question?

I don't doubt for one moment that this placing was outside the normal
guidelines for fostering, which would seek to take into account the
ethnic origin of the child and foster parents. However, I don't know
what constraints the council was under. This may have been the best
placement available.

But whose view of what is best, best for the council ? They should be
doing the best for the child no one else.

The BBC manages to explain the constraints rather more even-handedly and
without resort to emotive language:
1. Placement needs to be near child's school.

But there are families that can't get a place in the nearest
school for their own kids let alone someone elses.

The kid being fostered out already has a place in a school.

2. Placement needs to be made within 24 hours.

Like that will ever happen.


How much choice do you think the council has?

Depends who you're talking about. IS THE council ONE person or a group of
many that have to arrange a meeting.


However, as somebody who often buys the Times, I noticed that there
have
been a number of articles and headlines that are really the sort of
crap
that appear in other newspapers. I expect the Times to tell me the
news,

You don't consider this sort of thing news.

I do, but the emotive language does not belong in news reports.

News is news most news is emotive otherwise it;d hardly be considered
newsworhty.

Sure, but there is no point in an operation like that exaggerating
the emotion, thats for the tabloids and gutter press.

not what I ought to think about it. Most Times readers would expect
the
same.

So yuo want the times to filter the news for you.

No. I want them to give me a balanced report of the facts.

Doesn't that depend on where they get their facts from.
I don't remmeber The Times reporting the Hilsborough incident
very accuratley at the time, but that was a long time ago. Seems
it took a while and then the Time s didn't actually want to report it.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...t-page-twitter

So while you may see the Time sas some sort of leading
light I thibnk they are just another 'rag' owned by Rupert
Murdoch making money from the news and that is it.

Have fun listing a rag thats any better.

Telling us, for example, that the council is 'scandal-ridden' is a
value judgement that I really don't want thrust down my throat.

You mean it's not news .

No, it's a value judgement.

A correct judgement, if one has values that is.
So why believe the Times. They use headlines too to get peole to buy the
paper.
Headlines are meant to be emotive.




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...r-Hamlets.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32428648

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...on-fraud-alert


It's certainly
not balanced reporting, because it pre-disposes readers to the view
that
this must be yet another ****-up. It may be, or there may be a
sensible
explanation.

unlikely, but should it take years to prove like hillborough, or the
saville case.


I can believe that a muslim family would not allow a christian symbol
on
display in their home. This is reasonable on their part, but it makes
the placing extremely problematic.

Why, I'd heard the problem with refugees is that there aren't enough
foster homes for them because muslims rarely foster.

Lets see we can;t ban the burka but they can ban a cross, seems fair to
some I supose.

You can certainly ban burkas (and crosses) in your home.

But can you ban them in your school, no.



To give a non-contentious example, I wouldn't expect a vegetarian
child
to be placed in a meat-eating family.

Why not, if the family are prepared to let the child be vegetarian
then there shouldn;t be a problem.
A friend of mine said to here mum when she was 7 or 8 that she didnlt
want to eat animals so she became vegetarian, niether her mum or dad or
2 brothers were vegetarian, she goes back at easter and chritmas and
can still be vegetarian.

What if she is revolted by the sight?

Then that is her problem, as it was when she went to Peru with friends one
who ate a ginea pig in front of her, if it had of smelt she might not have
been able to sit at the same table like she did.

This is one of the differencies beteen race and culture that most miss.


Nor would I expect the family to
entirely change their eating habits to accommodate the child.

They shouldn't need to.


Or a
meat-eating child might be very unhappy in a veggie family.

Might do. But if brought up with a vegetarian family they may well
beome vegetarian should that be a problem ?



I expect
these things occur, though, without the emotive language.



Not amonst animal rights protestors.
There's a bit more to being a vegetarian than what goes in your mouth.

Exactly my point!

Which you failed to make other than believing that one newspaper will give
you the unbiased facts like the Times did with Hillsborough and without
being emotive.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
However, you seem to think that
no practising Muslim should ever foster a Christian child, and that's
daft unless you look at what the options are.

They shouldn't, any more than a muslim child should be sent to
christians or JW or mormans or white-supermisists.

You sound like some religious bigot. Why do you assume a foster parent of
any religion would force it down a child's throat? Most have got far more
pressing things to concern them.

--
*Many hamsters only blink one eye at a time *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
However, you seem to think that
no practising Muslim should ever foster a Christian child, and that's
daft unless you look at what the options are.

They shouldn't, any more than a muslim child should be sent to
christians or JW or mormans or white-supermisists.

You sound like some religious bigot. Why do you assume a foster parent of
any religion would force it down a child's throat?

yet, according to The Times' report, that is what was ahappening.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 05:13:22 +0100, charles wrote:

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
However, you seem to think that no practising Muslim should ever
foster a Christian child, and that's daft unless you look at what
the options are.

They shouldn't, any more than a muslim child should be sent to
christians or JW or mormans or white-supermisists.

You sound like some religious bigot. Why do you assume a foster parent
of any religion would force it down a child's throat?

yet, according to The Times' report, that is what was ahappening.

This whole thing has been a fabrication of the tabloids from start to
finish. Take a look at the court documents, and you'll find out that the
girl actually had Muslim connections, and it was a temporary placement
anyway while the normal foster parents had a respite break. For point-by-
point dismantling of the lies, see:

https://goo.gl/DcbViR

Of course, those with tinfoil headgear still won't believe...




--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 01/09/17 05:13, charles wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
However, you seem to think that
no practising Muslim should ever foster a Christian child, and that's
daft unless you look at what the options are.

They shouldn't, any more than a muslim child should be sent to
christians or JW or mormans or white-supermisists.

You sound like some religious bigot. Why do you assume a foster parent of
any religion would force it down a child's throat?

yet, according to The Times' report, that is what was ahappening.

I.e. no assumption was being made.

So0 Daves up with ethe aunt saallies afan,.

The Left techniques are so predictable.




--
€œSome people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of €¨an airplane.€�

Dennis Miller