"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.
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.
I have a tiny bet on Restore from two weeks ago at 25/1 because if the Reichstag fire just happened in Makerfield I would like one last curry meal outing with my mates to be 'on the house' as it were.
EXCL: Andy Burnham has drafted in former chair of OBR, Richard Hughes, to advise on fiscal rules. Burnham is still trying to live down “in hock to the bond markets” comments Hughes stepped down from OBR in Dec after it leaked the Budget prematurely online
Unless they're obviously having to weigh the votes for Burnham, there's got to be a big chance that rumours will push the Labour odds out at some point between now and the declaration.
"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?
Unless they're obviously having to weigh the votes for Burnham, there's got to be a big chance that rumours will push the Labour odds out at some point between now and the declaration.
Yup, although the better way to play that is fade the rumour, not lay now in anticipation therof
Not that I will be bothering to stay up. Is there an exit poll?
"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.
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.
Oh, undoubtedly women abuse children too: Baby P, Arthur Labinjo-Hughes, Victoria Climbie etc.
I think, for the avoidance of doubt, checks should be very very extensive on anyone looking to adopt. And if there are particular risk factors among prospective adoptive parents, these should be looked at very carefully indeed. The use of extreme pornography should be a no-no in my view.
Adoption of a child is not some sort of right for adults. It is something we do for children so we owe it to them to put them with the best possible parents and keep a close eye on them thereafter. A child should not go from happy and healthy to dead - with many injuries in between - in the space of barely 3 months.
"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?
I think there has been a push in recent years for adoption as fostering is both expensive and unstable, and that has created a market for these agencies.
It was the 3rd hospital visit with the elbow fracture that should have been the red flag. 13 month babies almost never get such injuries naturally. There was a Social Work assessment afterwards but clearly did not pick up on the danger.
"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?
So, two things.
One - will we see the transcripts/notes from social workers as they assessed these two maniacs for whether they could be parents?
Maybe we have - and I have missed it???
Two - what's the betting a private adoption agency is under pressure for cash flow to do X and Y???
"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.
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.
Oh, undoubtedly women abuse children too: Baby P, Arthur Labinjo-Hughes, Victoria Climbie etc.
I think, for the avoidance of doubt, checks should be very very extensive on anyone looking to adopt. And if there are particular risk factors among prospective adoptive parents, these should be looked at very carefully indeed. The use of extreme pornography should be a no-no in my view.
Adoption of a child is not some sort of right for adults. It is something we do for children so we owe it to them to put them with the best possible parents and keep a close eye on them thereafter. A child should not go from happy and healthy to dead - with many injuries in between - in the space of barely 3 months.
I obviously agree that the test for adoption is the best interests of the child. However, I think you also need to recognise that the risks of abuse, including abuse we are not allowed to talk about, whilst in care are horrendous. Most children are both safer and better cared for once they are adopted than being in a care home.
The problem with your approach is that it would become so intrusive that very few would be willing to go through the process resulting in even more children being abused and the use of adoption being severely curtailed.
I do think that one of the major problems we have in this country is the completely bizarre idea that you can regulate risk out of existence, if only we have a few more hurdles and rules. The awful Soham murder case led to the current regulations for PVG scheme membership. This has caused enormous damage to many voluntary organisations. Has it really made children any safer? I think the evidence is thin, at best.
"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?
"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.
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.
Oh, undoubtedly women abuse children too: Baby P, Arthur Labinjo-Hughes, Victoria Climbie etc.
I think, for the avoidance of doubt, checks should be very very extensive on anyone looking to adopt. And if there are particular risk factors among prospective adoptive parents, these should be looked at very carefully indeed. The use of extreme pornography should be a no-no in my view.
Adoption of a child is not some sort of right for adults. It is something we do for children so we owe it to them to put them with the best possible parents and keep a close eye on them thereafter. A child should not go from happy and healthy to dead - with many injuries in between - in the space of barely 3 months.
I obviously agree that the test for adoption is the best interests of the child. However, I think you also need to recognise that the risks of abuse, including abuse we are not allowed to talk about, whilst in care are horrendous. Most children are both safer and better cared for once they are adopted than being in a care home.
The problem with your approach is that it would become so intrusive that very few would be willing to go through the process resulting in even more children being abused and the use of adoption being severely curtailed.
I do think that one of the major problems we have in this country is the completely bizarre idea that you can regulate risk out of existence, if only we have a few more hurdles and rules. The awful Soham murder case led to the current regulations for PVG scheme membership. This has caused enormous damage to many voluntary organisations. Has it really made children any safer? I think the evidence is thin, at best.
