Scum bags set gay rights back fifty years...

[Invictus ChiKen]

Gay couple left free to abuse boys - because social workers feared being branded homophobic

Link

A homosexual foster couple were left free to sexually abuse vulnerable boys in their care because social workers feared being accused of discrimination if they investigated complaints, an inquiry concluded yesterday.

Craig Faunch and Ian Wathey were one of the first homosexual couples in the country to be officially approved as foster parents.

They looked after 18 children in only 15 months.

With no previous convictions, they came across as respectable men who simply wanted to help boys with a variety of problems.

In reality, they were pedophiles, who repeatedly abused the children in their care.

Even when the mother of two of the children reported her suspicions to the council, officials accepted the men's explanations and did nothing.

Instead of banning children from staying with Faunch and Wathey, they sent youngsters with more serious problems to them. Between them, the couple abused four boys aged between eight and 14.

In a scathing report published yesterday, Wakefield Metropolitan District Council was condemned for treating the men as "trophy carers".

The children's charity Kidscape said those in charge of overseeing the safety of children in the care of Faunch and Wathey had allowed political correctness to override common sense.

The report, following an independent review of the case, said: "One manager described the couple as 'trophy carers' which led to 'slack arrangements' over placement.

"Another said that by virtue of their sexuality they had a 'badge' which made things less questionable.

"The sexual orientation of the men was a significant cause of people not 'thinking the unthinkable'.

"It was clear that a number of staff were afraid of being thought homophobic.

"The fear of being discriminatory led them to fail to discriminate between the appropriate and the abusive."

The report also accused the council of failing to carry out proper assessments before and after the children were placed with Faunch and Wathey.

"Issues arose in the first longer-term placement of two children, including potential indicators of child sexual abuse, which were inadequately investigated, understood or acted upon," it said.

"More children were then placed with Faunch and Wathey, some successfully, some with concerns which were again inadequately investigated, understood or acted upon.

"The practice of some social workers in this case was deficient."

The report's authors, led by former Surrey social services chief Brian Parrott, said they could not be sure that Faunch and Wathey were "predatory paedophiles" who became foster carers in order to have access to children.

They added: "Our criticisms are much more of those in middle management whose job it was to piece together what was really happening, to ask the right questions and to be critical and probing."

Wathey, 42, was jailed for five years in June last year after being convicted of four counts of sexual activity with a child and one offence of causing a child to watch sexual activity.

Faunch, 33, received a six-year jail sentence after he was found guilty of five charges of engaging in sexual activity with a child and two of taking indecent photographs of a child.

The couple, who lived together in Pontefract, West Yorkshire, were approved as foster carers by the council in August 2003.

Their victims included a 14-year-old boy with Asperger's syndrome, a form of autism,who had a mental age of seven and was forced by Wathey to watch gay pornography.

Another youngster with a "very troubled background" was only in their care for a few weeks before being abused by Faunch.

But social workers had been aware of "inappropriate" behaviour long before then.

Just eight months after they started as professional foster carers a mother of eight-year-old twins, who couldn't cope with raising them on her own, voiced concerns about them with social services.

While visiting the twins, the 34-yearold single mother was shown a picture taken by Faunch showing one of the boys going to the lavatory during a visit to Butlin's holiday camp in Skegness and discovered a similar snap had been taken of the other twin.

A social worker took the photograph and promised a full investigation.

But the court heard that not only did social services staff lose the photo, they decided against contacting police after accepting Faunch's explanation that he was trying to embarrass the boys into shutting the lavatory door.

Police later discovered that, days after the photos were taken, Faunch recorded an indecent video of the twins taking a shower. They began abusing the boys three months later.

Undetected, the offences continued over an 11-month period, Leeds Crown Court was told last year.

Police were called in to investigate the couple only after one of the abused boys told a woman he had been touched by one of the men.

Faunch abused all four boys and Wathey targeted one of them.

Judge Sally Cahill, QC, said neither had shown "empathy, remorse or any responsibility for their actions".

Yesterday's report said that the fostering panel which approved Faunch and Wathey accepted without hesitation their request to look after only boys on the basis that they didn't feel equipped to look after girls.

The report made 41 recommendations for overhauling the council's fostering process.

