Zombie

I don't know definitely that this is the position in all other countries - but I suspect it may well be - but in Britain adoption is a one-way trip. It is permanent, it is absolute, it is irrevocable. No-one can undo it. To give an example, a few years ago two parents were accused of killing their baby based on evidence of an "expert" medical witness and their remaining child was snatched by the council, placed in foster care, and legally adopted through a rushed process when the council discovered the birth parents were making a legal appeal and challenging the "expert" medical witness. Soon after the rushed adoption was completed by the council the birth parents won their case when the court ruled the "expert" had knowingly given dishonest / flawed testimony and the original ruling against the parents was quashed and new medical evidence confirmed "cot death" was the reason their baby died. Imagine that - they lost not one child through death but they lost their other child too because of the council's forced and deliberately rushed adoption. The adoption was irreversible and they were denied any restitution or further contact [until the child becomes an adult] despite the admitted wrongdoing and gross miscarriage of justice. For the same reason there is no process for adoptive parents to "give up" adopted children. It is final. As previous posts have pointed out things can go badly wrong with any parent / child relationship but adoptive parents must work through these problems with available welfare resources in exactly the same way as they would with their birth children. I think even non-parents like me understand the challenges of child rearing - we were all children once - and that is why adoption agencies must be tightly regulated and rigorous processes must be in place to weed out prospective parents who cannot reasonably demonstrate their suitability for such a huge and potentially life changing responsibility. Respect to those that can and do rise to this challenge.

There again if we knew everything it would be a tad dull

problem solved http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/fart-proof-pants-invented-using-2479966

That was quoted merely to illustrate the nature of the commitment being made - children are adopted for good or ill. In fact the adoption undertaking is more permanent and more serious than the marriage vow - you cannot legally divorce or abandon dependent children, natural or adopted. As for parents "just giv[ing] them up." or "giv[ing] their kids away" that may happen just like people rob banks and mug old ladies - some people choose to become criminals. That's why there's a legal system to right those wrongs as far as they can be righted. The tragedy is, as has already been noted, the terrible damage that is caused to children who are treated this way that the system then has to pick up.

OK, I re-read the article which has a link to Fetal Alcohol Syndrome but there was no indication that this particular child suffered from this. However, where there is any mental or physical issue with a child then surely this will have been noted by social services prior to the child going into care and while that child is in care, and all US adoption agencies must surely be legally required not only to disclose fully every material issue to the prospective parents but also to make additional checks - beyond those they would already have to do - to satisfy themselves that the prospective adopters fully understand and have the capacity and resources to cope with those specific issues? And surely there would be appropriate follow up by social services - frequent in the early stages - to satisfy themselves that all was going well? Adoption is largely about effective communication and matching needs and expectations - the needs of the child and the expectations of the prospective adopters. Once that whole process has been carried out - and maybe there are serious flaws in US adoption process? - then an adopted child becomes the adopting parents' responsibility. Just like the marriage vow - "to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health". Children are not acquired sale or return.

I'm guessing, Percy, you'd be pretty pissed of if you read The Terrible Privacy of Maxwell Sim by Jonathan Coe which is a kind of "road" novel about a salesman with personal problems that escalate during the narrative and seems to be building to some kind of personal crisis climax when, after 300 odd pages, the MC meets an author figure who informs the MC that he's not real and is in fact just a character in a book the author has made up and it's finished and the MC protests ‘It can’t have finished… I still don’t know how it ends’ and the author replies it’s easy: ‘I can tell you just how it ends,’ and clicks his fingers ‘Like this.’ ‘Like this’ are the two last words of the novel

I don't think this is particularly an issue of modern parenting, rather it's about people who choose to become criminals. Often this is more a function of personal inadequacies, personality disorders, stupidity, ignorance, greed - or all of these. These "parents" are simply criminals who will be dealt with by the justice system and their children will have to be taken into care. Very sad for the children, but delinquent parents are probably more of a social problem than delinquent children. Maybe there's also an underlying problem with the fitness and competence of adoption agencies and their failure to adequately vet prospective adopters, do effective background checks and so on

I never knew it was so complicated ...

