The worst sound in the world...
what is it? Tonight we'll talk to a chap who's been searching for it. He's compiled a list .
After the programme, we'll look for the loveliest sound.
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
PM The evening news and current affairs programme presented by Eddie Mair.
iPM The programme that starts with its listeners. Join the discussions online and contribute ideas for a weekly programme presented by Eddie Mair and Jennifer Tracey.
The PM Privacy Commission
Read the final report of the PM Privacy Commission.
- Full Audio and Transcripts
- Hugh Tomlinson QC
- Zac Goldsmith MP
- Max Mosley
- Stephen Abell
- Hugh Grant
- Sir Charles Gray
- Alan Rusbridger
- Helen Wood
- Max Clifford
- Marcus Partington
- John Kampfner
- Christopher Graham
- Louise Mensch
- Andy Trotter
- John Mullin
- Avril Sanders Royle
- Jimmy Wales
Meet the commissioners, view the terms of reference and hear the Commission Chair Sir Michael Lyons explain his approach.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
Ah Eddie, DURING the programme we'll hear the loveliest sound.
Well, I thought the sound of his voice was rather like mine 40 years ago, before I picked up the funny accents and other bad speaking practices.
Can I get the ball rolling on the gay adoption issue?
The church and it's supporters like to claim that it's a "matter of conscience", and therefore they should be exempt.
This is obviously a facile argument. I could claim that my religion demands that I travel at 100mph down the motorway, but I doubt any exemption would be forthcoming.
Imagine a religion which thought that black people shouldn't be allowed to adopt children. Would we support its right to be exempt from anti-discrimination law?
Our society has decided that it's OK to be gay, and that gay people have the same rights before the law. The fact that the churches are lagging a hundred years behind is their problem, not ours. I accept that religious people can harbour whatever bigoted views they like in private, but they shouldn't be allowed to apply those views as public policy.
Is it the theme tune to quote, unquote?
Oh dear. Now I know I'm abnormal. (This will only confirm my family's view!)
Have just done the sound test thingy above and I seem to score completely the opposite to everyone else.... Most of the machinery noises I don't find too bad, but any of the human ones, well yuck!
Have never been able to bear eating noises (they always seem to make them so loud on radio plays etc) and have to find an excuse to leave the room when clients come in chewing gum noisily (slap slap slap - awful!!)
As for the loveliest noise, can I nominate curlews calling or the scrunch of feet on gravel? (but not the scrunch of curlews' feet, I don't think they'd be heavy enough....)
Eddie: When you find it, perhaps you'll post it up for us.
BTW, the snow has now vanished from Sussex. I promise to send more pictures when it returns (tee hee! :o) I know how much you loved them, really). And I'll send you a picture of my dog. Just for good measure.
Neal - if you promise to be mostly good, you can join my religion in the previous frog about Davros. It's tax free!
The worst noise has to be someone sniffing - yuk!! The loveliest noise is the sea gently slapping against the hull of our boat at a quiet and peaceful anchorage.
I couldn't finish the test...had teenage daughter screaming at me,''MOM WHA' ARE YA DOIN'? yOU AVE A GO A' US WHEN WE'RE ONLY PLAYING MUSIC!'' There you are then....the worst sound in the world....the screaming of teenage daughters.
Well, I had a listen and one of the most irritating sounds was the voice of the guy instructing one to switch the speakers on and set the volume at the beginning. Sort of wide-boy/call-centre accent. Very annoying.
GM - strange to say, I found the same when I tried out the sounds. It was the human ones which were most annoying. Especially the raised voices/argumentative sounds. And noisy eating, slurping, etc., etc., rate very high for me, too.
What does this say about us, I wonder?
The sounds survey is very clever but too clunky. I've only managed three sounds, none of them particularly bad, but I haven't the patience to listen to any more.
And anyway................... why???
Neal: I completely agree that religious groups should not be allowed to be exempt from the laws of the land, and that is more or less where it begins and ends for me.
I am going to annoy many people here, but I dislike the stranglehold that religion has on everyday life, and I particularly dislike the way that it tries to change public policy to suit personal beliefs. Religion for me should be solely about the way that the person lives their own life, not a judgement about other people.
I also think that this could set a dangerous precedent. If a religious group is allowed exemption from this law, could this be used as a precedent for other laws? Could violent extremist groups register themselves as religions and avoid that pesky "murder is illegal" rule for example? It sounds ridiculous but a good lawyer could make a case of it.
Eddie,
The worst sound in the world? Easy - my wife's three Jack Russells going off like a string of firecrackers when someone comes to the door. Second worst? Me shouting (barking) at them to "SHUT THE F--- UP!"
Poor visitors.
xx
ed
Yep snow's gone from Surrey as well. Big Sister you just want another telling off from Eddie don't you! :0)
I have got about half way through the sound thing so far. Half to admit I really hate the sound of someone coughing very loudly - particularly in a restaurant or somewhere. Will be interested to hear what the most annoying sound turns out to be.
As for my vote for loveliest sound, that would the sound of your voice Eddie, aah........!
On gay adoption.
I struggle to see why the state subsidises Catholic adoption services when (a) it is one of the richest religions and (b) it is their (imvho) idiotic stance towards contraception which causes many unwanted pregnancies.
I presume they make much of their "service" to the faithful and rather less of dipping into the public purse.
A local, Catholic school refused to allow their children to do anything (even acknowledge) Red Nose Day because some money goes towards contraception projects in Africa...
How very charitable and Christian.
That screechy violin noise at the top of the programme certainly belongs on my list
The most annoying sound in the world can be heard at 5pm on a Sunday on Radio 4 - no PM.
The worst sound for me is the sound of football on the radio which I refer to as 'the wasps' , as my partner forces me to listen to it at home and in the car, it seems all the time, I think of it as the sound track of my life.
I think that the worst sound is a politician NOT answering a simple question, and thinking it is okay. That ALWAYS gets me going!