PVG only picks up anything that has been recorded. If the person being checked has no relevant recorded history, the system won’t pick them up. It’s a typical arse covering piece of paper beloved by our administrators.
"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.
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.
Oh, undoubtedly women abuse children too: Baby P, Arthur Labinjo-Hughes, Victoria Climbie etc.
I think, for the avoidance of doubt, checks should be very very extensive on anyone looking to adopt. And if there are particular risk factors among prospective adoptive parents, these should be looked at very carefully indeed. The use of extreme pornography should be a no-no in my view.
Adoption of a child is not some sort of right for adults. It is something we do for children so we owe it to them to put them with the best possible parents and keep a close eye on them thereafter. A child should not go from happy and healthy to dead - with many injuries in between - in the space of barely 3 months.
I obviously agree that the test for adoption is the best interests of the child. However, I think you also need to recognise that the risks of abuse, including abuse we are not allowed to talk about, whilst in care are horrendous. Most children are both safer and better cared for once they are adopted than being in a care home.
The problem with your approach is that it would become so intrusive that very few would be willing to go through the process resulting in even more children being abused and the use of adoption being severely curtailed.
I do think that one of the major problems we have in this country is the completely bizarre idea that you can regulate risk out of existence, if only we have a few more hurdles and rules. The awful Soham murder case led to the current regulations for PVG scheme membership. This has caused enormous damage to many voluntary organisations. Has it really made children any safer? I think the evidence is thin, at best.
I agree. Indeed in the government's Adoption strategy from 2021 there is a deliberate policy of reducing red tape in order to accelerate adoptions and to not turn down so many prospective parents. In part this was of cases where Social Workers refused to accept some parents, causing a tabloid furore.
Are we expecting about 4am declarations for Makerfield? Trying to time my power nap and fit in some exam marking.
The Mexico vs South Korea match at 0200 sounds quite competitive if you are planning an all-nighter.
Presumably the Scottish seats will be a similar time.
It is tempting just to stay up and watch football, not gonna lie.
My plan is early night tonight as tomorrow has the Scotland match which kicks off at 11pm.
This whole World Cup in which Scotland are competitive, plus by elections, and A level marking is very inconvenient for me. When will Burnham condemn?
You haven't been paying sufficient attention. If you want Burnham to condemn something or agree with the same thing you only need to be the last person to ask him.
"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.
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.
Oh, undoubtedly women abuse children too: Baby P, Arthur Labinjo-Hughes, Victoria Climbie etc.
I think, for the avoidance of doubt, checks should be very very extensive on anyone looking to adopt. And if there are particular risk factors among prospective adoptive parents, these should be looked at very carefully indeed. The use of extreme pornography should be a no-no in my view.
Adoption of a child is not some sort of right for adults. It is something we do for children so we owe it to them to put them with the best possible parents and keep a close eye on them thereafter. A child should not go from happy and healthy to dead - with many injuries in between - in the space of barely 3 months.
I obviously agree that the test for adoption is the best interests of the child. However, I think you also need to recognise that the risks of abuse, including abuse we are not allowed to talk about, whilst in care are horrendous. Most children are both safer and better cared for once they are adopted than being in a care home.
The problem with your approach is that it would become so intrusive that very few would be willing to go through the process resulting in even more children being abused and the use of adoption being severely curtailed.
I do think that one of the major problems we have in this country is the completely bizarre idea that you can regulate risk out of existence, if only we have a few more hurdles and rules. The awful Soham murder case led to the current regulations for PVG scheme membership. This has caused enormous damage to many voluntary organisations. Has it really made children any safer? I think the evidence is thin, at best.
I agree. Indeed in the government's Adoption strategy from 2021 there is a deliberate policy of reducing red tape in order to accelerate adoptions and to not turn down so many prospective parents. In part this was of cases where Social Workers refused to accept some parents, causing a tabloid furore.
Was that the one where they were turned down because the parents voted UKIP? (In Rotherham, ironically).
Are we expecting about 4am declarations for Makerfield? Trying to time my power nap and fit in some exam marking.
The Mexico vs South Korea match at 0200 sounds quite competitive if you are planning an all-nighter.
Presumably the Scottish seats will be a similar time.
It is tempting just to stay up and watch football, not gonna lie.
My plan is early night tonight as tomorrow has the Scotland match which kicks off at 11pm.
This whole World Cup in which Scotland are competitive, plus by elections, and A level marking is very inconvenient for me. When will Burnham condemn?
