Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

475 replies

whycantwegoonasthree · 01/12/2017 16:50

www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/30/children-removed-from-family-home-over-parents-open-relationship

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?

Angry
OP posts:
AfunaMbatata · 01/12/2017 16:53

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

JaniceBattersby · 01/12/2017 16:53

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.

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 01/12/2017 16:55

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.

OP posts:
luckylavender · 01/12/2017 17:02

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

milliemolliemou · 01/12/2017 17:07

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 · 01/12/2017 17:10

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 · 01/12/2017 17:13

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 · 01/12/2017 17:15

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 · 01/12/2017 17:17

YABU for not reading the article!

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 01/12/2017 17:18

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?

OP posts:
Ceto · 01/12/2017 17:19

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

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 01/12/2017 17:19

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

OP posts:
Balaboosteh · 01/12/2017 17:20

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

PanGalaticGargleBlaster · 01/12/2017 17:21

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.

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 01/12/2017 17:22

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.

OP posts:
Seniorcitizen1 · 01/12/2017 17:22

You are very unreasonable tp have a subscription to the guardian

WipsGlitter · 01/12/2017 17:24

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?

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 01/12/2017 17:24

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...

OP posts:
Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 01/12/2017 17:26

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.

OP posts:
northernruth · 01/12/2017 17:27

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

Helendee · 01/12/2017 17:27

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

Iris65 · 01/12/2017 17:27

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 · 01/12/2017 17:28

cross post.

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 01/12/2017 17:28

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

OP posts:
RhiannonOHara · 01/12/2017 17:28

I would give them a chance before cancelling: write and explain exactly what your issues are with it, and see if/how they respond. Do make clear that you will cancel if you continue to be unhappy with what they say.