11 yr/old drag kid worshiped within LGBTQ community (Mod warning op)

DS86DS

sk8erboii wrote: »

Youre right. Catholicism is a degenerate philosophy and belongs exactly where it is - in the past.

Glad we agree

You sound like Mao and his cultural revolutionaries.

sk8erboii

DS86DS wrote: »

You sound like Mao and his cultural revolutionaries.

You got me. Im working for Soros

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The least you could have done is presented what I said in context -





The point I was making is just who decides who is or isn’t an unfit parent? According to some posters here, it should be them who decides who is or isn’t an unfit parent, and have the State do their dirty work of removing the children from their parents, with no apparent regard for whether or not it is actually in the best interests of the child to remove them from their parents, let alone where to actually place the child.

What?
This is just ridiculous. The State decide who is a fit of unfit parent, & the State decide whether or not a child is better off away from the unfit parent.

The Bishop Basher

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If that’s what you think I’m arguing Rennaws, you’ve taken me up completely wrong then. I’ve stressed throughout this thread on numerous occasions now that I don’t agree with the parents behaviour in this instance, and it should be obvious from that statement that of course I would never encourage such behaviour.

I’m not just thinking about this child in particular though as there is literally sweet fcuk all influence I or anyone else here has in that particular situation. None. What I’m more concerned about is the welfare of children in this country, in our local communities, where we absolutely do have the power to influence and effect change where we see it as necessary and we don’t like what we’re seeing. On the internet though? I’m just not going to get worked up about this particular circumstance. There are far more blatant examples of the abuse of children in our own country that I’d rather devote resources to than wasting time, energy and resources on arguing the case of this particular child and whether or not the parents are guilty of child abuse.

The fact is that even in this country they wouldn’t be found guilty of child abuse, they’d be as likely to be celebrated and encouraged as they are on the far side of the pond, because in this country at least, we’re not all that different when we’re importing our cultural and social ideals from the US through the medium of the Internet, social media, the media and so on. It’s up to parents as individuals what they do or don’t want their children exposed to, and that’s why I fundamentally object to any measures in legislation which would remove that authority from the parents when it is their duty under the Irish Constitution to be the moral guardians of their children, not some faceless mob on the Internet, and I would rather the State wasn’t involved at all, because for all the bleating about removing children from their parents, nobody yet has addressed the point of where to put all the children first of all, and second of all whether or not removing the children from their parents is actually acting in the best interests of the child, or is it that those posters don’t agree with the parents ideological persuasions? It certainly seems to me to be more of the latter than the former, and that for me at least is a very short sighted approach that hasn’t worked out well for Irish society in the past, so why would anyone think it’s a good idea to repeat the same mistake twice? That just doesn’t make any sense!

Taking children from their parents, or removing parents authority over their own children, would be undoubtedly be enabling and facilitating child abuse, we already have people defining child abuse as parents who make a whole plethora of alternative choices for their children. Everything is now “child abuse” if it’s something a person doesn’t agree with. If you aren’t raising your children as the opposite sex when they say they’re the opposite sex - child abuse, the State has the authority to remove your child from your care and place them in a home where their ideas will be entertained, encouraged and facilitated. That’s exactly why as much as I disagree with what the parents in this particular case are doing, it’s only a matter of time before it happens here.

Instead of tackling actual child molesters and paedophiles, we’re focusing on suggesting that the parents are tempting child molesters and paedophiles by allowing their child to do what some children are gonna do. Instead of saying that it’s the child molesters and paedophiles who are in the wrong, who are absolutely and totally to blame if they choose to interfere with a child, some posters here appear to be more focused on condemning the parents in this particular case. I would suggest that the responsibility for any child being harmed should lay solely where it belongs - with the person who chooses to harm a child. What appears to be happening here is a distraction from the actual issue which most people really object to - the existence of paedophiles and child molesters in society. The child performing in in a club and hanging out with a bassets all sorts boatload of weirdos isn’t really the issue, they’ll grow out of it. The real issue is the number of paedophiles and child molesters in society who abuse and molest dozens and hundreds of children over the course of their lifetimes and are never caught for it, because some people are so focused on pointing out that their parents are idiots.

Stop digging Jack..

