**Broomstick **reminds us: these sorts of “informal” fosterings/adoptions used to not be unusual among what we now call the “mainstream” cultures.
[Quote=Broomstick]
Are you so sure about that?
[/quote]
It is my AFAIK/IIRC impression as of the time that was posted. I am willing to be corrected.
True. “Womansplain” is *three *syllables.
Do have any basis for this claim that the police had an “immediate belief that this happened because of gypsy-child-snatching, not because of informal adoption”? The police are required to investigate the possiblity that a crime might have been committed, regardless of whether they had “immediate belief” that it had.
The real story here is your own “immediate belief” that racism was at work, despite no actual evidence of this.
Given the emptyness of your position, it’s not surprising that you’ve been reduced to username-mockery, although considering the level of your other “contributions” to this thread, “reduced” may not be quite the right word here.
My understanding is that the birth mother left her in the care of a different couple, who in turn gave her to the Dimopoulouses.
Right, which is why they left the kid with her family during the investigation. Oh, wait!
You’re right, there’s no actual evidence of my “immediate belief that racism was at work.” I strongly suspect it was, due to evidence of past discrimination coupled with evidence that the police were wrong.
Dude, if I want to mock your username, you’ll know. Calling you “fothering” wasn’t mockery, it was shortening your name. Thicken your skin.
They were not legal guardians, regardless.
What evidence was there that the police were doing anything wrong at the time you made your first post suggesting that they were racist?
“Fothering whatever” is as long as “Fotheringay-Phipps”.
You want to act immature go ahead, but don’t pretend that’s not what you’re doing. Be proud of what you are. Actually on second thought, maybe that’s not such a good idea …
Absolutely, and when I use the word “family,” I am speaking in legalistic terms. There is no validity to families other than the law, and before the state existed, families didn’t exist.
The police should have left her with her guardians, legal or otherwise, until they had strong evidence to precipitate her removal. Instead they based the removal on her blonde hair.
I offered it earlier.
Whatever, dude. Fothering whatever, if it bothers you that much, I’ll avoid. It’s a ridiculous thing to get snippy about, but obviously that’s what you’re left with.
I don’t know that they should have. And neither do you. Unless you can show that SOP would be to leave the kid with this family in a similar circumstance absent “racism” then you haven’t even begun to make any sort of case.
No, you did not.
That’s very sweet of you dear.
But my point was really about what this showed about the level of your posting here.
Hence my use of the word “might” above. We know that there’s widespread racism against Roma. We know a big piece of that racism is a belief that Roma kidnap white children. We know that the police removed a blonde child from her caregivers and then started trying to figure out whose child they’d kidnapped. There’s no smoking gun, but the circumstantial evidence is pretty strong.
Yuh huh.
Oh, I’m clear on the point you thought you were making. It’s a pitiful petulant point, but it wasn’t ambiguous.
IOW, no evidence at all.
And of course, once you suggested based on nothing that the police might be “crazy racist”, you were well on your way, Anti-Racist Superhero cape trailing behind you …
So IOW when you wrote “if it bothers you that much …” you were saying something that you knew to be untrue. (Very similar to your claim that you were “shortening your name”.)
Circumstantial evidence is no evidence at all? Do you understand the English language?
IOW I was saying something true: I think you’re incredibly thin-skinned in this regard and grasping at straws. IOW I’ll not say Fothering whatever again because you’ve practically burst into tears over it. IOW I think you’d love to keep talking about this because your claims on what I’ve said about racism, and the evidence thereof, are looking stupider and stupider. IOW, it’d be a good time to admit you don’t have a leg to stand on.
It occurs to me that I’m coming dangerously close to breaking rules here, if I haven’t done so already, so I apologize to others for this hijack and won’t participate further in it. F-P can meet me in the concurrent thread in the pit if he feels the need to discuss it with me any more.
“There’s a lot of racism against Roma so these cops might be crazy racist” is not circumstantial evidence, sorry.
As above, it was a remark about the level of your discourse, such as it is. It wouldn’t have dragged out were you not so determined to be disingenuous about it.