I might do . . . now I have thermals.

Always hated being cold

Good stuff.

Has the forum just changed colour?

Ermmm nope 

It looks different to me .

Nite 

Nite nite - sleep well Erin

Anyone who laughs with their mouth open

Anyone who regularly turns up early to work.

"Unconfirmed reports suggest"

Reporting world events based upon hearsay and anecdotal evidence

*goes to look up 'anecdotal' *

Central heating systems

Phases of the moon.

Aubergine

If you are a werewolf it's damned annoying !!!  

I have begun to notice that people on TV are starting to answer questions by prefixing their response with the word "So".

This is starting to become annoying on the "like" scale.

Old boy's network still being alive and kicking

No where is it more prevalent than on telly.

Jonathon Ross has been criticised in the past for regularly featuring guest belonging to the same management team as himself.

Jimmy Carr being a perfect example.

Claudia Winkleman - why is she pushed onto our screens so often?

Paddy McGuiness - why is he so popular?

Millie McIntosh - just 'why'?

Paddy McGuiness really get on my last nerve

As does Vernon Kay.

Me too Erin - he's a big talentless lump.

"Let the fog see the horn"

That gobsh1te from the programme The Call Centre, can't stand him or the awful programme either.

Use of the word "melding"

Urgh !!! Dunno why but i hate it !!!

Blister packs,

Especially the ones where you can't even figure out how they managed to surround the product with their Fort Knox packaging in the first place.  Not necessarily blister packs, just packaging that you need to scissor the **** out of just to get to the thing you paid for in the first place!  Not only that, risk damaging and actually damage the thing you paid for, just to get at the bloody thing!

"Are you using your own plastic bags ... to save the environment"

Erm - hello - everything you're shoving down the checkout is caked in plastic !!!

Wanted: A family of my own.

"The Social Worker spent 8 months assessing whether the couple were fit for adoption"

What-the-hell !!!

I can see where my taxes are wasted

OMG 6 months later they still aint been placed with the "appropriate child"

FGS just give them a bloody kid !!!

What a waste of man power and £££££

They are being rather specific about what they want and don't want though aren't they? It's not like buying a hand bag.

Of course but we are talking more than a year from the first approach and  ... nothing.

How much has that cost?

Maybe their 'specific' requirement should have been knocked on the head too

I agree. They want healthy siblings under the age of 24 months. I'd think that was quite a specific ask. I understand that they are being totally honest in that they can't cope or don't want a child with disabilities etc. and I'm very sympathetic to the fact that they've been through a lot but .........they're not getting any younger. They have a good life and could offer a child a lovely home - maybe they should stop thinking about what they want and look at what they could give.

The other story on the other hand was very touching - I don't think it's any accident that they were featured side by side. what a wonderful selfless woman .......and what a lovely little boy.

If this is typical of adoption then i'm not surprised many are 'put off' by the never ending process.

And i'm sure i 'would' be surprised at how much all this faffing about must be costing me.

Is it faffing about? Perhaps they simply haven't come across two healthy siblings under 24 months available for adoption. As I say - perhaps they're being far too specific in what they want.

TBH - especially in cases like this one the vetting procedure does need to be stringent. They seem that picky - what would happen if they were simply given a child that didn't meet their exacting standards? I know the parents have 'needs' and want their ideal child but .........there are lots of children who are not 'picture book perfect' or young enough to be deemed acceptable to some. It is necessary to ensure that prospective parents are vetted to ensure that kids who have already had a really shitty start to life don't get a raw deal when they don't match up to expectations. I don't think the vetting costs are a waste at all TBH.

It took 8months to vet them

That seems madness, what on earth was happening for 8 months?

I think they were considered to still be grieving for the still born child. TBH - I'm still not sure if they are 'in the right place' - some people just aren't suitable to be adoptive parents.

I have a very good friend who was unable to conceive - she had three IVF attempts which all failed. They considered adoption and whilst she was desperate and very open minded her husband was honest enough to say that whilst he really wanted his own child and loved the idea of adoption he knew that he'd never be able to cope if the child turned out to be 'problematic' and spoilt their pretty idyllic existence. They settled for twon labradors and are very happy.

not every one is suited to be a parent - not everyone is suited to be an adoptive parent. Honesty is the key. I think the adoption services may have sensed that this couple really weren't ready to be vetted at the time as their reasons for adopting weren't quite 'right'. I think they were portrayed very sympathetically but ..........it's my guess that there is a bit more to it.

If that was the case then it shouldn't have taken 8months for a decision.

I know we don't know all the details as it's confidential but still a 13month process and nothing to show for it seems painfully slow.

It has to be terribly expensive - and can only put other people off the process.

Sorry - can't agree. If a lengthy vetting process puts people off - perhaps they're not really suited in the first place. Children aren't commodities that should just be given to someone who chooses to adopt on a whim. It's very sad when people can't have their own children but it doesn't automatically make them a suitable candidate for adoption. It's lovely when a couple can fulfill their wish to be a parent but kids shouldn't just be placed with someone on the grounds that simply because a couple can't have children they are therefore automatically eligible. 

the childrens' 'needs' come first - it's important that a prospective parent knows all the ins and outs and possible pitfalls before taking on a child. If in some cases it takes a while - so be it.

Oh i agree with you feelings for the right parents for the right child etc...

But i can see why children spend much of their lives in children's homes if this happens.

And i 'can' see many worthy/prospective parents being totally disillusioned by this programme

Do you?

I see quite the opposite. Have you seen the programmes preceding this one? I think it's been lovely. A natural pregnancy takes 9 months - you don't decide to have a child one day and give birth the following week. It's realistic to assume that there is a vetting process and time to prepare both practically and to mentally adjust. I think a lot of prospective adoptive parents want a healthy, white baby and those are in short supply - abortion is far more readily available these days and children born out of wedlock is now perfectly acceptable.

The children that languish in care homes often have disabilities or are emotionally damaged and there aren't enough people out there prepared to take them on. I think that's what this programme is trying to address. The couple shown tonight wanted two sibling, healthy  children under 2 years old .............i think this simply illustrated it's a tall order to fill. I very much doubt you find many healthy infant siblings languishing in childrens homes TBH. 

I listened to the debate about this the other day and I agree that the current system is not designed for adopting parents or children needing a permanent home. Couples who want to adopt wait in excess of 18 months before any procedure starts (if they are lucky).