My bloody neighbours - but I think you covered that when you played the "argument in a soap opera".
My bloody neighbours - but I think you covered that when you played the "argument in a soap opera".
The worst noise I know is actors in soap operas opening paper envelopes - eeeeeeeeeeeeek!
The fastest I have ever got out of bed, (and this action seemed to be all in one continuous instant movement from a very deep sleep horizontal in the bed to being fully awake and vertical 3 metres away without touching anything solid like the floor in between) - was when I was staying over at friends', and their cat started vomitting by the door of my room, wanting to be let out.
Alarm clock manufactuers should note...
Sniffing?
SNIFFING?!?!?
It's a LITTLE bad but not as bad as the nails down the blackboard. However, no way has my dislike to do with monkeys. I don't go into flight or fight mode, i clench my fingernails, because it reminds me of the act of scraping. Even just thinking about it makes me think of the ACT, of the possibility of my nails scraping accidentally like that - and how that makes me feel, nauseous, because it reminds me of bending fingernails, pulling fingernails, loosing fingernails... ugh. It's TORTURE. Ouch. OUCH. Sniffing... Seriously Diane, sniffing is just... well, a bit unpleasant.
I know this is very subjective ;-)
Nasty noises
It definitely is a 'manners/culture' thing. Here in Laos there's nothing wrong with a loud hawking spit/cough/bring everything up in full public hearing - in fact that is the all around sound of the morning here, contending with a special breed of cockerels who have no sense of timing and crow all night. Burping is fine here too.
Trying to explain the cultural differences about manners, especially re. spitting to a 4 year-old during the annual pigrimage to the Auld Country is a challenge.
My worst noises
1. Constant Sniffing (both types)
a... Containment of post nasal drip
b.... The enormous "SSLLLUUURPH" which involves the entire olfactory system plus some of the back of the throat.
2. Person or persons using nail clippers in an enclosed area (tube train or pub etc)
3. A great deal of "dance" music
I also concur with Eastenders shouty stuff
Eddy.. I just love your delivery, especially when you referred to Fi Glover as "Pudding" some time ago!!
I'd include the sound of anyone defending Big Brother (either the Celeb or the "Civilian" version) on the grounds that it's either:
a) Entertaining
b) Shows real life
c) is a valid sociological experiment
d) all or none of the above
Worst sound? I don't know. me? certainly early in the morning.
This sexual-orientation discrimination debate...
Are they saying that if I turn up at a hotel with a goat (or any other animal that takes my fancy) then the owners would be breaking this law if they refuse to put us up in a double room for the night because of my sexual preference?
What's that all about?
The US is in the early stages of an enormous escalation in the World-threatening humanitarian and political crisis that is now Iraq, the Commons gets a rare debate on the situation; the country still does not know where our Government stands on this latest development and half way down the programme, PM does a piece on nasty noises.
I know one: how about the screams filling a crowded Baghdad street sixty seconds after another suicide bomber has blown himself to pieces?
The world's worst sound would be the thumping of someone's stereo blaring loud rock music in the middle of the night when you are trying to sleep or during the day when you are trying to read, talk, or watch television...if...you don't have the sound of a nagging wife harassing you every moment of your waking life. That's even worse. Either have been known to drive people to murder. Mercifully, I have neither in my life.
Big Sis (11) I dread to think! My real Bis Sis calls me several things......
Today's show about the gay adoption vs catholic church debate:
I was appalled by what I heard from the Church representative. Not only for his ignorant and ill-informed views, but for the belief that anecdotes can be statistically significant. No they can't. That's why it is anecdotal.
His assertion that children of gay parents 'fare worse' in life than for those of married people was also laughable: First of all, his only parameter for 'faring worse' was whether the children themselves were gay - which, as far as any standard is concerned, is completely unrelated to welfare.
Secondly, as I understood it, he offered up that a quarter of children with homosexual parents, and NO children from heterosexual parents were gay. Come on. If no children with heterosexual parents were gay, then we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.
I don't know whether the panel was 'weighed' in favour of the gay anglican minister, because his 'opponent' was simply pathetic on many levels.
But, just to go onto a slightly different topic, you know which 'defence' of homosexuals really makes me feel disappointed? The "homosexuals are born gay" statement. It probably is very true but I just find it sad that people cannot accept human sexuality as a fluid and changeable thing. I couldn't care less whether homosexuality is genetic or environmental - someone else's sex life is still none of my business, it doesn't alter their worth as a person and it doesn't make anyone less likely to love and support a child correctly than a heterosexual person.
I'll step down from my soap-box now.
GMx, yet again we agree - I debated over curlews or skylarks, but ended up with curlews because they are usually near water... actually thinking of them calms me down.
Can't post this where it ought to be as that's broke.
Well really. I post the Quote Unquote line, and Eric uses someone else's name for it. That's religious discrimination!
Fostering/Adoption. Who in their right mind would hand over a small boy to one homosexual let alone a "couple?" At least the RC church has(belatedly) recognised the dreadful harm done to alter boys buggered by Catholic priests. I cannot for the life of me understand why this government wants to put children in harms way. Is there a consipiracy underway to legalise the buggery of adopted/fostered male children?
Worst sound in the world?
You are ALL wrong.
Having received a set for Christmas I can categorically state that the worst sound in the world is me learning to play the bagpipes.
I'm having great fun playing them but I can't say the same for all the family and neighbours within a mile radius of home in Swanage
Belinda (13 and 34) I am with you on this one, on all counts. As was said during the prog (it was a dreaded trailer....oh I know, for The Moral Maze) should we accept polygamy because it's part of a religious belief? As far as I'm concerned, no-one in this country should expect to be above or beyond the law
Rod (35) Homosexuality and paedophilia are two separate issues entirely and bare absolutely no relationship to each other. Paedophilia is rape, plain and simple. Homosexuality isn't.
Plus, I don't really think that the RC church can throw any stones in the direction of homosexuals when it comes to the rape of young boys, as you stated yourself.
Rod I look forward to your total ban on adoption or fostering, then.
By your argument, no heterosexual couple could adopt a boy (in case the mother-to-be forced herself on him) or a girl (in case the father-to-be forced himself on her). After all being heterosexual must mean that you will attempt to have sex with anyone of the opposite sex, mustn't it?
The vast majority of gay men are no more attracted to young boys than the vast majority of heterosexual men are attracted to young girls. But gay men are capable of bringing up children in a loving way just like a heterosexual family can.
Sniffy (25),
I totally, wholeheartedly agree with you about the reasons for nails down a blackboard sounding awful: in fact, I felt queasy reading your post and had to comfort my fingers for a good few minutes afterwards. However, the sound of sniffing is more prevalent, highly ill-mannered and much, much worse.
Yours equally subjectively,
A, x.
Gosh, Rod's comment wasn't there when I posted a little while ago. If it had been I would've expressed my horror. Then again, on reflection, it's probably better to ignore bigotry.
Worst sound in the world? It's being trapped in a small room with Rod Stoneman isn't it?
I think Rod has put the case for ignoring the catholics and their horrid bigotry far better than I ever could.
For what it's worth, I would feel much better handing my child over for adoption by a gay or lesbian couple than by Roman Catholics. I know plenty of gay couples, plenty of lesbians, and plenty of Roman Catholics, too. No contest!
I hoped going to Italy as an au pair would finally stop my daughter (aged 18) eating with her mouth open (definitely one of my last favourite sounds). Her first email home wrecked my hopes - "Mum, it's fantastic. Everywhere you go here - their table manners are worse than mine. I love it." She's home now. She still eats with her mouth open. I still leave the room in disgust.
Years ago I worked p/t for a charity which gave 11th hour help to those we believed wrongly accused who were fighting (mainly social services) to keep their children and also giving help to children in care who were being abused in one way or another. By far the biggest number of child abusers were married (to women) men. Gays are no more likely to abuse boys than anyone else - possibly less, possibly because they've actually had to come to terms with their sexuality.
I think it is Christian (or Catholic) to accept everyone exactly as they are, there are too many children in need of a home & anyone trying to escape the laws on discrimination which protect Christians would get short shrift.
I thought was interesting; "This legislation is an opportunity to demonstrate grace, inclusiveness and love.
Christians are called to follow Jesus’ example, and he says remarkably little about sexuality in scripture. Rather, he treats all people he comes across with love and acceptance, and does not refuse his service to anyone, even if he does not agree with their lifestyle.
Would it really be ‘Christian’ to refuse bereavement counselling to a gay man, or to exclude a gay person and their child from a parent-and-toddler group?
We believe that Christian community organisations, and those of other faiths, can maintain their distinctive faith identities while still serving the needs of their whole communities. We do not interpret the new Sexual Orientation Regulations as a threat to that.
I am tired of saying no-one should be throwing stones, tired of hearing bigotry paraded as faith, but some people have a louder voice than others in the media, as in many other facets of life.
This is an interesting discussion. Rod, really put the cat amongst the pigeons. Or perhaps I mean the kitten, and they were kitten-abusing pigeons, after all.
Others make the pertinent arguments better than I, but it does highlight the way these issues are handled in the news. At no point does the obvious point that adoption agencies don't just hand out babies and children on a first come first served basis get a mention. The large number of children requiring adoption exists side-by-side a large number of families wanting to adopt them - but only those that make the grade get the children. What this really means is that the easiest route to an "abusable child on tap" for intending paedophiles is to have a child with a member of the opposite sex and establish parent rights. The "selection tests" for this, as I understand it, are far less rigorous.
The right, then, that the RC agencies are demanding is this: "if a couple who meet all our criteria for providing a good family home come to us, we want to be able to deny them on the basis of (homo)sexuality".
I actually recognise that this might be more challenging that it at first appears. The legal challenge in Scotland illustrates. Should prisoners be allowed the right to vote? I carry in my head an introduction to semantic categories where, I think, it was an example of Wittgenstein's that "Lords, prisoners and insane people" formed a particular category - "those who didn't have a vote". I find the idea that locked up prisoners should be allowed to vote quite shocking - and yet...
Somebody made the point that the RC church was a hundred years behind the popular view. Hm, well, more like about 20-30 (possibly a little more, possibly a little less) when it comes to gay rights. The prisoner vote argument gives me, at least, the chance to get my head around something "a day old". It's an interesting process, I can tell you. What do I think?
Joe W. (31);
If you want only hard news reporting tune into Radio 4 after PM at 18:00. Or News24 on digital TV.
PM is a 'magazine' programme. It covers the main topics of the day in depth and with penetrating journalism, alongside a more eclectic selection of items which might not even (strictly speaking) be news at all.
It has all the things one might expect to find in a magazine. Except a horoscope. And adverts for 'The Big Slipper', financial products for the elderly and sit-baths. And boring editorial columns. It even has pictorial content in colour (see Window on your world pages). And they're probably working on that horoscope thing as I type.
Sounds like you failed to grasp the concept of the programme. Pop over to the Beach and chill out.
Si.
I've thought about it, and now consider my response to Rod Stoneman too balanced and restrained. Here's what I meant to say, tempered only by my regard for the frogerator.
Rod Stoneman. You are an idiot.
John H (50, but you are more than a number and are prone to change): There is an even easier way for a predatory male to gain the company of children - find a single parent and establish a relationship with them. No vetting procedure at all and, unless the children are already at risk or you are "known" to the authorities in your area, no likely intervention from outside. We drum "stranger danger" into children but most abuse has been shown to occur from close family relatives and friends.
As a step-father the worry of how others would see me undoubtedly shaped the relationship I have with my now teenage step-daughter. I first knew her aged 7 and consciously ensured there was always physical distance between us - as a result there is emotional distance as well. The contrast with my relationship with my biological daughter is something that pains me and is probably the largest regret of my life.