I know, I am also watching Scotland being competitive in the women's T20 world cup right now.
I cancelled all my meetings for tomorrow, I told the CEO, COO, and CFO, soz the meeting has to take place on Monday.
I have a test match, 2 teams to cheer on at the WC, some excellent women's T20 matches and the small matter of an ongoing trial. Its a hectic schedule and I am getting worn out.
Are we expecting about 4am declarations for Makerfield? Trying to time my power nap and fit in some exam marking.
The Mexico vs South Korea match at 0200 sounds quite competitive if you are planning an all-nighter.
Presumably the Scottish seats will be a similar time.
It is tempting just to stay up and watch football, not gonna lie.
My plan is early night tonight as tomorrow has the Scotland match which kicks off at 11pm.
This whole World Cup in which Scotland are competitive, plus by elections, and A level marking is very inconvenient for me. When will Burnham condemn?
I know, I am also watching Scotland being competitive in the women's T20 world cup right now.
I cancelled all my meetings for tomorrow, I told the CEO, COO, and CFO, soz the meeting has to take place on Monday.
I have a test match, 2 teams to cheer on at the WC, some excellent women's T20 matches and the small matter of an ongoing trial. Its a hectic schedule and I am getting worn out.
Why not relax a bit and catch some of the US Open golf?
"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?
I think there has been a push in recent years for adoption as fostering is both expensive and unstable, and that has created a market for these agencies.
It was the 3rd hospital visit with the elbow fracture that should have been the red flag. 13 month babies almost never get such injuries naturally. There was a Social Work assessment afterwards but clearly did not pick up on the danger.
There is, of course, more continuing risk assessment with fostering, which is slightly odd when you think about it.
Stokes and pace bowler Gus Atkinson are under investigation for their part in an incident in a London nightclub, when they broke England's midnight curfew.
It is understood the process is progressing to a point where a path for the pair to come back is cleared, although an official announcement may not arrive until the conclusion of the ongoing second Test at The Oval.
While all outcomes remain possible, there is a growing likelihood Stokes is back to lead England in Nottingham, with the match starting on Thursday, 25 June.
Are we expecting about 4am declarations for Makerfield? Trying to time my power nap and fit in some exam marking.
The Mexico vs South Korea match at 0200 sounds quite competitive if you are planning an all-nighter.
Presumably the Scottish seats will be a similar time.
It is tempting just to stay up and watch football, not gonna lie.
My plan is early night tonight as tomorrow has the Scotland match which kicks off at 11pm.
This whole World Cup in which Scotland are competitive, plus by elections, and A level marking is very inconvenient for me. When will Burnham condemn?
I know, I am also watching Scotland being competitive in the women's T20 world cup right now.
I cancelled all my meetings for tomorrow, I told the CEO, COO, and CFO, soz the meeting has to take place on Monday.
Thankfully I'm not teaching tomorrow, so I'll be hiding in my office with a vat of coffee, whilst marking exams.
During the 2024 election, I was off on the Friday to visit friends in Durham. I stayed up right through to Liz Truss getting ousted, had a refreshing nap then drove up the A1 with an apparently misplaced sense of optimism.
Are we expecting about 4am declarations for Makerfield? Trying to time my power nap and fit in some exam marking.
The Mexico vs South Korea match at 0200 sounds quite competitive if you are planning an all-nighter.
Presumably the Scottish seats will be a similar time.
It is tempting just to stay up and watch football, not gonna lie.
My plan is early night tonight as tomorrow has the Scotland match which kicks off at 11pm.
This whole World Cup in which Scotland are competitive, plus by elections, and A level marking is very inconvenient for me. When will Burnham condemn?
I know, I am also watching Scotland being competitive in the women's T20 world cup right now.
I cancelled all my meetings for tomorrow, I told the CEO, COO, and CFO, soz the meeting has to take place on Monday.
I have a test match, 2 teams to cheer on at the WC, some excellent women's T20 matches and the small matter of an ongoing trial. Its a hectic schedule and I am getting worn out.
I've also got the fun next week where I have to prep the first 3 days of the week to do stuff before I go on holidays for four weeks.
We might have a leadership challenge next week.
I am not sure I have the mental bandwidth to cope.
Are we expecting about 4am declarations for Makerfield? Trying to time my power nap and fit in some exam marking.
The Mexico vs South Korea match at 0200 sounds quite competitive if you are planning an all-nighter.
Presumably the Scottish seats will be a similar time.
