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

[whycantwegoonasthree]

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?

Has the headline been edited? Now says this...

Children removed after parents' open relationship contributes to neglect

Helendee - that's really funny and original.

Oh no, wait, no its not.

Have already sent an email Rhiannon... If I get a reply I'll be astonished.

My headline reads:

Children removed from family home over parents' open relationship.

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

Oh, me too....

Not sure that "open relationship" as in "being married but fucking other people" is a protected characteristic like sexual orientation.

Care to explain OP?

Write a complaint email to the editor!

I see nothing wrong with the article. I am astonished however at your ignorance. How can you suppose that having parents who sleep around will have no impact on the child?

Also sleeping around is a lifestyle choice - being gay isn't. How on earth can you compare the two?!

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

As I said, I don't for one minute think it could. That's exactly my point which I fear you are deliberately misunderstanding...

If those involved in a homosexual relationship (or indeed were merely single) were also parenting from the sofa, staying up all night clubbing and bringing strangers back to the house for casual sex while the children were present then that would be neglectful. But it's got nothing to do with the nature of their relationship.

My point is, their 'open relationship' is not the reason their children were removed. Their neglectful parenting was. The article suggests otherwise to get clicks.

How can you suppose that having parents who sleep around will have no impact on the child?

Depends how they go about it, Midge.

And 'open relationship' doesn't necessarily equal 'sleeping around'. So it's not me who is ignorant here...

But the open relationship and the neglect were linked here. Yabu. And the headline has been changed.

The article suggests otherwise to get clicks.

This thread is going to ensure it gets even more. Was that what you had in mind OP?

(And there are studies which show that being polyamorous is an orientation, actually. I'm not so sure myself, but it's not as clear cut as you might think.)

Here you are OP - you must have missed these direct quotes from the judgement in 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.”
The Wolverhampton-based judge said the couple continued their “dysfunctional relationship” while living in the same house. “All of this must have been confusing for the children.”
She said of the mother: “It is plain some complete strangers have visited her house while the children were there to have sex with her.”
The father “didn’t fully understand either why the presence of strangers at the home meeting the mother for sex was worrying”, the judge said.

Clear as clear can be - their 'open relationship' contributed to their neglect of their children.

Sorry but I do think anyone who frequently exposes their kids to a load of randoms they happen to be shagging is neglecting their children emotionally. I know an open relationship doesn't have to be like that, but in this case this seems to have been happening, as well as other issues too. So yeah, the open relationship aspect is perfectly relevant.
If they both quietly played around without the dc being in the house and were good parents they'd still have their children.

Annelovesgilbert - do you say that every time someone posts on AIBU about the latest Daily Fail shocker?

I cancelled my subscription because I was fed up with totally puerile articles. I posted on their website in respect of one article and the moderator removed the comment which was in no way abusive . I thought it was criticism and polite. I posted again and that comment was removed as it was deemed to have broken the rules but they could not tell me which specific rule I had broken.I think the Guardian has really gone downhill recently. They did have some great contributors but sadly no more.

A fair point. And no, I don't think I've ever said that, but I avoid anything involving the Fail.

Thing is, I configure my life in such away as well but there are so many forces of conformity and misunderstanding that I think this article is the least of it. Save your “furious” for the real battles. I don’t think that neglectful parents who’ve had their children removed is the battle to pick. They’re hardly poster boys for the “polyamorous community” and this is not a helpful context for the discussion. And anyway, guardian prints shite ALL the time.

Oh, and I cancelled my membership with Guardian today, because I'm sick of their non-binary gender peddling and use of the word cis. Which I told them when they asked for feedback.

I can't say I agree with you on this one though.

The guardian has become a comic. All very trendy lefty and sensationalist - it's like a left wing Mail these days. I've stopped buying it and deleted the app.

I think OP's indignation is aimed at the (majority of respectable) parents who recoil at the idea of 'open relationships'.

Most children and many adults do not like to think of their parents having sex with each other, never mind a never ending procession of grubby members of the 'poly community'.

I cancelled after their reporting of Cologne NYC a couple of years ago. Never missed it.

OP Are you sure you haven't mistaken The Metro for the Guardian. . The headline on the mobile and desktop version of the Guardian both say 'Children removed after parents' open relationship contributes to neglect'

The Metros headline is 'Parents have their three children taken away because of their open relationship'

I've included screen shots. Have you a screen shot of the Guardian headline as you have reported it?

The OP is not commenting on how people judge parents who are polyamorous she has directed her fury directly at the Guardian but I can't work out why. 🤷🏻‍♀️