I wanted to say something about Catholicism. This thread has wandered into generic hostility towards that faith. Remember it is a personal choice of people to follow a particular faith, often made following generations of family tradition, sometimes with no deliberate, conscious choice being made. Like all religions there are aspects of it that are open to criticism - but dislike for aspects is poor grounds for a generic "writing off" of a group of people.
Compare it with Israel - I dislike the Israeli stance over their region. But I have no ill feelings towards Israel itself, its people or Judaism. But ciriticism of such policies are often described as anti-Semitic because of the way the criticisms widen.
Catholics will undoubtedly feel threatened by the hostility towards one of their main religious stances. I can see this turning into a mild "holy war" if those of us who disagree with this stance are not careful to keep our criticisms on target and related to the issue at hand.
I dislike the Catholic Church's stance on this issue, but I accept their right to have a stance. That does not mean that they should then get carte blanche to ignore an important change in the law - just that it should be aired, considered, handled as appropriate.
I am concerned that the integrity of our country will come into further disrepute if we allow one group to bypass this law in the same way we have allowed another group to bypass our laws on corrupt business practices.
Simon (51):
PM horoscopes...
Leo: Expect to move to a new house sometime this summer. Family members will come under close scrutiny, and one older relative may find a new job. Unlucky colour: Brown.
Back on track with sounds...
For me the worst sound is when I walk into a room filled with teachers and three of them, in close harmony, all say "Ah, Jason - just the man". It brings on a cold sweat, dry throat and weak knees.
Actually, the throat was probably already dry because, as mentioned before, no one ever offers me a brew at any school ever.
Does anyone question that the RC church is subsidised by the state in this respect?
When the state has well-organised and competent adoption bodies, paid for out of general taxation, why on earth is it also doling taxpayers money out to a religious (or any other) body to do the same job in parallel?
Let other bodies, with proven competence, also take part in this kind of thing. No problem with that at all. But pay them to do it? No way. And no subsidies for any other adoption body either.
How much public money is handed over to organisations which simply replicate the functions of the state? There should not be a problem with any organisation getting involved in whichever field they desire. Adoption, drug rehab, social welfare, the whole gamut. But they should not receive a penny of state money for doing so. Otherwise they become merely a delivery mechanism for Government policy. Worse still they become dependent on state aid for their very existence. And withdrawal of that aid will cause them to cease functioning.
That's exactly what's being threatened here. The RC adoption agencies (why more than one?) receive state aid to perform their function. Because of that aid they are compelled to toe the line on these new discrimination rules.
They can still continue to operate, and discriminate if they wish, but that will result in their state aid being withdrawn. So they've had a hissy fit and tried to blackmail the Gov't into prolonging the injection of state aid into the RC church.
So take the aid away. From April 6th (new financial year) no more state aid into any sector. Let every single organisation stand on their own two feet. No exemptions. No special cases. No pet projects. And they can put their own money into their principles, not mine. That should cut the tax bill, without damaging Gov't investment.
Si.
Worst sound in the world? It's being trapped in a small room with Rod Stoneman isn't it?
Followed closely by the loud screeching sounds I made after reading Rod's post which were bad enough for the dog to run under the table. It even caused Kidney Stone Kid to get up and see what was happening.
Part of my original post about the article was going to say that at least the Church Rep wasn't ignorant enough to equate homosexuality with paedophilia in his dreadful defence, but deleted it as it was a side-issue. Then Rod went and proved why I will never allow a strongly religious group to be involved in the welfare of my pot-plant, never mind a child.
SSC (54);
And I'm a Leo! (August 3rd)
Damn! Kicks handily-placed galvanised metal bucket over in frustration.
Si.
Simon (56 ish): I fully agree - see my (16) above. You've put forward a perfect solution - I wonder how we get it put to the cabinet?
It does worry me that two prominent cabinet people (one the PM) are so partial over this question. I know it is hopelessly idealistic to expect altruism and neutrality, but to have the opposite is worrying.
Howver if the exemption does get quashed it will go some way towards restoring some of my faith in cabinet government...at least in the tail end "lame duck" phase of a premiership.
Belinda! A pot plant? Harvesting drugs is a crime.
Jason, re:
As a step-father the worry of how others would see me undoubtedly shaped the relationship I have with my now teenage step-daughter. I first knew her aged 7 and consciously ensured there was always physical distance between us - as a result there is emotional distance as well. The contrast with my relationship with my biological daughter is something that pains me and is probably the largest regret of my life.
Have you ever explained this to your step-daughter? Have you talked about why your behaviour with her has been different than with her (presumably) half sister? You don't need to answer that, of course, but as one who acquired a step-father at the same age I know I would feel that I was less loved had that happened to me, and that would hurt like hell, even as an adult. It's awfully sad that your worry about society's reaction was so important and had such an impact upon your relationship. New step-parents -- please take note!
Belinda (40) I know the difference!
Jason (41) Your last sentence. I am not convinced, where's the evidence? Political correctness is driving all this.
Belinda (57) Just for the record, I do not belong to any religious organisation or political party. Nevertheless I have views on what I think is right and what is wrong. If such views upset people that's tough but we are all entitled to an opinion and are free to state them (for the time being anyway.)
No, Rod. Where's your evidence?
Where's the evidence that bad adults are the product of gay homes?
Where's the evidence that suggests a children's home is a better environment for a child than a decent family home, even if it may consist of some homosexuals?
And where's the evidence that gay people are anything other than the product of hetero parents?
Aperitif (42),
I'll give you absolution on the matter of airports, but I'm intrigued by your response to queasy feelings..
xx
ed
Simon the only trouble with cutting all the funding you are suggesting, is that a lot of those agencies from part of the government's 3rd way, and there are no longer state agencies which could step in to provide the same service.
I am not at all sure about what I think about the state funding a Catholic adoption agency, it actually doesn't sit easily with me, but maybe there are all kinds of adoption agencies for all kinds of different people. I don't know.
I would just add that the church and state are inextricably linked in this country, however secular the population.
