Advanced search

AIBU to be furious about this article and cancel my Guardian subscription?

(476 Posts)
whycantwegoonasthree Fri 01-Dec-17 16:50:35

The children weren't removed because of their parents 'open relationship', they were removed because the parents were neglectful and didn't safeguard the children. The headline is a deliberate distortion.

This is a dreadful baity headline/article at the expense of the polyamorous community. I expect better from the guardian - to which I pay a f-ing subscription...

AIBU to cancel my Direct Debit?


AfunaMbatata Fri 01-Dec-17 16:53:00

YANBU. The guardian turned to crud a long time ago.

JaniceBattersby Fri 01-Dec-17 16:53:32

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. The judge has clearly stated that the risky behaviour surrounding the parents’ attitudes to relationships was the reason for the adoption.

whycantwegoonasthree Fri 01-Dec-17 16:55:31

It suggests the judge removed the children because the parents were in an open relationship. In fact it was because the children weren't being safeguarded and there were strangers coming to the house all the time while the children were there, and the mum not paying attention to them.

Its deliberately misleading in a way that is potentially really damaging to those of us bringing up children in unconventional relationship setups.

luckylavender Fri 01-Dec-17 17:02:37

What's the AIBU? If you want to cancel your subscription do it. You don't need approval from the Mumsnet jury.

milliemolliemou Fri 01-Dec-17 17:07:48

Writers I think try to do their best. Then the sub-editors come in and write click-bait headlines - it has ever been thus. Worse still are the websites. Just write them an email or put something on their website comments.

However if I had young children I'd have been hard pushed to look after them properly if I were on many dating apps as a single parent and/or trying to juggle extramarital affairs with my spouse's wish to do the same as part of an ordinary or polyamorous couple. It sounds utterly exhausting unless you've got great friends/relations to cover.

ComtesseDeSpair Fri 01-Dec-17 17:10:01

Have always been a Guardian reader and thought their journalism was excellent until the past couple of years, since when it's just become farcical a lot of the time. Deliberate misleads like the example in the OP, attention grabbing headlines which often bear little resemblance to the facts in the article, every article about social issues written with the focus of "evil Tories, killing poor people, want everyone but the rich dead" however tenuous the actual link. It's a shame, there's no real alternative daily I want to read but I just don't see the point in buying the Graun anymore.

YouThought Fri 01-Dec-17 17:13:52

You can cancel your subscription if you wish but I really don't understand what you think is wrong with the headline.

The headline is Children removed after parents' open relationship contributes to neglect. It's accurate and I don't see how it's goady or misleading. The parents 'open relationships' do contribute to the kids neglect. Neither the guardian or the judge are saying that open relationships equal neglect just that in this case it contributed to the neglect.

Yabu to be angry over something that doesn't warrant it.

Iris65 Fri 01-Dec-17 17:15:34

From the article:
‘In respect of both parents, the court is not concerned about their private lives and how they will conduct them unless it impacts on the care of the children – which at this time was neglectful.’

Sparks46th Fri 01-Dec-17 17:17:38

YABU for not reading the article!

whycantwegoonasthree Fri 01-Dec-17 17:18:52

This headline: 'children-removed-from-family-home-over-parents-open-relationship' is factually innacurate. And the article focusses squarely on their relationship choices rather than the fact there were clearly issue of neglect. Because 'oooh' non-monogamy.

Open relationship does not equal neglectful parenting.

The children were removed because the parents were neglectful. But I guess that's not a story.

Suppose it has said "children removed from family home over parents homosexual relationship". That wouldn't be ok. So why is this?

Ceto Fri 01-Dec-17 17:19:00

The headline now says "Children removed after parents' open relationship contributes to neglect". Has it been changed? Otherwise it seems pretty accurate.

whycantwegoonasthree Fri 01-Dec-17 17:19:34

Sparks I have read the article - and I find it biased and misleading.

Balaboosteh Fri 01-Dec-17 17:20:05

Are you really wanting to talk about your own relationship set-up? What is this “ployamourous community” that needs its image protecting?

PanGalaticGargleBlaster Fri 01-Dec-17 17:21:44

The guardian sub editors have serious form for inserting 'click bait' headlines to its opinion pieces. It has been slowly going down the pan for years.

whycantwegoonasthree Fri 01-Dec-17 17:22:31

Not especially balaboosteh - have done that on here before and still have the bruises. It's not news. This is an article that affects my life, obliquely, and I think it;s dreadful, so I'm having a rant.

Because that's kind of what AIBU is for, no?

But there is a poly community, yes, and currently it's poorly protected by law and subject to much misinformation and misunderstanding.

Seniorcitizen1 Fri 01-Dec-17 17:22:36

You are very unreasonable tp have a subscription to the guardian

WipsGlitter Fri 01-Dec-17 17:24:19

But the neglect occurred because of the open relationship - is that not what's being said? They were more focused on that than on their kids welfare?

whycantwegoonasthree Fri 01-Dec-17 17:24:39

Seniorcitizen1 - there you may have a point. I've always liked its arts coverage though, and felt like I should probably pay for the privilege of enjoying it...

whycantwegoonasthree Fri 01-Dec-17 17:26:59

Wips - that is what's being said, but I would say the neglect was caused because the parents were being neglectful, not because they were in an open relationship because that implies that open relationships are inherently bound to be neglectful.

But as I said "mum sits of sofa on phone instead of taking care of her children' isn't a story. So they add in some 'swinging sensationalism' and then they have a story.

But it comes at a cost, is my point.

northernruth Fri 01-Dec-17 17:27:23

I'm interested to know how you think a homosexual relationship could contribute to neglect hmm

Helendee Fri 01-Dec-17 17:27:51

Polyamorous community? Shouldn't that read ' bunch of hedonistic committment phobes'? grin

Iris65 Fri 01-Dec-17 17:27:56

That is exactly what the article says.

The court’s conclusion was more or less that you can sleep with as many different people as you want, married or not, as often as you like providing you don’t ‘parent from the sofa’, expect others to manage risks and hazards to your own children and allow strangers you’ve met in the internet into the house where there are children under 5. It also helps to not be more interested in clubbing than caring for the children.

Iris65 Fri 01-Dec-17 17:28:36

cross post.

whycantwegoonasthree Fri 01-Dec-17 17:28:43

northernruth - I don't - that's my point.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: