Best Of

Am I the only non right winger on here who couldn't give a shiny one if Burnham loses? There would be a certain just deserts element to a loss.

Just picture Farage's gurning mug tomorrow morning if you need help rooting for Burnham.

He's already whinging about the role played by Lowe in their defeat. Doesn't sound very confident to me. Mind you, he was doing the same at Brexit.

When I went to bed on Brexit night Farage had conceded defeat. Betfair was heading towards 100% on that news. When I got up the following morning Dimbleby said we were leaving. I bet the f***** made a killing.

I've not doubt some did but the reality is that he was so far away from the main campaign that he really didn't have a clue how it was going. Its bordering on the ridiculous that he gets much credit for the result.

well he didn't run away like a naughty schoolboy in the aftermath like Gove and Johnson did.

Can’t run away if you were never involved

"Varley's evil and graphic sexual abuse is beyond contempt. I don't believe a general extrapolation should be made because Varley was either, white, male, a teacher or gay."

Well, one of those characteristics is a risk factor for crime - and particularly for sexual crimes against children: being male. His partner was also convicted of various offences. And he, Varley, was not just a teacher but safeguarding lead at his school.

That does not mean that no men should ever adopt. It should mean that those doing the due diligence need to be very very thorough in their assessment - of character, history, motivation, lifestyle, ability to look after a baby, understanding of what looking after a very young baby involves and ability to do so - ie the emotional resilience to cope with a baby's needs and helping him thrive and develop, family support, female involvement, friends, hobbies etc etc . And not just all that.

Those doing the due diligence need a sceptical investigative mind.

The adoption went through pretty quickly. How good, how extensive was the due diligence? Did they pick up his extensive viewing of seriously revolting porn? Did they ask to look at his and his partner's computer and phones? Did they take too much comfort from the fact that he was a teacher and safeguarding lead and so relied on that rather than carry out their own inquiries? This is a classic trap and one which fraudsters and wrongdoers of all types exploit: they get past one check and then never get properly checked again because everyone else relies on that one check. And was this couple really the best set of adoptive parents to be found in Oldham?

Even very intelligent people can be horrifyingly naive about offenders and offences and what stones to turn over to look for them. And very naive about the lengths deviant people like Varley and his partner will go to to satisfy their deviancy.

Remember this case when people start talking about making surrogacy even easier than it is. There are far fewer checks than with adoptions and there has already been one horrific case in the US of two men buying a surrogate baby for the purpose of sexual abuse. Babies are not commodities to be bought and sold.

You raise many good points as to whether social workers did X or Y.

My experience from interacting with them over adult social care is they are under intense time pressure as the caseload is bonkers.

Yes but let's not ignore the sentiments behind the post.

Is she arguing gay men looking to adopt should be subjected to more scrutiny than straight men who are in a relationship with a woman? Because they are innately more dangerous? I suspect she is.

No. Read it again. Carefully this time. I said that of all the factors listed - white, male, teacher, gay - there was only one which is a well known risk factor: being male. Not being gay.

When doing checks, the scrutiny of the men should be very very thorough. And that applies to whether the man is straight, gay, in a relationship or single. Heterosexual men abuse children too.

It is the maleness which is the risk factor. Not the sexuality.

The sentiment behind my post was triggered by the apparent lack of effective due diligence. Because it has been my experience from the thousands of investigations I have done that, when you uncover a wrong'un, there is always a clue, usually several, many of them red flags, that the person was a wrong' un and, that for a variety of reasons these were either not spotted or, if spotted, not acted on. I will be interested to see what the Serious Case Review will show here.

And it was a private adoption agency which placed this baby with this couple, which may also be a factor. The agency is still operating. How competent and effective are they?

Am I the only non right winger on here who couldn't give a shiny one if Burnham loses? There would be a certain just deserts element to a loss.

Just picture Farage's gurning mug tomorrow morning if you need help rooting for Burnham.

He's already whinging about the role played by Lowe in their defeat. Doesn't sound very confident to me. Mind you, he was doing the same at Brexit.

When I went to bed on Brexit night Farage had conceded defeat. Betfair was heading towards 100% on that news. When I got up the following morning Dimbleby said we were leaving. I bet the f***** made a killing.

I've not doubt some did but the reality is that he was so far away from the main campaign that he really didn't have a clue how it was going. Its bordering on the ridiculous that he gets much credit for the result.

well he didn't run away like a naughty schoolboy in the aftermath like Gove and Johnson did.

He absolutely did though.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/04/nigel-farage-resigns-as-ukip-leader

It is the third time he has stepped down as the party leader, but Farage dismissed the idea of coming back again in the future and claimed standing as an MP was no longer top of his to-do list.

Speaking at a press conference in Westminster on Monday, he said: “During the referendum I said I wanted my country back … now I want my life back.”

"Varley's evil and graphic sexual abuse is beyond contempt. I don't believe a general extrapolation should be made because Varley was either, white, male, a teacher or gay."

Well, one of those characteristics is a risk factor for crime - and particularly for sexual crimes against children: being male. His partner was also convicted of various offences. And he, Varley, was not just a teacher but safeguarding lead at his school.

That does not mean that no men should ever adopt. It should mean that those doing the due diligence need to be very very thorough in their assessment - of character, history, motivation, lifestyle, ability to look after a baby, understanding of what looking after a very young baby involves and ability to do so - ie the emotional resilience to cope with a baby's needs and helping him thrive and develop, family support, female involvement, friends, hobbies etc etc . And not just all that.

Those doing the due diligence need a sceptical investigative mind.

The adoption went through pretty quickly. How good, how extensive was the due diligence? Did they pick up his extensive viewing of seriously revolting porn? Did they ask to look at his and his partner's computer and phones? Did they take too much comfort from the fact that he was a teacher and safeguarding lead and so relied on that rather than carry out their own inquiries? This is a classic trap and one which fraudsters and wrongdoers of all types exploit: they get past one check and then never get properly checked again because everyone else relies on that one check. And was this couple really the best set of adoptive parents to be found in Oldham?

Even very intelligent people can be horrifyingly naive about offenders and offences and what stones to turn over to look for them. And very naive about the lengths deviant people like Varley and his partner will go to to satisfy their deviancy.

Remember this case when people start talking about making surrogacy even easier than it is. There are far fewer checks than with adoptions and there has already been one horrific case in the US of two men buying a surrogate baby for the purpose of sexual abuse. Babies are not commodities to be bought and sold.

You raise many good points as to whether social workers did X or Y.

My experience from interacting with them over adult social care is they are under intense time pressure as the caseload is bonkers.

Yes but let's not ignore the sentiments behind the post.

Is she arguing gay men looking to adopt should be subjected to more scrutiny than straight men who are in a relationship with a woman? Because they are innately more dangerous? I suspect she is.

That would obviously be wrong. But, on the other hand, if being male is a recognised risk factor 2 men in a relationship would surely have a higher statistical risk. Its only statistics though. this is a recent case of murder by a female of a young child:https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-courier-advertiser-fife-edition/20260529/281745571049789

I also recall a couple of years ago a gay female couple who got done for killing a child by abuse and neglect in Fife.
Edit, it is actually quite a bit longer ago than I remembered, 2016: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-36333032 A horrific case as bad as the current one in many respects.

Sadly, roughly one child a week dies from Non-Accidental Injury per week. Many more are injured. It is only the more unusual cases that make the news. The vast majority are from parents and step parents.