Rod, if you knew the difference between paedophilia and homosexuality, then it would have been nice to actually have expressed that in your message.
And of course you are allowed to have your views and thankfully have the right to speak them freely in this country, however if your views are based on little evidence and simple prejudice - and you have offered nothing to the contrary - then you have to expect people to respond in a challenging manner.
Rod, I think your initial conflation of the issue of homosexuality, adoption, the Roman Catholic church, and sexual abuse may have caused some confusion. When I first read your posting, you appeared to imply that the adoption of a child by a gay couple would invariably put the child in danger of abuse. Is this what you meant to say? If so, then I must agree with Ian (64). Where is the documentary evidence? What are the figures that support your position?
You also ask "Who in their right mind would hand over a small boy to one homosexual let alone a "couple?" ". May I turn the question around and ask why you think this should not be considered? What is it about gay men or women that you believe makes them unfit to be capable fathers/mothers to children?
Finally, you ask "Is there a consipiracy underway to legalise the buggery of adopted/fostered male children?". This is what most people here have picked up on (as it is last sentence of your posting). The clear implication is that you believe that boys adopted or fostered by gay couples are more at risk of sexual abuse. Again, I ask where your evidence comes from. Is there statistical evidence to back up your claim? If not, I'm afraid to say that it would appear that you are arguing a very weak case.
FFred
Yes, Ian, if Rod wants the state to discriminate against gay people then he needs to provide evidence to support his case that it should, not vice versa.
And, yes, Belinda, if he knows the difference between paedophilia and homosexuality why did he link them in the first place?
Rod, I realise we are all free to state our views, but I think mine, about yours (particularly in light of your casual association of sexuality with one of the worst kinds of criminal, bullying behaviour) would be moderated.
Ed (65), thank you. I do try to restrain myself.
Why intrigued?
Rod (62): Even the briefest thought on the subject will tell you many things. First, that most child abuse (sexual and non-sexual) goes undiscovered. Second, that the perpetrators are almost exclusively male.
Statistics are out there based on limited studies of convicted paedophiles. Opinions are out there, too, if you search on the internet. Sadly the most predominant views I can find are those that accuse an organised homosexual conspiracy of keeping their "shameful secret" of a vast filed of abuse.
More reasoned commentators (try looking on the ±«Óãtv Office website) give a clearer picture, albeit incomplete due to the nature of the subject. That is where the following info comes from.
To characterise the "most common" paedophile offender you would look for a married or cohabiting man who has a criminal record, who has step-children, who's partner is in some way incapacitated and who was abused herself as a child.
The abuse tends to start when the child is aged 10 years. Around two-thirds of offenders exclusively abuse girls. The remaining one-third either exclusively abuse boys or abuse either gender. And girls are by far the commonest victims of abuse.
Now to me that looks an awful lot UNLIKE a pattern you would expect if homosexuality were a contributing factor to child abuse. It would be many more boys than girls being abused, for example.
As others have said, you have a right to express your view - a right I defend, despite a vehement disagreement with the view itself. Those that disagree with you also have the right not to have their view dismissed as "political correctness". I would not expose children to the threat of abuse in the interests of mollifying a minority group.
Aperitif (61): Have you ever explained this to your step-daughter? Have you talked about why your behaviour with her has been different than with her (presumably) half sister? You don't need to answer that, of course, but as one who acquired a step-father at the same age I know I would feel that I was less loved had that happened to me, and that would hurt like hell, even as an adult. It's awfully sad that your worry about society's reaction was so important and had such an impact upon your relationship. New step-parents -- please take note!
It's a complicated situation. I have once talked to her about it after a somewhat huge family argument resulting from typical teenage selfish behaviour. It is not helped by influences from her biological father. She is in the middle of teenage stroppyness at the moment and, with unpleasant circularity, our relationship isn't good enough for us to have sincere conversations about anything much. I hope when she "comes out the other side" we will be able to talk about it, but I fear it will be too late by then.
I do not think it is so much that I was afraid of societies reaction per se (although that is indeed what I said!). I think more I was aware of staying behind certain invisible boundaries so that I knew I could not be accused of something or to ensure that no one could gain a wrong impression of my actions/intentions.
The difference with her half-sister is that I have been around from the first moment and have been closely involved in her upbringing whilst she was at her most vulnerable. By the time I first knew my step-daughter she was a somewhat "wayward" 7 year old who needed controlling and guiding rather than sustaining. A totally different start and a totally different "outcome" (so far).
None of it is helped by my side of the family only really acknowledging their biological relative despite me adopting the step-children at around her birth.
I echo the comment to prospective step-parents. I really wish I had known of some kind of advice or support at the time I "became involved". At the start I just loved their mum and they were part of the package. They unconsciously and by stealth became part of "my family" very quickly and, with day after day of normal life, no conscious thought has gone into the relationship.
I've been reading this thread this morning with interest laced with dismay but refrained from commenting til now because others have been saying what I've been thinking.
But, Rod, for what it's worth, I cannot agree with your stance on this. I understand that you don't condone homosexuality, and there are many others who take your view on this. I am not one of them. Interestingly, it has been my experience that it is a predominantly male point of view, and may reflect some sense of insecurity/threat. But, whatever your view on that, please do not conflate two entirely different issues, namely, homosexuality and paedophilia, nor try to draw erroneous conclusions that sexuality may be a definer of good or bad parenting.
There is a place for opinion, and another for reason.
Sparkles (66);
Were there ever state agencies in the areas you're thinking of, where none exist "any longer"? Why were they shut down?
If the Gov't provides funding then it is dishing out money from the public purse. My money, your money. I've no objection to that as such. But it never happens without strings attached, nor should it otherwise there would be a free-for-all at the doors of the Treasury.
The strings attached have just increased in number, due to the point in question. The rule for the RC adoption agencies remains as simple as it was before. 'If you want the money, obey the rules attached to it'.