For me "gay culture" only exists as an umbrella term that embraces all the gay sub-cultures. Graeme mentioned some but there are many more sub-cultures, much more diverse than just sports, rugby etc. [which really are little different from mainstream sports culture]. These multifarious sub-cultures would include things like gay transvestism, leather, fitness / body image and so on - I'm sure someone can come up with some more - and these sub-cultures may or may not have counterparts in het world, like str8 transvestism, BDSM, gym bunnies etc etc. I wouldn't call "arts" a gay sub-culture. It's both a cliche and a truism that arts do attract gays but I think an interest in arts is more to do with temperament than sexuality. To sum up, then, you can be gay without belonging to or self-identifying with any of those sub-cultures, but to belong to a gay sub-culture I think you have to be gay, or at least a bit queer

Every day this week we've seen on the nightly TV news more of the devastation in the Philippines caused by Typhoon Haiyan. For someone who lives in a developed country where we moan when broadband speed drops, and where the 80mph winds of last month were a big news story, I cannot begin to imagine the scale of loss caused by the 190 mph typhoon winds that people in the Philippines experienced, are experiencing this minute, and will continue to experience for many months, if not years. £30m has been raised just this week in Britain and the UK govt has promised to match this pound for pound in addition to other help, but that's really just a drop. Aid is only now beginning to arrive, a week after the destruction, but getting this to the estimated nearly 2 million displaced people who need immediate help is going to be a massive challenge. Homes, schools, hospitals have gone, roads are blocked, there is no power, no cell phones - all the infrastructure we take for granted as part of our modern way of life gone. Tens of thousands just have the clothes they were wearing and this week they have literally just been surviving. In the affected areas where everything has been wrecked they have no fresh water, no food, no shelter, no functioning resources and medicines to help the injured and stop them dying of infection. They have a critical and urgent need for immediate help and the Philippines just doesn't have the resources to deal with this and deal with it now. Because help is needed urgently - no-one can survive long without fresh uncontaminated water and food. Old people, young children and babies are the least resilient and, tragically, there are going to be more deaths in the coming days. Some govts have responded quickly - the US is taking a leading role - and all the major aid agencies are responding as well, but individuals like us can make a difference with collective donations that will help not just with immediate and urgent needs like fresh drinking water and food and shelter, but in the months to come to help rebuild the vital infrastructure that was swept away last Friday. I'm sure many here have already responded, but I thought it might be helpful if people could post links to where donations can be made in your countries. Here in Britain I used the Disasters Emergency Committee website http://www.dec.org.uk/?utm_source=38Degrees&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=A014&utm_content=Link1 Just click on "Donate" or phone 0370 60 60 900 if, like me, you prefer not to go through PayPal. Donations through the DEC will be matched pound for pound by the UK govt. So if you have similar links for your own countries perhaps people could post them here? Thanks for reading. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24954011

Starts in the 1930s at school and follows the two main characters as they grow up to adulthood and military service during the war. Well written, it evokes a feeling for those times and makes you care about the characters and their fate *shan't give any spoilers *

O. M. G. She's gonna stroke :funny: .

Gay IT biker amateur detective mystery series? Gay WWII relationship saga? Gay .... Where to begin?

This is an interesting thread subject When should the author bail out? Do all the ends need to be tied? After all, the characters "live on" after the story - unless they're killed off by a callous and cruel writer - allowing the author to write sequels / flog a dead horse or, as addy and Mann have already said, the reader to "play with possibilities". There are no rules just the writer's skill in judging when it's done, knowing when the reader will be satisfied as they close the book or switch off the Kindle. Perhaps the most famous loose end ever written is from amateur writer Margaret Mitchell's only novel Gone With The Wind ... she raised her chin. She could get Rhett back. She knew she could. There had never been a man she couldn’t get, once she set her mind upon him. “I’ll think of it all tomorrow, at Tara. I can stand it then. Tomorrow, I’ll think of some way to get him back. After all, tomorrow is another day!”

Maybe he wants readers suckered in to the sequel .

OMG palindromic numbers! No, wait, palindromic primes!!! *begins to hyperventilate - gropes for meds ...*

There always been a lot of macho posturing going on with tall buildings (mine's bigger than yours! ) and One World Trade Center's only snagged the title because the antenna has been included (the building - I assume intentionally - is the same roof height as the original WTC North Tower, 1368 ft). This is termed "vanity height" and the Chrysler Building is a good example from the 1920s where the spire was secretly constructed and raised at the very last moment to snaffle the record from a rival building that had just claimed the title So if needles count then Canada has held the title of America's tallest building [OK it's not an office block] since 1976 with Toronto's CN Tower, standing firmly erect and proud at 1,815 ft :funny:

He who hesitates is lost - you know what you have to do

Ah yes Addy, numbers are important, they hold strange mystical powers over us It's like cracks in the pavement - you never tread on those do you?

Yes very boring LBO - logic always iszzzzzzzzzzzz

For us Brits who do it the proper way heheh *hides* we get this next month 11/12/13 [11 day of the 12th month of the "13th" year] Then it will never happen again for us in our lifetimes .