It is tempting just to stay up and watch football, not gonna lie.
My plan is early night tonight as tomorrow has the Scotland match which kicks off at 11pm.
This whole World Cup in which Scotland are competitive, plus by elections, and A level marking is very inconvenient for me. When will Burnham condemn?
I know, I am also watching Scotland being competitive in the women's T20 world cup right now.
I cancelled all my meetings for tomorrow, I told the CEO, COO, and CFO, soz the meeting has to take place on Monday.
Thankfully I'm not teaching tomorrow, so I'll be hiding in my office with a vat of coffee, whilst marking exams.
During the 2024 election, I was off on the Friday to visit friends in Durham. I stayed up right through to Liz Truss getting ousted, had a refreshing nap then drove up the A1 with an apparently misplaced sense of optimism.
Are you doing paid marking or just school marking?
That is interesting because while there is no groundswell to rejoin the EU, there does seem to be a consensus that Brexit was a mistake or at best a damp squib. While no-one wants to go through the whole Brexit sturm und drang again, they might respond to an EU offer of a time machine or big red reset button that will magically take us back to where we were, and perhaps that has occurred to Barnier too.
Are we expecting about 4am declarations for Makerfield? Trying to time my power nap and fit in some exam marking.
The Mexico vs South Korea match at 0200 sounds quite competitive if you are planning an all-nighter.
Presumably the Scottish seats will be a similar time.
It is tempting just to stay up and watch football, not gonna lie.
My plan is early night tonight as tomorrow has the Scotland match which kicks off at 11pm.
This whole World Cup in which Scotland are competitive, plus by elections, and A level marking is very inconvenient for me. When will Burnham condemn?
I know, I am also watching Scotland being competitive in the women's T20 world cup right now.
I cancelled all my meetings for tomorrow, I told the CEO, COO, and CFO, soz the meeting has to take place on Monday.
I have a test match, 2 teams to cheer on at the WC, some excellent women's T20 matches and the small matter of an ongoing trial. Its a hectic schedule and I am getting worn out.
Why not relax a bit and catch some of the US Open golf?
And Royal Ascot and Queens tennis. This is a ridiculous period for sports nuts, of which I am one.
"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?
Well I'm reassured by that. Your posts describing the risks to women and children of biological males are about 90%+ focused on trans women, so you can perhaps understand why a foray into commenting on the risks posed by gay men wasn't entirely unexpected.
I'm a father of a gay son who would very much like to have children one day.
"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.
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.
Oh, undoubtedly women abuse children too: Baby P, Arthur Labinjo-Hughes, Victoria Climbie etc.
I think, for the avoidance of doubt, checks should be very very extensive on anyone looking to adopt. And if there are particular risk factors among prospective adoptive parents, these should be looked at very carefully indeed. The use of extreme pornography should be a no-no in my view.
Adoption of a child is not some sort of right for adults. It is something we do for children so we owe it to them to put them with the best possible parents and keep a close eye on them thereafter. A child should not go from happy and healthy to dead - with many injuries in between - in the space of barely 3 months.
I obviously agree that the test for adoption is the best interests of the child. However, I think you also need to recognise that the risks of abuse, including abuse we are not allowed to talk about, whilst in care are horrendous. Most children are both safer and better cared for once they are adopted than being in a care home.
The problem with your approach is that it would become so intrusive that very few would be willing to go through the process resulting in even more children being abused and the use of adoption being severely curtailed.
I do think that one of the major problems we have in this country is the completely bizarre idea that you can regulate risk out of existence, if only we have a few more hurdles and rules. The awful Soham murder case led to the current regulations for PVG scheme membership. This has caused enormous damage to many voluntary organisations. Has it really made children any safer? I think the evidence is thin, at best.
I agree. Indeed in the government's Adoption strategy from 2021 there is a deliberate policy of reducing red tape in order to accelerate adoptions and to not turn down so many prospective parents. In part this was of cases where Social Workers refused to accept some parents, causing a tabloid furore.
Was that the one where they were turned down because the parents voted UKIP? (In Rotherham, ironically).
Yes, that was the one, so as so often we see an over-correction.
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.
I think the bit that makes for uncomfortable discussion is the correlation between the sexuality of the perpetrators and the sex of the children they adopt.
I've been unfortunate enough to have known several paedophiles/abusers in my life (which sometimes feels like an almost inevitable consequence of being a church musician) and most were gay men who exclusively abused boys. One was a straight man who exclusively abused girls.