I'm curious about the ambivalence you display though. You want these kinds of agencies out there, funded by Gov't as part of the fabled 3rd Way. But if it's Catholic it makes you uneasy? What if it were Buddhist? Or Methodist?
And as for the church/state thing... They are linked in that the head of state is also the head of the established church. And certain numbers of senior religious figures sit in the Lords. But there is no direct link between any church and state except for the CofE.
I happen to think that the Government should stick to doing what it does best. Charities should stick to doing what they do best.
Charities are forbidden, by acceptance of charitable status, from all commentary or interference in politics at all levels. Oxfam was threatened with the loss of its charitable status a couple of years ago because it nearly crossed that line.
I reckon that should be replicated in reverse. Provided that a charity sticks to its charter then the Gov't should have nothing to do with it at all. And that includes funding. The Charity Commisioner is there to regulate the sector. That should be the extent of any inter-operation of charities and politics.
Charities should revert to raising money from public subscription, corporate giving and bequests only.
Si.
Jason (72): From personal experience, I don't think it is ever too late to take that step and communicate your feelings to your step-daughter. The worst thing is to never say it.
Jason (62) and others. I am overwhelmed with the response to my initial contribution on this subject. Clearly some have been niggled (to put it mildy) by what I said and I have read all comments with interest (even the silly abusive ones) and am better informed as a result. However, I am still uneasy about any homosexuel couple taking on a child from a previous normal/happy home background. Imagine, a child aged five sees his/her mum and dad kissing from time to time. They exit stage right for whatever reason. Child then placed with homosexuels, subsequently child sees both men kissing. Can you imagine the confusion experienced by the child! How do you deal with that? This is basic stuff but you cannot ignore it.
Back to political correctness (no apology). This legistation may result in preference being given to homosexuels wishing to adopt for fear of officials being accused of the aforesaid.
Don't tell me that won't happen - it is sure too.
Jason, your post made me cry. Thank you for sharing. You clearly do care about her and I just want to urge you to keep on showing her that, no matter how hard it is. It's such a terrifying time, being a teenager. When a teenage girl shouts "I hate you" or something equally hurtful, she's really shouting "I think that you don't love me and you think that I am a bad person and I don't know what to do about it -- I don't even know what kind of person I am yet, let alone have the words with which to explain myslef. So I will put up barriers, pretend to myself that I don't care and be on my guard and ready to attack in order to defend myself".
You sound as if you know all this already, but I just had to respond. I still feel that everyone else began to treat me differently around the time I turned 13. Those around me might say that it was me that changed -- as teenagers do, of course -- but I honestly don't remember that. Suddenly everyone was angry about everything I did or said. And having already had one Dad leave just makes a stready Stepdad who loves one no matter what one does even more important. So much more.
I'm horrifed by the behaviour of your family, especially following adoption. Adults can be so cruel without even realising it.
My very best wishes.
A, x.
Rod, Re: Imagine, a child aged five sees his/her mum and dad kissing from time to time. They exit stage right for whatever reason. Child then placed with homosexuels, subsequently child sees both men kissing. Can you imagine the confusion experienced by the child!
This is easily explained in the same way all things to do with parents and sex are eventually explained to (lucky) children: "Because they love each other". Try remembering what it is like to be a child -- one just sees things as they are and, if confident enough and loved, asks about them.
As for this: However, I am still uneasy about any homosexuel couple taking on a child from a previous normal/happy home background
There is no such thing as "normal".
How many children in need of adoption/fostering do you think have come from happy backgrounds?
Do you really not understand how offensive your views are, or do you perhaps enjoy provoking people?
Rod: I have read all comments with interest (even the silly abusive ones) and am better informed as a result. However, I am still uneasy about any homosexuel couple taking on a child from a previous normal/happy home background.
That is the whole point of a discussion - no one is seeking to make you suddenly, radically change your view, just to appreciate that it is not as black and white as you initially seemed to view it. Acknowledging that there is more to know is the first step in any situation towards realising the possibility that someone else is right.
I think views on homosexuality go very deep into one's fundamental core beliefs and, especially for men, it is quite hard to accept that it can be a loving thing.
I have had many friends and acquaintances over the years who are gay and very very few of them have been other then genuine, warm, sincere, caring people. More so than most straight men I know.
As to the idea that preferance could be given to a gay couple, it is hard to know how you could show that that had happened. No two couples of any sexual persuasion have identical backgrounds and situations so you would struggle to point to one heterosexual couple who had been turned down when "the same" gay couple were given a child.
And remember there isn't any rationing going on - there are far more children in need of homes than adoptions allowed. The problem is that there is a shortage of babies and very young children, children without disturbed backgrounds, those who do not exhibit challenging behaviour, etc.
My experience and belief tells me that any child would be better in the care of a loving couple of any sexuality than being "accomodated" in local authority care. There they are far more likely to be at risk of abuse (of all kinds) and neglect. My "favorite" story about this one would probably not pass moderation but suffice to say children's homes are targetted by paedophiles and not enough is done to keep often very young children out of harms way.
I think a lot of your concerns are based on empathy for the child and are probably better meant than they come across. Try to see beyond the bedroom choices made by people and look instead for whether they are capable of caring and nurturing a child.
Aperitif, Thank you for trying. I just don't think my scenario is easy to gloss over. Unfortunately children up for adoption are unlikely to be confident and have probably had enough trauma without being confronted by another set of abnormal situations not experienced before. If there is no "normal" how is any behavior measured? I did not deliberately set out to be offensive but I confess to having enjoyed what followed. I don't mind at all having my views challenged but clearly some do. Remember "Challenge all assumptions" that way one gets to see the bigger picture.
Gosh am late catching up with this post. Was equally outraged reading Rod's post and wanted to respond but you have all done it so well so there is nothing more I can add, other than my total and utter agreement with you all.