The Bishop Basher

givyjoe wrote: »

Nothing wrong with me pal, and you'll do well not to imply there is. Perhaps read my posts more carefully instead of getting hysterical like your mates here.

Maybe you could take your own advice and calm down yourself there. My post wasn’t directed at you so there’s no need to be getting your knickers in a twist over it..

One eyed Jack

bubblypop wrote: »

What?
This is just ridiculous. The State decide who is a fit of unfit parent, & the State decide whether or not a child is better off away from the unfit parent.

What do you mean the State decide who is a fit or unfit parent, or that the State decide whether or not a child is better off away from an unfit parent? Because the State doesn’t decide either of those things in any case. It’s entirely a decision for the Courts in all cases, and that comes after numerous agencies and organisations have given their input as to whether or not it is in the best interests of the child or children that they either be removed from their parents, or whether it is in their best interests that they remain with the parents in each and every individual case.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

With all due respect jack, there’s nothing but scour coming out of your keyboard.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What do you mean the State decide who is a fit or unfit parent, or that the State decide whether or not a child is better off away from an unfit parent? Because the State doesn’t decide either of those things in any case. It’s entirely a decision for the Courts in all cases, and that comes after numerous agencies and organisations have given their input as to whether or not it is in the best interests of the child or children that they either be removed from their parents, or whether it is in their best interests that they remain with the parents in each and every individual case.

The courts, & the State agencies of which you speak are, by shorthand, "the State '
But, of course, you actually know that.

One eyed Jack

Vaughn Old-fashioned Superpower wrote: »

With all due respect jack, there’s nothing but scour coming out of your keyboard.

I’ll leave this here so -


Appeal court asked to stop adoption of child removed to England

The Court of Appeal has been asked to grant an injunction preventing an English county council from proceeding with the adoption of a baby who was removed from Ireland without the parents having been given the opportunity to object.

It follows strong criticism earlier this month by the appeal court of the conduct of both Irish and English social workers involved in the removal of the baby and two siblings last September following legal proceedings taken here by the English council with the co-operation of the Child and Family Agency (CFA).

Mr Justice Gerard Hogan, on behalf of the Court of Appeal, said Irish social workers must "stop immediately" the practice of acting in conjunction with their UK counterparts in seeking the return to Britain of children at the centre of care proceedings without the parents' knowledge of that application.
If it does not stop, social workers could face contempt of court proceedings, he said.

It was a practice which had grown up in recent times whereby UK social workers travel to Ireland for to arrange the return of children by applying to the courts here without notice to the parents "thus depriving them of any opportunity" to challenge the proceedings, he said.

The judge said it was difficult "to avoid the impression that the child care system provided for under the Child Care Act 1991 is being circumvented for this purpose". The practice of removing children without serving notice of the court proceedings on the parents is "a wholly unlawful one".

This is in 2018 btw, not 1918.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

The parents rights should never trump the child’s safety or needs. You don’t get to be a substandard parent and then be incredulous when you’re deemed unfit. At that stage, the state owes you sh1t. It’s duty of care should be towards the child.

One eyed Jack

bubblypop wrote: »

The courts, & the State agencies of which you speak are, by shorthand, "the State '
But, of course, you actually know that.

No, I don’t know that, which is exactly why I asked what you meant, because they certainly aren’t “the State”.

One eyed Jack

Vaughn Old-fashioned Superpower wrote: »

The parents rights should never trump the child’s safety or needs. You don’t get to be a substandard parent and then be incredulous when you’re deemed unfit. At that stage, the state owes you sh1t. It’s duty of care should be towards the child.

I didn’t say that the parents rights should always trump the child’s safety or needs. Who decides who’s a substandard parent? The State has an obligation to acknowledge the parents rights under the Irish Constitution, and I never said that the State doesn’t have a duty of care towards all children. Be nice if the State actually acknowledged that obligation at some stage though as opposed to it being the wishful thinking of a handful of posters here.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn’t say that the parents rights should always trump the child’s safety or needs. Who decides who’s a substandard parent? The State has an obligation to acknowledge the parents rights under the Irish Constitution, and I never said that the State doesn’t have a duty of care towards all children. Be nice if the State actually acknowledged that obligation at some stage though as opposed to it being the wishful thinking of a handful of posters here.

