Christmas Time, mistletoe and misguided councils.

It’s an important point though. A lot of people watching that advert would be thinking ‘That’d be nice, but we can’t afford to help’, until they’re told it’s a job that pays.

Got to agree with Andy there, I don’t see what’s wrong with this. Mildly creepy but not really and people should not smoke around their kids- seriously if you can’t control yourself when you know that you are dangerously affecting the health of a child you shouldn’t be allowed to adopt.

I’ve got to say, I hadn’t seen it like that Andy and I take your point. Perhaps it isn’t quite as awful as I first thought. I don’t agree that it should have been slotted in quite like that though. Maybe if they had explained it in the way you did it wouldn’t seem as if payment had been tacked on to the end as a way of enticing people rather than reassuring those already interested.

Whereas I agree that smokers should keep their habit away from children, what certain councils are imposing is a total ban. And this is what I fundamentally disagree with. Not only does it send out the message that smokers are unfit to be parents but there are over 17,000 children in care in this county simply because of a shortage of foster parents. To completely ban smokers from fostering is simply impractical as nearly 26% of Britain smokes.
So no, smokers should not expose children to a smokey home, but at the same time if a couple, or person, has gone through the difficult process which is the fostering scheme I don’t think they’d wantonly smoke around the child. I agree that there should be rules and legislation (which there are) to protect the child but to deem all smokers unfit to foster can only hinder the provision of homes for these neglected children.

I agree about the wording of the advert, and the ridiculousness of the smoker ban.

Oh dear, maybe they should have reconsidered the wording of this advert.

If you smoke you cant foster? Is it bad I think that thats fair?

All I can see is yet another reason for these children to stay in care. Gays struggle to be able to foster, single women aren’t usually allowed, and now smokers. I’m not saying you should blow smoke into the face of a new born, just that imposing bans all over the place will prevent these probably already fairly damaged children from finding stability. It just worries me that kids in care could go to a loving home but that they won’t be allowed as mum likes a cheeky fag in the garden.Statisically it could be years before they get the chance to go to another safe home.

would they really be that strict, or is it not just for homes where smoking is allowed in doors and the people in the house smoke so much that the tap water is brown?

Really that strict. Everyone who smokes. Even if they just have the odd one and its nowhere near the child

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/05/fostering-smoking-ban

I really can see what they’re trying to do and I think the sentiment behind it is brilliant, but at the end of the day when it comes to fostering a child it is not a ‘normal’ situation for anyone. I just don’t think that they can get high and mighty about smoking when surely its better for a child to have a loving home rather than stay in care.