And Jason I just wanted to add my best wishes also. I know how you feel. My SO has (interestingly I wrote had there first of all!) a daughter who was 11 when her dad and I met. It was a very difficult relationship to say the least and I was totally unprepared for that - I stupidly expected that we would be "mates". Difficulties were also fuelled by her mother's influence. When we decided we would like a child of our own (her mother's reluctance to have any more children was one of the breaking points with them), she took it badly but we thought she would come round. I then of course fell pregnant - she last stayed with us when I was about 4 months pregnant, and I have never seen her since.....our son will be 5 this summer. He has tried to build bridges but she would not acknowledge him at all. She is now nearly 19 years old. Very difficult situation and I wish you well in your own personal situation.
Fiona x
Jason, I'm sure your love for your step-daughter manifests itself in many unremarkable ways, and one day it will be repaid by the shovel-ful. In the meantime try not to be too judgmental either of her or of yourself.......and remember that a lift to Salford is worth (and more welcome than!) a thousand kisses. Good luck to you both.
Rod - I have just read today's postings with great interest. Do you have children? I have 1, & it has been interesting to me how accepting a child can be of any sort of relationship, if it is explained matter - of - factly, in terms suitable to their age, and as they inquire about such things.
I work in the music business, so perhaps meet more than the average number of people who are gay. She has usually met them too, got on well with them, & been only mildly interested at the fact that some of them have recently had "marriages", and live with partners of the same sex. What's to be confused about?
The main thing I remember about her reaction to any "relationship" was a few years ago, when she was maybe 5, & she saw her father massaging my shoulders. Boy did she have a massive strop at that! It was a jealous reaction, in that she could see we weren't concentrating solely on her at the time. If your hypothetical 5 yr old was confused at 2 men kissing, I'd say it was probably the kissing, not the fact that it was 2 men, that caused the problem!
The worst sound in the world?
A plummy voice saying "Our web site at B B C dot co dot U K" AGAIN!
It feels as though half the PM program is concerned with advertising the ±«Óãtv web site.
The worst sound in thge world is the geordie voice over on channel4
Thanks for the very kind words, several of you. That wasn't the point of posting, but it is very nice to get some support now and then.
One of the worst sounds in the world - "and now, a party political broadcast on behalf of the (insert any name) party"...
Worst sound: bagpipes close up.
Lovliest sound: bagpipes a long way away.
Just a thought on this adoption lark.....
what would the government be saying if it was a muslim adoption agency complaining?
Personally, I don't think it should be any different - but, I do wonder???
As ever Jason you talk so much sense.
Mary
Intresting contribution Annasee, thank you for sharing it with me.
This my first experience of blogging and I have learned from it but if one has to walk on eggs what's the point of it!
I have no wish to join the rush to accept every daft bit of "inclusive" legislation proposed by this government.
Subject closed as far as I am concerned but I've got the bug now and will be back.
Rod: but I've got the bug now and will be back.
Excellent.
Rod, um this Unfortunately children up for adoption are unlikely to be confident and have probably had enough trauma was kind of my point -- or one of them.
Normality is a subjective term and, indeed, all behaviour is asessed subjectively. (Add the word "Discuss" to the end of that and you've got a classic psycho-sociological examination essay.)
I suspected you were enjoying the provocation -- and I don't suppose there's anything terribly wrong with that per se, but the hypothetical to you is very real life to many and so "walking on eggshells" -- or taking care how one phrases things -- is probably wise, wouldn't you agree? If one takes a strong stand on something and uses very robust language -- well, one has to realise resposnes will often be similarly strong. (I speak from experience on other threads -- most memorably one on smoking). This blog is generally much more frinedly, however, than others related to news and current affairs.
btw, Annasse's first paragraph at 83 puts my main point much more eloquently.
Rod - For some reason I've missed this thread over this past few days and I'm sorry about that. Most people who read this will know that I am generally lightweight and more likely to try and raise a laugh than add to a serious debate. I'll try to change that now.
Can I say that I find that your comments to date are not only ill-considered but nonsensical and illogical? I note that Annasee asked you if you had any children and I would also question if you have any experience in the field that you have chosen to comment on.
I've been involved with fostering children for 15 years. I haven't come across a kid yet who I think could give a stuff about the family that they come into, other than that there is love and support for them.
You mention "a child from a previous normal/happy home background". I had a think about that and I think I have come across such an occurrence twice in 15 years.
I've gone through the process of being "vetted" as a foster carer - it wasn't easy. I know that the process leading to being accepted as a suitable adoption parent is even more arduous. Anybody that gets through that process, regardless of gender, status, orientation, or any other determination deserves not only the opportunity to adopt but our admiration and thanks for taking on the responsibility.
I really think you should chose to comment on something that you know about.
D.W.Roberts (84): Ah, but you have to admit, they are effective, aren't they?;o)
Isn't that a lovely thing to learn about you RJD & I agree, I also think the agencies who are kicking up a fuss easily could have stayed under the radar.
I am a bit confused about why Catholics decided to speak out about the new anti-discrimination law; what gay couple would go to a Catholic adoption agency anyway?
It was never going to happen, if they did walk through the door, they would have soon walked out, & everyone would have been able to get on with matching up children with families just as before.
The care system is something I know a little about, particularly children who are about to become accommodated by the local authority, sometimes because their parents can’t cope, but also sometimes because the word care implies they will be cared for. The current phraseology for children in care is ‘looked after children’, the reality is exactly the opposite, & I know social workers who have nicknamed it state neglect.
The outcomes for looked after children are appalling in terms of virtually any risk factor you care to mention. Keeping children out of the care system is thus beneficial for them and society, if only because they immediately become less likely to become young offenders.
Depending on their backgrounds, some children benefit psychologically from being placed with someone of a specific sex; children who would never trust another ‘mother’ thrive when loved & supported by a man who wants to be their father; 2 fathers could even be a bonus!
We ask a lot of adoptive parents, often expecting them to be professionals in the way we need them to manage the effects of any emotional or physical damage the child has previously experienced. There are too many children, who need a family, & their behaviour can be challenging, but the outcomes can be extraordinarily rewarding.
