Quote: sootyj @ August 12 2009, 1:27 AM BSTWell this kind of profiling came in because of kids growing up unhappy, feeling displaced not knowing who they are.
But are they not even less happy when they're stuck without families for the rest of their childhood?
Quote: Dolly Dagger @ August 12 2009, 1:55 AM BSTThat's a Hogarth and it's pre- Victorian.
Yes, indeed it is.
The story I'm thinking of is probably pre-Victorian. I believe that the woman in the foreground in based upon her.
Ah, yes: "in 1734, Judith Dufour reclaimed her two-year-old child from the workhouse where it had been given a new set of clothes; she then strangled it and left the infant's body in a ditch so that she could sell the clothes (for 1s. 4d.) to buy gin."
Quote: Dolly Dagger @ August 12 2009, 1:58 AM BSTMost adopters are keen for any child. They're not selfish bastards off on a shopping spree looking for a kid to match their curtains. It's just that most of the children needing families have very special needs.
Well yes, but sooty seemed to be suggesting an inflexibility which I can easily imagine would put many off the idea of adopting. As unfair as it may be, I'd rather see certain demographics of children be taken out of care rather than a higher proportion all round be left IN care because there is no chance for the prospective parents to have some kind of choice/say/input.
So far from this thread I have come to the conclusion that this kind of thing always has happened, always will happen, and aside from suitable sentencing, there's bugger all we can do about it. There are some problems which no amount of money will solve.
Everyone's going fruit-loop because this did happen, seemingly without stopping to realise that they're so shocked and angry because it's so exceptionally rare. Perhaps that is what should be focussed on.
I'm part of the un-underestimate-able community. 