Last night, Michelle Elliott, a director of Kidscape, said: "Common sense went out of the window when they allowed political correctness to take over in this case.

"I don't care if you are homosexual or bisexual - if you are taking care of children you need to be vetted and subjected to the same investigation as anyone else.

"Child abuse knows no gender boundaries."

Elaine McHale, the council's corporate director of family services, said it would be "inappropriate" to comment on the report until after a meeting of the full council on September 12.

This is disgusting but no unsurprising. Scum bags will hide behind anything from religion to orientation to get away with what they do.

Expect to see Fox News screaming this over the air waves. Plus the chance there victims will become homophobic themselves...

[Johonebesus]

Hopefully, since it didn't happen in the U.S., the Right won't notice it.

And those guys look like creeps, don't they?

[cosmicalstorm]

Well from what I remember children living with fosterparents are 100x more likely to be abused/beaten than children living with their biological parents so it shouldn't be suprising that these things happen.

[Tiriol]

Well from what I remember children living with fosterparents are 100x more likely to be abused/beaten than children living with their biological parents so it shouldn't be suprising that these things happen.

Is there any source for that?

[Big Orange]

Hopefully, since it didn't happen in the U.S., the Right won't notice it.

But that article is from the DAILY MAIL, a well known reactionary rag like The Telegraph, and there are pleanty of commenters whinging about Political Correctness to blame (the article in dated September 2006, making it relatively old).

[Lord of the Abyss]

Well from what I remember children living with fosterparents are 100x more likely to be abused/beaten than children living with their biological parents so it shouldn't be suprising that these things happen.

Is there any source for that?

I found a mention in an article here.

[Rye]

I doubt they will get gay rights back fifty years, I have no doubt that that's what the Daily Nazi Sympathiser is trying to accomplish. And the Telegraph isn't that bad, in my experience, certainly not compared to the clearly tabloid right whinge of the Mail.

[cosmicalstorm]

Well from what I remember children living with fosterparents are 100x more likely to be abused/beaten than children living with their biological parents so it shouldn't be suprising that these things happen.

Is there any source for that?

I read this in one of Carl Sagans books about a year ago, I think it was either in The Dragons of Eden, or Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors. (Im not sure wich one since I read them both during a period of ten days, they have been kind of merged by my brain)
Take the number with a grain of salt because I might have misremembered it or the book might have been wrong about it, or both.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I doubt they will get gay rights back fifty years, I have no doubt that that's what the Daily Nazi Sympathiser is trying to accomplish. And the Telegraph isn't that bad, in my experience, certainly not compared to the clearly tabloid right whinge of the Mail.

Telegraph readers seem to be upper class people, in my experience, who rarely hold any conservative views at all, but vote Tory out of habit. The only two I've known are Drake (IDMR, one of the original moderators on this forum) and a friend named Faye who did some administrative work for a charity. I rather like the presentation, to tell the truth.

[Battlehymn Republic]

The readers of the Daily Mail must be like South Park Republicans in the U.S.

[Plekhanov]

I doubt they will get gay rights back fifty years, I have no doubt that that's what the Daily Nazi Sympathiser is trying to accomplish. And the Telegraph isn't that bad, in my experience, certainly not compared to the clearly tabloid right whinge of the Mail.

Telegraph readers seem to be upper class people, in my experience, who rarely hold any conservative views at all, but vote Tory out of habit. The only two I've known are Drake (IDMR, one of the original moderators on this forum) and a friend named Faye who did some administrative work for a charity. I rather like the presentation, to tell the truth.

2 is a pitifully small sample, I know and have known rather more Telegraph readers and in my experience they certainly tend to hold plenty of both economically and socially conservative views (by British/European standards, even the Tory politicians I've met have been appalled by where the 'centre' is in the US at the moment). Generally they are of course a cut or 3 above Mail readers (it would be difficult not to be) and aren't anything like as unthinkingly intolerant and reactionary but they're certainly conservative with both a capital and lower case 'C'.

[Plekhanov]

The readers of the Daily Mail must be like South Park Republicans in the U.S.

If we got Fox News here they'd watch it avidly, whilst nodding vigorously in agreement (aside from for the bits which suggest the US has a greater history than the UK of course).