My only response to anyone, who conflagrate sexual abuse with adoption is that being approved for adoption is incredibly difficult. Preparation is thorough & the placement is monitored before it goes anywhere near becoming a permanent fixture. It would be difficult for anyone who could prove a risk to the child to slip under the radar. Otherwise, I don’t know any families who are ‘normal’ anyway!
Is the issue of a sex criminal being relieved of a prison sentence of no great interest to this bbc programme?
John Reid and John Rogers QC playing cat-n-mouse with the most vulnerable in society.
Prisons ARE over crowded largely with people who shouldn't be there at all; the mentally ill, prostitutes, single parents on benefit charged with defrauding the government by working to save up for a school field trip. Whereas we have organised traffickers roaming free and doing very well thank you improving the UK economy, together with terrorists whose human rights allow them to roam the country plotting suicidal terror.
Women and children not only suffer the usual kind of crimes, robbery, muggings, burglary , etc. but also they are the most vulnerale to sex crimes, yet this QC and the ±«Óãtv secretary think that they can leave us unprotected while they play cat-n-mouse with our safety. Contempt Mr Reid and Mr. Rogers QC. Comtempt.
Si “I'm curious about the ambivalence you display though. You want these kinds of agencies out there, funded by Gov't as part of the fabled 3rd Way. But if it's Catholic it makes you uneasy? What if it were Buddhist? Or Methodist?â€
When I said I wasn't at all sure about what I thought, I don’t think that was ambivalence or uneasiness, rather just a need to think about it! I had no idea there were Catholic adoption agencies & I don’t even necessarily think it a bad idea, I just know so little about adoption. Any views I have would apply across the board, I just didn’t know there were agencies which cater for a niche market. I don’t know what the previous system looked like either, I just do know that the use of the voluntary sector has expanded with the present government.
I am more ambivalent about applying conditions to state funding, in the same way that tied aid packages are often flawed, but would entirely agree that nobody should be above the law. I approve of this law, & am quite happy to declare my Christianity, I just think it isn't very Christian to discriminate. It was at church last night that I decided it was highly unlikely that any gay couple would go to a Catholic adoption agency & therefore the issue of breaking the law is redundant. The hullabaloo is about morality and (as I said previously) I am tired of bigotry being paraded as faith.
I kind of agree that charities shouldn't operate politically, but the work they do is often political by its very nature; they pick up the slack where state agencies don't operate or services have been withdrawn, but the need for them doesn't disappear. We need the NSPCC, Mencap et al. for the local services they provide and they all operate within both the law & the public policy framework.
RJD (94) No need for the lecture. Suffice to say that I have nothing but admiration for you and your wife in your work as foster carers. Enough said.
Aperatif (93) Clever of you to pick up on the provocation aspect. No one else did. You state your case very well. I am full of admiration.
pipop (98) My sentiments entirely. The WI could do better. John Reid and the rest should be discarded, they are unfit for further use. The country is going down the pan.
Cash for Honours. Is it time to get rid of the largely discredited honours system? I would favour an elected upper house whose main responsibility would be to scrutinise proposed legislation. Parliament would still have the last say but should take account of upper house recommendations.
In my opinion, lesser awards, OBE's MBE's etc should be dispensed with. I see no point in awarding medals to people who have simply been doing their job. Medals should be awarded for valour only.
Rod, I know you have taken to this here, but I am sure there is somewhere else where people would say things like the country is going to the dogs etc. (-: I charge you with saying something positive next time, unless that was actually a compliment about the skills to be found within the WI?
The chap who wasn't sent to prison is a low risk & we can't imprison people because of something they might do, madmary, that is still right isn’t it?!
Sex offenders who view pornography rarely abuse children, although this is problematic because the people who took the images have, & some pathological offenders also collect images. Rest assured that the judge would have been working with a PSR which probably limited his ability to lock him up & throw away the key anyway. That would be your solution I am guessing Pip & Rod?
I will say what I always say when this subject arises; most offences against children are committed by their parents & the real threat to children is behind closed doors. We are also raising very vulnerable children, who have no ability to assess risk themselves, as well as creating a mindset in adults which prevents them from helping children in distress for fear of what they might be accused of. In trying to eradicate risks elsewhere we avoid addressing the real dangers.
Helen, I appear to being accused of mischief again. I will respond in due course.
Well, I need to correct myself anyway Rod because the judges both cited the ±«Óãtv Sec's guidance, I would still find it hard to believe the risk hadn' been assessed when bailing/releasing though. Maybe they needed the room to lock a hoodie up after a playground fight.
Helen (105 and earlier) Prison overcrowding and adoption were well covered in the weekend press and again today (Monday). All shades of opinion were expressed and I have nothing further to add except to record that I believe early excursions into criminal activity should be dealt with firmly. Mild admonishments have been shown not to work. "You can't touch me" is the mantra of young offenders and we need to change that. Roy Jenkins, former ±«Óãtv Secretary, now deceased, has much to answer for.
Is this positive enough for you?
Speaking as a lapsed Catholic, the adoption agency furore has reminded of one of the reaons for my lapse.
The Catholic Church has a pick and mix attitude to what it finds abhorrent. It emphasises those passages in the Bible that pander to those of a particular persuasion and glosses over any "inconvenient" passages. For example, Leviticus also says that people who eat shellfish are an abomination. Exodus 35:2 states that people who insist on working on the Sabbath should be put to death
However, I'll betcha that any couples who turn up at a Catholic adoption agency are not asked to keep a food diary and then prodded with toasting forks as a result of scoffing a few winkles.
The Church is just being very, very selective in using the Bible to back up its argument.
You can't say, "I believe this bit but I'm going to ignore that bit". That suggests that you think you know better than God as to what is important in the Bible.
For a nice put down based on the above, watch "The Midterms" episode from the second series of "The West Wing" where President Bartlett puts a radio talk show host in her place (see also the "Dr Laura" letter from which the Bartlett speech is derived)