The 'not allowed to say it' part is that a baby girl would almost certainly have been less likely to be sexually abused by this gay male couple. A heterosexual man in the same situation would be less prone to sexually abusing a boy.
It would be ridiculous to have rules like: gay male couples can only adopt girls or lesbians can only adopt boys etc. But I suspect the system is wilfully blind to the increased risk.
That is interesting because while there is no groundswell to rejoin the EU, there does seem to be a consensus that Brexit was a mistake or at best a damp squib. While no-one wants to go through the whole Brexit sturm und drang again, they might respond to an EU offer of a time machine or big red reset button that will magically take us back to where we were, and perhaps that has occurred to Barnier too.
Ireland and Cyprus aren’t in Schengen. The case for Schengen is reduced when you’re not dealing with land borders. So I don’t think staying out of Schengen for the UK was ever going to be a big issue.
"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.
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.
Oh, undoubtedly women abuse children too: Baby P, Arthur Labinjo-Hughes, Victoria Climbie etc.
I think, for the avoidance of doubt, checks should be very very extensive on anyone looking to adopt. And if there are particular risk factors among prospective adoptive parents, these should be looked at very carefully indeed. The use of extreme pornography should be a no-no in my view.
Adoption of a child is not some sort of right for adults. It is something we do for children so we owe it to them to put them with the best possible parents and keep a close eye on them thereafter. A child should not go from happy and healthy to dead - with many injuries in between - in the space of barely 3 months.
I obviously agree that the test for adoption is the best interests of the child. However, I think you also need to recognise that the risks of abuse, including abuse we are not allowed to talk about, whilst in care are horrendous. Most children are both safer and better cared for once they are adopted than being in a care home.
The problem with your approach is that it would become so intrusive that very few would be willing to go through the process resulting in even more children being abused and the use of adoption being severely curtailed.
I do think that one of the major problems we have in this country is the completely bizarre idea that you can regulate risk out of existence, if only we have a few more hurdles and rules. The awful Soham murder case led to the current regulations for PVG scheme membership. This has caused enormous damage to many voluntary organisations. Has it really made children any safer? I think the evidence is thin, at best.
Well that is a fair point.
I don't think you can regulate risk out of existence. What you should be aiming to do is (1) to minimise it as far as reasonably possible based on good risk assessment; and (2) not shutting your eyes once you've done the initial assessment and, as soon as a problem, however small happens, investigate it properly.
Plus intelligent scepticism and good judgment. The latter two are better than tick box processes. And understanding where the risks come from.
This little boy was with loving foster parents - not in a care home - and his grandmother wanted to care for him and asked the social workers to wait a few months while her cancer was being cured. Why the rush to put him with this couple?
I think the point about safeguarding is that we focus on the process rather than on the substance. So as you say we get lots of rules with no-one thinking about what is the mischief we are trying to avoid or limit and how best to achieve that. This involves judgment.
To give an example: when I was a teenager there was probably no such thing as safeguarding rules but the adults around me saw it as their business to keep an eye out for me. I was once walked to school by my Italian uncle - much younger than my mother and very handsome. At school we said goodbye and I kissed him on the cheek as normal. This was seen by a teacher and I was instantly called to the head and asked who he was etc and this was then checked with my mother. There was nothing remotely off by either my or my uncle's behaviour but the teacher wanted to make sure. We shouldn't really need rules to tell us to do this. We need eyes to see, judgment and adults remembering that we need to look out for our children.
Too many adults these days forget that they are meant to be adult.
So Labour are 1.1. I'd say this translates to Burnham being expected to win by several thousand votes. If it's close that will be a surprise and a Reform win would be a genuine shock.
"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?
Well I'm reassured by that. Your posts describing the risks to women and children of biological males are about 90%+ focused on trans women, so you can perhaps understand why a foray into commenting on the risks posed by gay men wasn't entirely unexpected.
I'm a father of a gay son who would very much like to have children one day.
I am married to a Psychologist who sadly over the years has come across too many cases of maltreatment, neglect and abuse.
One of the sadest most recurring features is the number of people who after the fact come out with stories and anecdotes about those involved that were red flags that should have been picked up on.
We tend to castugate social workers but in reality if those around the perpretartors had just shared their fears, rather than not wanting to accuse or get involved, so many cases would never have got as bad as they did.
That is interesting because while there is no groundswell to rejoin the EU, there does seem to be a consensus that Brexit was a mistake or at best a damp squib. While no-one wants to go through the whole Brexit sturm und drang again, they might respond to an EU offer of a time machine or big red reset button that will magically take us back to where we were, and perhaps that has occurred to Barnier too.