I thought you said you were in social care?!
A substandard parent is someone who is unable or unwilling to meet the needs of the child. That would include keeping him safe and not pimping him out, FYI

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I don’t know that, which is exactly why I asked what you meant, because they certainly aren’t “the State”.

Who do you think 'the State ' are exactly?
If you don't include the courts, & other government agencies, who exactly is the state?

One eyed Jack

Vaughn Old-fashioned Superpower wrote: »

I thought you said you were in social care?!
A substandard parent is someone who is unable or unwilling to meet the needs of the child. That would include keeping him safe and not pimping him out, FYI

I did say I worked in social care. I’m not sure how that answers the question I asked though. It was never solely my decision as to whether or not a child or children’s legal guardian or guardians, and in some cases people who were not their legal guardians but were the children’s parents, were able to meet the needs of the child or children in their care. I don’t agree that the parents in this particular case actually are pimping out their child, but I have no doubt there would be someone at least involved in the decision making process who would see this case the way you do. They still wouldn’t be able to act of their own volition to remove the child or children from their parents. It would as I said be a matter for the Courts to decide what is in the best interests of the child or children involved.

One eyed Jack

bubblypop wrote: »

Who do you think 'the State ' are exactly?
If you don't include the courts, & other government agencies, who exactly is the state?

The State is the people of Ireland, and that’s why I was confused by your post, because the people of Ireland would obviously include the posters in this thread. The judicial system is independent of the State and government agencies are representatives of the State, and the organisations and charities involved in social care are funded primarily by the HSE who outsources the work to them, and they’re not representatives or agents of the State.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

So you know when the dpp take a case to prosecution it’s repre is a solicitor for the state?

Plumbthedepths

Haven't been here in a while, people still defending nonce behaviour I see.

0cp71eyxkb94qf

I never thought that a thread about a child shaking his/her/insert pronoun here bootay for a bunch of ill-reputed gentlepronouns would turn into a debate about state bodies.

One eyed Jack

Vaughn Old-fashioned Superpower wrote: »

So you know when the dpp take a case to prosecution it’s repre is a solicitor for the state?

I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking, but if it’s of any help -

The office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was established by the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1974. The Act provided for the transfer to the Director of all functions previously performed by the Attorney General in relation to criminal matters and election and referendum petitions. The Director is independent in the performance of her functions.
She enforces the criminal law in the courts on behalf of the People of Ireland; directs and supervises public prosecutions on indictment in the courts; and gives general direction and advice to the Garda Síochána in relation to summary cases and specific direction in such cases where requested. The Chief Prosecution Solicitor provides a solicitor service, within the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, to act on behalf of the Director.

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Yes, “enforces the law on behalf of the people of Ireland”, aka the state, which is represented by numerous different organizations with the welfare of the citizens first and foremost

One eyed Jack

Vaughn Old-fashioned Superpower wrote: »

Yes, “enforces the law on behalf of the people of Ireland”, aka the state, which is represented by numerous different organizations with the welfare of the citizens first and foremost

Well, that’s the theory anyway :pac:

Zorya

The blind compulsion to support ''diversity'' is throwing up ever-increasing problems when it comes to the protection of children. Note that two members of the Green Party national executive knew the story of what David Challenor did.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/green-high-flyer-hid-father-s-rape-charges-kdhrfhll3

Edit - sorry if the article is not visible, I have a free account. I will quote...

A paedophile rapist posed a “major safeguarding risk” to young Green Party members for almost two years because one of the party’s rising stars did not clearly tell colleagues that the man had been charged with serious sex crimes.

An independent investigation has found that Aimee Challenor, a transgender activist and candidate for the Greens’ deputy leadership, committed a “serious error of judgment” by appointing her father, David, as her agent at two elections even as he faced trial for kidnapping, raping and torturing a 10-year-old girl.

The inquiry, by the investigations consultancy Verita, criticised the Greens for treating the matter “primarily as a communications one” and “failing to see the safeguarding issues that arise”. The party’s “support for diversity” did not remove the need for someone like Aimee Challenor to have proper “training and support” in a leadership role, the investigators said.

A 17-page summary of the report was quietly published last week. However, the full 80-page report, seen by The Sunday Times, is more critical. It says Challenor, the Greens’ equality spokeswoman, had been guilty of a “serious omission” by not telling her local party and most national officials about her father’s charges.

