- Joined
- Nov 29, 2021
- Messages
- 63
- Reaction score
- 392
Yup! For sure!What needs to be addressed, and probably won’t be, is the fact that the reports to social services were considered “malicious” due to the pair’s minority status.
Yup! For sure!What needs to be addressed, and probably won’t be, is the fact that the reports to social services were considered “malicious” due to the pair’s minority status.
I feel so angry about this. When will social services take complaints from family members seriously? They are the complaints that are least likely to be malicious.
Star Hobson: The short life and death of a beloved toddler
"Anita used to say, and she used to say this quite a lot: 'Poor little Star. You do realise she's gonna end up a little star in the sky, don't you?'," says David.
Oh my dear heartthis poor child. Squeeze your little ones a mite tighter tonight for Star.
I feel the media are misunderstanding the issues around homophobia and/or cultural prejudice in this case. On LBC yesterday, there was much talk about how Social Services may have been reluctant to act for fear of accusations of prejudice. But I thought the point was, FS and SB used their status as a gay couple and SB's Anglo/Romany background to claim that the complaints made about their treatment of Star were motivated by the prejudices of the complainants. 'It's because we're a gay couple' or 'it's because SB's from a gypsy background'... sort of thing. Social Services weren't so much reluctant to act because of their own fears of criticism, but were hoodwinked into believing that the complaints made were 'malicious'. SB and FS utilised their minority status as a shield. They 'played the gay/racist card' in other words.Robbie Moore MP for Keighley. Not enough funding for SS..warnings were ignored...fears of accusations of seen as being phobic...