Does Barnier speak for the EU? I thought he had retired from there.
That is interesting because while there is no groundswell to rejoin the EU, there does seem to be a consensus that Brexit was a mistake or at best a damp squib. While no-one wants to go through the whole Brexit sturm und drang again, they might respond to an EU offer of a time machine or big red reset button that will magically take us back to where we were, and perhaps that has occurred to Barnier too.
Unfortunately "Perfectly Possible" and "Actually offered" are two very different things. He's entitled to his opinion but opinion is all it is!"
"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?
Well I'm reassured by that. Your posts describing the risks to women and children of biological males are about 90%+ focused on trans women, so you can perhaps understand why a foray into commenting on the risks posed by gay men wasn't entirely unexpected.
I'm a father of a gay son who would very much like to have children one day.
I have been writing about the risks to women from men for a very long time on here. And once again I did not say that the risk was from being gay - children of lesbian couples generally do very well - but from being male. And I too have a gay son. Though he has shown no interest in having children so far but does enjoy buying books and Lego for his cousins children.
That is interesting because while there is no groundswell to rejoin the EU, there does seem to be a consensus that Brexit was a mistake or at best a damp squib. While no-one wants to go through the whole Brexit sturm und drang again, they might respond to an EU offer of a time machine or big red reset button that will magically take us back to where we were, and perhaps that has occurred to Barnier too.
Does Barnier speak for the EU? I thought he had retired from there.
Another retiree says we can't have any special terms:
When was the last time we had such an important, pivotal election this close to the summer solstice
It's going to be light after the poll closes
The 1987 general election?
11th of June.
2024, 4th July?
That's 13 days from the solstice, 1987 was 10 days away.
Though the shape of the graph is pretty flat around the solstices- kind of the converse of that horrid bit of mid January when it feels like the days should be noticeably lengthening, but they don't. Bastards.
(Though this bit- where it fails to get dark- is less good than July and August, when it's nice to be out at 9 pm and it's also dark. That's when we really get one over on nature. Oh, and the Proms are happening.)
That is wonderful news. Hopefully is also helping to lower the risk of a certain sub-set of head and neck cancers, too.... (Though obviously it doesn't do much for the smokers and the drunks)
Sadly there will always be some mad bastards that will be anti-vax come what may, and thanks to the internet there will be occasional cut-through so there will be the odd person that refuses the HPV jab and dies needlessly as a result, but overall this is great news!
So I have heard from a reliable source in Makerfield, they've found a lot of people saying they are voting Restore than they expected.
One thing to note, a lot of these people last voted in 2016 or 2019.
On the downside, the Restore canvassers are very belligerent, in a way other parties are not.
'If you don't vote for us, you're helping to end white Christian Britain/wanting your daughters to be raped.'
Talking of which, the "Muslims for Reform" thing this morning... not on, surely?
And I'm fairly sure that the election day front page paid advert for Party X ought to be taboo as well... Yes, freedom of speech; yes, newspapers need the money... but I'm pretty sure that the reputational cost to the papers involved is greater than the money they bring in.
Are we expecting about 4am declarations for Makerfield? Trying to time my power nap and fit in some exam marking.
The Mexico vs South Korea match at 0200 sounds quite competitive if you are planning an all-nighter.
Presumably the Scottish seats will be a similar time.
It is tempting just to stay up and watch football, not gonna lie.
My plan is early night tonight as tomorrow has the Scotland match which kicks off at 11pm.
This whole World Cup in which Scotland are competitive, plus by elections, and A level marking is very inconvenient for me. When will Burnham condemn?
I know, I am also watching Scotland being competitive in the women's T20 world cup right now.
I cancelled all my meetings for tomorrow, I told the CEO, COO, and CFO, soz the meeting has to take place on Monday.
I have a test match, 2 teams to cheer on at the WC, some excellent women's T20 matches and the small matter of an ongoing trial. Its a hectic schedule and I am getting worn out.
Why not relax a bit and catch some of the US Open golf?
And Royal Ascot and Queens tennis. This is a ridiculous period for sports nuts, of which I am one.
Draw bias on the straight Course at Ascot today was insane.
They might just be tempted to overwater the Stands rail to try to equalise it.
That is interesting because while there is no groundswell to rejoin the EU, there does seem to be a consensus that Brexit was a mistake or at best a damp squib. While no-one wants to go through the whole Brexit sturm und drang again, they might respond to an EU offer of a time machine or big red reset button that will magically take us back to where we were, and perhaps that has occurred to Barnier too.