Challenor blamed her autism for not doing so and told the inquiry: “At the end of the day you can’t go about telling every Tom, Dick and Harry.” The investigators said they found it “hard to understand some of Aimee’s actions and explanations”.

The omission allowed David Challenor to run his daughter’s office and mix with young activists and members’ children at events that included a picnic only weeks before his trial.

A jury at Warwick crown court convicted Challenor of holding his victim captive in the attic of the family home. He was jailed for 22 years for the series of offences.

Investigators found Aimee Challenor’s only attempt to alert the party was a “brief, informal and ambiguous” 2016 Facebook message to two other members of the national executive, Matt Hawkins and Clare Phipps.

Neither Phipps, a fellow gender activist, nor Hawkins passed the information to anyone else. The inquiry said that “their first instinct was to protect Aimee”.

The Green Party said: “We apologise unreservedly for any concerns that this will have caused and any safeguarding risks it may have given rise to.”

Zorya

Newcastle drag queens got together to make a 2019 calendar with all proceeds going to Mermaids UK the charity that supports transgender children.

February...


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DwwAXsAWkAERCmG.jpg

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6577301/Drag-queens-pose-glamorous-calendar.html

People in general would want to wise up.

splashuum

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6585395/Britains-transgender-family-dad-born-female-little-girl-began-life-boy.html

Both child’s parents have switched genders. The 5 year old child now is now switching genders. The parents say they did not encourage the 5 year old.

Nuts.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Wtf how is this not child abuse

Omackeral

splashuum wrote: »

Both child’s parents have switched genders. The 5 year old child now is now switching genders. The parents say they did not encourage the 5 year old.

Nuts.

That should read "so-called" parents. Sick bastards.

One eyed Jack

Vaughn Old-fashioned Superpower wrote: »

Wtf how is this not child abuse

I don’t know how you’re surprised by this? I know this is a case in England and all, but social workers who are involved with the family the only thing they warned the parents about is that they may want to move because of prejudice. They’re not moving however because most of their neighbours are supportive and see no issue with the parents or appear to have any concerns about the children’s safety or welfare -

North Lanarkshire Council social workers are understood to be monitoring the situation – but have so far been happy for Jayden to remain with her family.

Greg said: ‘Social workers can see that Jayden is well looked after and have no concerns other than to suggest we consider moving home because of prejudice from some people in the area.

‘Some parents have even told their daughters not to play with Jayden because she’s really a boy. But we’re refusing to move as the vast majority of our community have no issues with us and are supportive.

I really think you ought to read up on the Gender Recognition Act before you start supporting the idea that the State is always acting in the best interests of children and should have the authority and the ability to step in when parents are deemed to be failing in their responsibilities and duties towards their children, and just who gets to determine that.

If you consider this child abuse, and if you were in the position where if you had a child and they wanted to transition, by your own standards, you would have no power to prevent the agents of the State such as the Gardaí and organisations which claim to represent children and children’s welfare from acting in what they believe would be in the best interests of your child -

(5) The court may make an order dispensing with the requirement of the consent of a person referred to in subsection (4)(a) to the making of an order under this section where satisfied that the consent cannot be obtained because the person cannot be identified or found or is failing or neglecting to respond to a request for consent or should not be obtained because the nature of the relationship between the child concerned and the person shows that it would not be in the interest of the safety or welfare of the child to contact the person.

The Talking Bread

Are people seriously entertaining and biting on Jacks clearly fake schtick! He is loving being the centre of attention and there isn't a doubt in my mind he doesn't believe 99% of what he is saying.

Fair play to him though, he has put a bit of effort in to keep the "villain" and/or "opposition" role going! As wasteful of his time and weird as it is to be playing this game, he certainly is good at it!

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Listen, I have no problem with grown adults changing their gender around, none of my business. But nobody has any right to **** with a child’s body at 5 years old. Why is “gender” such a big thing to a five year old? Let the child be themselves. Let them play with whatever they want to play with, let them be who they want to be. I find it very hard myself to believe a 5 year old boy is down about having a penis instead of a vagina, or doesn’t have breasts.
This is the parents projecting onto the child, and it’s disgusting. If the child decides as an older teen or an adult that they were born the wrong gender then that’s their own business. And it certainly doesn’t need announcing to the world