Oh my dears, that is just sooo last century Paysage fautif [Faulty Landscape], Marcel Duchamp - 1946 (seminal fluid on Astralon, backed with black satin. Museum of Modern Art, Toyama, Japan) Interesting stuff, rustle But is art about the creative idea? Or is it about the realisation? Or must it be both? And need the creative idea and realisation belong to the same people? And does art cease to be art because of the use of technology? Does it degrade art because it makes the creative effort easier? Or because it makes new things possible that couldn't be done before and those new things are therefore not art? And is art about the creator and the creative effort, or is it about the audience and their response? So, if there's no audience there's no art? If the audience says it's not art then it's not? Music is a good example. Today the score exists on a printed page, but in earlier days it was manuscript. The art isn't in the score - although that can be beautiful - but in its interpretation and realisation by others, the musicians and maybe a conductor. And the sound made by the instruments is a product of technology - a piano key struck by Murray Perahia or a 5 year old at the same velocity will sound exactly the same. So is the art in the composer's mind, the printed score, the technology of instrument mass manufacture, the musicians, the composer, or the audience? Or all of the above And I haven't even started on electronic music production technology and recording And there are many other examples in the visual arts. I don't have the answers, rustle, but I am interested in the questions .

For all child witnesses - under 18 - there is a presumption that they will give their evidence in chief by video recorded interview and any further evidence by live link unless the court is satisfied that this will not improve the quality of the childs evidence. However a child witness may opt out of giving their evidence by either video recorded interview or by live link or both, subject to the agreement of the court. If the child witness opts out then there is a presumption that they will give their evidence in court from behind a screen. Should the child witness not wish to use a screen they may also be allowed to opt out of using it, again subject to the agreement of the court. In deciding whether or not to agree to the wish of the child witness the court must be satisfied that the quality of the childs evidence will not be diminished. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/special_measures/ The Magistrates' Court acts like a filter for the Crown Court to ensure there is a case to answer not to try the case, so there are no witnesses. The charge will relate to a statute which will specify whether the case can be dealt with by Magistrates - less serious - or must be referred to the Crown Court, or sometimes the defendant has an option, so you'll need to research which offence(s) [may be more than one] he/she's being charged with.

Here's some background stuff. In England and Wales [scotland has a different legal system] a serious case like this will be indictable and tried in a Crown Court but will start in the Magistrates' Court which will decide if there is a case to answer [the case will then be committed to the Crown Court for trial by jury if "yes"] and consider any bail application if the defendant is in custody. The defendant says nothing except to confirm his name and address. In Magistrates' courts there are either 3 magistrates [the "bench" - the middle one is the "Chairman"] who are ordinary citizens not legally qualified but who are advised by a legally qualified Justices' Clerk. Or there is a single District judge. There is a Court Usher who introduces each case to the court and names the defendant, and legal counsel for both sides. In a serious case like this there will be a solicitor and barrister for the prosecution and defence. Everyone wears business type clothes except the usher and clerk who wear a black gown. In the Crown Court the barristers wear wigs and black gowns and the judge also wears a wig and red gown and sits facing everyone, with the jury - 12 men and women selected at random - sitting on the left side of the judge. They just listen to the evidence, but they can pass notes to the judge if they have questions and they may be given evidence to look at. The prosecution opens with a statement summarising the case and the defence barrister responds. The trial then begins with prosecution and defence witnesses being called by each side and - after they swear an oath or affirm they will tell the whole truth - examined/cross-examined. A case like this might take a few days because the day is quite short - trials usually run from 10.00 - 4.00, with lunch and various breaks plus time wasted on procedural and legal queries. At the end both sides sum up their case, the judge gives an overall summary and direction to the jury who are then taken by the Court Usher to a closed jury room to discuss after the Usher has locked the door. It's just like any bland business meeting room with tea/coffee, food etc. They will agree a verdict of guilty - at least 10 must agree the evidence is "beyond reasonable doubt" - or they must find not guilty. When they've reached a decision, they call the Usher to notify the judge to call everyone back in to court where the jury foreman, when asked, says "guilty" or "not guilty". If guilty the defence barrister will make a plea in mitigation and then the judge will give an indication whether a prison sentence is likely, then the defendant will be remanded in custody for sentencing or released if the judge agrees. The judge usually has a day or so to review the trial and any mitigation evidence before another hearing for sentencing. Rumpole's fun but not realistic - Kavanagh QC is better - but the best research is to go along and sit in the court public gallery to see first hand what goes on and understand the process. But you won't be able to see a child case because things are different - the court is "closed" to press and visitors, young children will appear by video link and no-one wears wigs.

How did I miss that?! *gives self a smack!* And in just 3 days time ... Prof Brian Cox BBC2 9.00pm "The Science of Doctor Who" on time travel "with experiments"