Ireland and Cyprus aren’t in Schengen. The case for Schengen is reduced when you’re not dealing with land borders. So I don’t think staying out of Schengen for the UK was ever going to be a big issue.
We have the Common Travel Area with Ireland, and I think they want to stay that way too. Us joining Shengen would force them in too. In practice it is easier for the EU if we do not join.
The Euro is effectively optional too. Countries only join if they want to. It is a bit like Turkish Accession, in theory but not in practice.
Are we expecting about 4am declarations for Makerfield? Trying to time my power nap and fit in some exam marking.
The Mexico vs South Korea match at 0200 sounds quite competitive if you are planning an all-nighter.
Presumably the Scottish seats will be a similar time.
It is tempting just to stay up and watch football, not gonna lie.
My plan is early night tonight as tomorrow has the Scotland match which kicks off at 11pm.
This whole World Cup in which Scotland are competitive, plus by elections, and A level marking is very inconvenient for me. When will Burnham condemn?
I know, I am also watching Scotland being competitive in the women's T20 world cup right now.
I cancelled all my meetings for tomorrow, I told the CEO, COO, and CFO, soz the meeting has to take place on Monday.
Thankfully I'm not teaching tomorrow, so I'll be hiding in my office with a vat of coffee, whilst marking exams.
During the 2024 election, I was off on the Friday to visit friends in Durham. I stayed up right through to Liz Truss getting ousted, had a refreshing nap then drove up the A1 with an apparently misplaced sense of optimism.
Are you doing paid marking or just school marking?
Paid marking for one of the exam boards - my students have left for the academic year, and my employer encourages us to mark for the boards.
I've not predicted tonight's results, as I've not processed the data as much for these. I'll not go numerical but I think liveable comfortable for Burnham but not as comfortable as for the SNP in Aberdeen South - looking at the balance in the two relevant Holyrood constituencies, I don't think Con started that close.
The corollary of Aberdeen South is that Arbroath and Broughty Ferry should also be very comfortable.
Comments
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
6m
Receiving advice & taking advice are by no means the same thing!
Maybe there should be some PB code for a Carville moment?
Like a Mike Godwin law?
I still think comfortable win for Andy Burnham. SNP hold both in Scotland against divided opposition.
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?
Not that I will be bothering to stay up. Is there an exit poll?
#justkiddin'
I think, for the avoidance of doubt, checks should be very very extensive on anyone looking to adopt. And if there are particular risk factors among prospective adoptive parents, these should be looked at very carefully indeed. The use of extreme pornography should be a no-no in my view.
Adoption of a child is not some sort of right for adults. It is something we do for children so we owe it to them to put them with the best possible parents and keep a close eye on them thereafter. A child should not go from happy and healthy to dead - with many injuries in between - in the space of barely 3 months.
https://youtu.be/c1cpA4M0Hgo?is=Y-7ZYUJnOTB_-RE0
It was the 3rd hospital visit with the elbow fracture that should have been the red flag. 13 month babies almost never get such injuries naturally. There was a Social Work assessment afterwards but clearly did not pick up on the danger.
One - will we see the transcripts/notes from social workers as they assessed these two maniacs for whether they could be parents?
Maybe we have - and I have missed it???
Two - what's the betting a private adoption agency is under pressure for cash flow to do X and Y???
Jarrow march style but on the WCML.
Burnham to take Tuesday's regular Cabinet meeting????
Presumably the Scottish seats will be a similar time.
The problem with your approach is that it would become so intrusive that very few would be willing to go through the process resulting in even more children being abused and the use of adoption being severely curtailed.
I do think that one of the major problems we have in this country is the completely bizarre idea that you can regulate risk out of existence, if only we have a few more hurdles and rules. The awful Soham murder case led to the current regulations for PVG scheme membership. This has caused enormous damage to many voluntary organisations. Has it really made children any safer? I think the evidence is thin, at best.
Putting my head on the block
I'll go for Burnham win in Makerfield by 4,500 over Reform/Restore etc
Arbroath
Snp win by 3000 over Lab, Reform third
Aberdeen South
SNP win by 1,500 over Tory, something like
Snp 31.5 %
Con 27
Ref 16
Lab 12
I cancelled all my meetings for tomorrow, I told the CEO, COO, and CFO, soz the meeting has to take place on Monday.
Stokes and pace bowler Gus Atkinson are under investigation for their part in an incident in a London nightclub, when they broke England's midnight curfew.