[Rye]

I should probably point out I read the Telegraph. That said, I do tend to focus on the religion stories, which tend to be much more in line with "religion's silly and causes wars" in terms of stories reported than the Mail's "ALL BRITAIN'S JOBS TAKEN BY MUSLIMS" manner of reporting.

[Battlehymn Republic]

Isn't Sky TV's Rupert Murdoch's network in the U.K.? Apparently it's much better than FOX News, though.

[Dartzap]

Isn't Sky TV's Rupert Murdoch's network in the U.K.? Apparently it's much better than FOX News, though.

Yeah, Sky News, whilst slightly too flashy for my tastes isn't actually that bad and tends to have a similar reporting style to the beeb. Mind you, we do have fairly string laws concerning journalism here, so thats probably why.

Amusingly, Murdoch senior wanted to turn it into Fox UK and demanded it should be done so. The boss of Sky suffered a serious case of deafness and it never happened. The boss happens to be Rupee's son.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

2 is a pitifully small sample, I know and have known rather more Telegraph readers and in my experience they certainly tend to hold plenty of both economically and socially conservative views (by British/European standards, even the Tory politicians I've met have been appalled by where the 'centre' is in the US at the moment). Generally they are of course a cut or 3 above Mail readers (it would be difficult not to be) and aren't anything like as unthinkingly intolerant and reactionary but they're certainly conservative with both a capital and lower case 'C'.

I'm an American, so when I say I've never met a Telegraph reader who is a conservative, from my perspective, I assure you, it's factual--and from your's, what you said is likely factual too. It's because the definition of conservative alters crossing the Atlantic.

[Big Orange]

I doubt they will get gay rights back fifty years, I have no doubt that that's what the Daily Nazi Sympathiser is trying to accomplish. And the Telegraph isn't that bad, in my experience, certainly not compared to the clearly tabloid right whinge of the Mail.

Well here is what is allowed on The Telegraph's blog:

Who Ruined Britain
Posted by Atrium at 17:57 on 10 Mar 2008

Britain is, without a doubt, ruined.

It is now a country where over 200,000 worthy British people leave the country each year and twice that many of less worthy arrive, each year, through the carelessly left open door; and the population's integrity suffers accordingly. Those departing do so with the feeling that Britain is in an ever increasing social decline. Those arriving do not care about this but come because of the financial benefits that can be obtained immediately and with little effort.

The cause of this state of affairs has many aspects. However, certain individual can easily be identified as instrumental in bringing about the decline. First of all there was Edward Heath, who - whilst Prime Minister - handed over the control of Britain's territorial waters to a foreign agency. Another architect of ruination was the ex-communist, Denis Healey, who made Britain the "sick man of Europe" by imposing crippling taxes; targeting, particularly, the wealth-creating classes, saying that he would: "squeeze them so much that their pips would squeak". Of course the wealth-creators joined what became known as "the brain drain" when many able people left the country to the benefit of many overseas countries.

However, the mentioned ruinous individuals fade in to insignificance under the glare of the supreme devastator of all: Roy Jenkins.

As Home Secretary (1965-7) he oversaw radical relaxation (he called it " liberalisation") of divorce, abortion, homosexuality and penal reform, in which he provided for the extension of parole. This earned him the title of "the architect of the permissive society". However, he had the gall to call it the "civilised society".

Even worse was yet to come . With the assistance of Anthony Paul Lester, QC, he formulated a large part of the Race Relations Act (1976) that led to massive immigration and the subsequent formation ethnic ghettos and the pernicious Committee for Racial Equality.

These two aspects of British society (permissiveness and mass immigration) are the reasons why most worthy British people are increasingly leaving - and, conversely, the reasons why most non-British people are increasingly arriving.

I place Roy Jenkins at the head of the ruinous three.

Try to tell me that I am wrong.

Link

While not an official article, I do get the impression that The Telegraph is similar in tone to the more soap headed Daily Mail, with a thinly veiled attack by an online reader against equal rights being the cause of Britain's woes.

[Rye]

If you're going to accuse a paper of Daily Mail-scale bias, you should use the actual articles from the paper rather than blogs.

They also allow posts like Home Fucking is Killing Prostitution and hell, anyone can sign up for a blog. Even you or I. Do you think they'd censor you? Or me?