An update on the gay adoption debate

It seems that a solution has not been found between the Catholic adoption agencies, and Westminster.

Legislation has now been passed making it illegal for the agencies to discriminate against gay couples. (Independent).

I think that if the Catholic agencies do now decide to close down, or reject applications from gay couples, it will be a great shame for the children waiting for a loving family. I also think that gay couples deserve to have fully equal rights (It is the 21st century after all). It is also a shame that this issue has taken so long to resolve, whilst growing numbers of children wait eagerly for a preferment home. In my opinion the legislation should now be respected by every organisation, with no exception.

Westminster has made political history today - I think they may also have gained a few voters too.

Labour allegedly rushes adoption legislation

The labour party is being criticized for allegedly rushing through legislation regarding gay equality laws that could allow gay couples to adopt through Catholic adoption agencies in the UK. (BBC)

I am surprised that the Tory party are doing the criticizing however, as they appear to be all-for equal rights the majority of the time.

I think that in trying to pass the legislation Labour are taking brave strides towards a better future for UK adoption, and a better future with equal opportunities for everyone. They are taking the risk of losing many voters on this issue, but have the wits to realize that they are also making political history.

This is an unusual, and difficult situation, but I feel that the most important thing for either side to remember is that the children in care desperately need loving homes. If the Catholic church dig their heels in, and close down their agencies, they will make it harder for children in need to find adoptive parents of any sexuality, however if they remain open and refuse to place children with same-sex families they will face breaking equality laws.

I think that a compromise must be reached in this complex situation. It is reported that church and government are trying to achieve one, but I just hope that the agencies will stay open, and that a middle-ground can be found for the sake of the children.

We shall see.

The great divide

Is the wealthy/poor divide becoming greater? I think so. We cannot really ignore this issue in our society for much longer. It has also thankfully been brought to the focus of Gordon Brown, this week.(See The Observer) Not before time however.

The UK is home to some of Europe's most impoverished, Wales for instance, has an extremely low economic status. It is one of the poorest countries in the EU. Something which I am aware of from living in the North of the country during many of its recent economic crisis's, foot and mouth, BSE and low spending power are some of the many key problems which plague rural areas. However the gap seems to be widening the most in London, where it is claimed that the rich are becoming richer, and the poor remain poor.

I think that is an accurate picture. Whilst travelling the underground during the early hours I seem to be seeing more and more wealthy city workers on a daily basis, but the same faces of the homeless, who sit nearby huddled in their cardboard homes, jostled out of the way by growing armies of y.u.p.p.i.e.s.

But how can the balance be re-addressed?
If I had the answer to this I think I would be working in politics. So I'll just ask the questions.

What does everyone else think? How can we prevent more and more of the UK's poorest people being pushed aside by the grossly over-paid, yet promote entrepunerism? I hope someone at Westminster will come up something soon, before there are huge social repercussions from the frightening division of class that we are experiencing in our society.

Public uneasy regarding fingerprinting plans

"Leave them kids alone" is a campaign group set up by concerned parents in Britain who oppose the fingerprinting of children at school without parental consent. An interesting, and somewhat pro-active attempt by parents to stand up for the rights of their children by lobbying MPs with petitions in order to secure the privacy of their kids. However this weekend The Times reported that a leaked home office document contained details of yet another plan to begin "mass fingerprinting" of children, geared to commence in 2010. To my horror, (And probably that of campaigners) it would see the fingerprints of UK children stored on a 'secret' database when child passports are applied for. It seems to me that the government is hell-bent on invading the privacy of our children, regardless of how parents and campaigners feel about child fingerprinting.

I think that the plans are a ridiculous idea, extremely unnecessary, and will also raise the cost of children's passports. The security of the prints could also be at risk, in my opinion, and is something which the children in question are too young to contemplate. The potential fall-out from the plans going amiss is too awful to imagine, and could affect the future of the children in question.

However, it is insisted by supporters that this is for the good of the public. What does everyone else think about this? Please leave your comments

Politics and the modern family

Parenting and family is something of a hot topic at Westminster recently. I can see a definite battle has begun between the Tories and the Labour party. The views expressed by both could have been spurred by a recent Unicef report, which claims to have found Britain's children the "worst off" in a report examining child well-being in industrialised countries. Or in the case of Alan Johnson, his comments could be seen as a response to David Cameron's ‘wake-up’ warnings to absentee fathers.

I think both parties are certainly competing for the spotlight today, however I view multi-party discussions on these issues as beneficial. After appearing in the headlines several times in the last few days, these comments are now being considered by the society in which these issues are located. Both Johnson and Cameron have highlighted important points, Johnson’s references to "alternate" family structures, and their capabilities of being as equally beneficial to child well-being as two-parent structures, are welcome and helpful words. Cameron’s stern warnings to errant fathers are also constructive; I feel that it was about time society was given a jolt forward by those on the outside, looking in.

Whilst we poke fun at a new breed of fathers, known commonly as 'metro-daddies', whose babies are strapped to their chests, fiercely proud of their status as modern parents, they are still few and far between. The other breed of fathers, the absentees, are sadly all too common.

Where is the love?

One thing that intrigues me about David Cameron this week is his insistence that all todays' youth need to keep them from turning bad is... love. I find this difficult to absorb. Images and stories concerning 'that' hooded menace photographed jeering Cameron this week (see Guardian coverage) make me wonder if Cameron might be feeling a little... daft. Of course the Tory official line is that the photographs serve to strengthen Camerons' points about parental responsibility, and the need for two parent families to care for children in a loving manner. I think Cameron will hold on to this point until the bitter end, I see his stubbornness that all we need is love as quite puzzling, yet inspiring. I think Cameron is a great guy, possibly a guy who could persuade me to (gulp!) vote Tory. But is this the right approach for fighting crime? I'll give Cameron something, it is original!

I see this is another instance of the contrast between both Tony Blair and Cameron when it comes to crime. Labour's hard-line approach to street and gun crime this week stuck me as a little media-driven to say the least. Or perhaps I am being a little hasty? It doesn't seem to me that violence on the streets of London is something unusual, only today I walked passed a group of 'hoodies' in my area of West London. One girl was carrying a samurai sword. But this did not seem to spark much attention on todays' busy Saturday afternoon. Now that was one 'hoodie' I certainly wouldn't hug. Several things worry me about that girl. Firstly, the fact that she was a girl. This bothers me, as I am now beginning to realize that more and more girls are becoming involved in street crime. The second thing which concerned me, was the lack of attention this attracted. Why are people so eager to distance themselves from such things? Do we now live in fear of these gangs who are little more than children?

BBC 4 aired an insightful interview with a girl prosecuted for gun crime today, which delves a little deeper than my comments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/02/2007_08_fri.shtml