It is understood the process is progressing to a point where a path for the pair to come back is cleared, although an official announcement may not arrive until the conclusion of the ongoing second Test at The Oval.
While all outcomes remain possible, there is a growing likelihood Stokes is back to lead England in Nottingham, with the match starting on Thursday, 25 June.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/clyeggrj8ddo
During the 2024 election, I was off on the Friday to visit friends in Durham. I stayed up right through to Liz Truss getting ousted, had a refreshing nap then drove up the A1 with an apparently misplaced sense of optimism.
We might have a leadership challenge next week.
I am not sure I have the mental bandwidth to cope.
It's going to be light after the poll closes
I'm a father of a gay son who would very much like to have children one day.
11th of June.
I think the bit that makes for uncomfortable discussion is the correlation between the sexuality of the perpetrators and the sex of the children they adopt.
I've been unfortunate enough to have known several paedophiles/abusers in my life (which sometimes feels like an almost inevitable consequence of being a church musician) and most were gay men who exclusively abused boys. One was a straight man who exclusively abused girls.
The 'not allowed to say it' part is that a baby girl would almost certainly have been less likely to be sexually abused by this gay male couple. A heterosexual man in the same situation would be less prone to sexually abusing a boy.
It would be ridiculous to have rules like: gay male couples can only adopt girls or lesbians can only adopt boys etc. But I suspect the system is wilfully blind to the increased risk.
I don't think you can regulate risk out of existence. What you should be aiming to do is (1) to minimise it as far as reasonably possible based on good risk assessment; and (2) not shutting your eyes once you've done the initial assessment and, as soon as a problem, however small happens, investigate it properly.
Plus intelligent scepticism and good judgment. The latter two are better than tick box processes. And understanding where the risks come from.
This little boy was with loving foster parents - not in a care home - and his grandmother wanted to care for him and asked the social workers to wait a few months while her cancer was being cured. Why the rush to put him with this couple?
I think the point about safeguarding is that we focus on the process rather than on the substance. So as you say we get lots of rules with no-one thinking about what is the mischief we are trying to avoid or limit and how best to achieve that. This involves judgment.
To give an example: when I was a teenager there was probably no such thing as safeguarding rules but the adults around me saw it as their business to keep an eye out for me. I was once walked to school by my Italian uncle - much younger than my mother and very handsome. At school we said goodbye and I kissed him on the cheek as normal. This was seen by a teacher and I was instantly called to the head and asked who he was etc and this was then checked with my mother. There was nothing remotely off by either my or my uncle's behaviour but the teacher wanted to make sure. We shouldn't really need rules to tell us to do this. We need eyes to see, judgment and adults remembering that we need to look out for our children.
Too many adults these days forget that they are meant to be adult.
I am married to a Psychologist who sadly over the years has come across too many cases of maltreatment, neglect and abuse.
One of the sadest most recurring features is the number of people who after the fact come out with stories and anecdotes about those involved that were red flags that should have been picked up on.
We tend to castugate social workers but in reality if those around the perpretartors had just shared their fears, rather than not wanting to accuse or get involved, so many cases would never have got as bad as they did.
Peter.
Peter.
Is the standard deviation enough for you or are you more deviated?
#LetsGo 👀
One thing to note, a lot of these people last voted in 2016 or 2019.
On the downside, the Restore canvassers are very belligerent, in a way other parties are not.
'If you don't vote for us, you're helping to end white Christian Britain/wanting your daughters to be raped.'
https://x.com/trussliz/status/2067676462082093138
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/06/15/eus-brexit-negotiator-juncker-uk-block-rejoining/
Old generals etc..
(Though this bit- where it fails to get dark- is less good than July and August, when it's nice to be out at 9 pm and it's also dark. That's when we really get one over on nature. Oh, and the Proms are happening.)
Sadly there will always be some mad bastards that will be anti-vax come what may, and thanks to the internet there will be occasional cut-through so there will be the odd person that refuses the HPV jab and dies needlessly as a result, but overall this is great news!
And I'm fairly sure that the election day front page paid advert for Party X ought to be taboo as well... Yes, freedom of speech; yes, newspapers need the money... but I'm pretty sure that the reputational cost to the papers involved is greater than the money they bring in.
They might just be tempted to overwater the Stands rail to try to equalise it.
The Euro is effectively optional too. Countries only join if they want to. It is a bit like Turkish Accession, in theory but not in practice.
The corollary of Aberdeen South is that Arbroath and Broughty Ferry should also be very comfortable.