More grumpy stuff...

[Roger Kettle]

Anyone else as sickened as I am about celebrities wandering around the world, trying to adopt children? We've now got Elton John popping into an orphanage in the Ukraine, deciding that one kid has "stolen his heart", and virtually offering to buy the child. We're talking about a 62 year-old recovering alcoholic/drug user. Yes, I know he's got bucketfuls of cash and spends £2,000 a week on flowers for his house but how on earth does that give him the right to attempt to "buy" a child's life? If you think I'm being harsh on old Reg Dwight, then take away the money side of things. Can you imagine an "average" 62 year-old man being even CONSIDERED for this? I'm not even talking about the gay aspect, although it could be argued that, ideally, a matriarchal figure should be involved in these cases. (Having said that, I'm pretty sure an expensive nanny would have been put in place).
What particularly sickens me is that this appears to be a fashion trend among the rich and famous. "Let's go to Africa/Eastern Europe and adopt one of those absolutely charming orphan kiddies!"
Grump over.

[Tom]

Well they're not allowed to keep pet tigers anymore, so how else can they keep themselves different from the rest of the world's population?

I really hope that they are doing it for the benefit of the child, and not for how they come across to everyone else, but I can't see it somehow.

[Max]

I don't think it's going to happen Roger, and like you I hope it doesn't.
He's too old, and is in a homosexual relationship which also disbars him there.

Why do we never see these celebs lining up to save a disfigured child, or one with AIDS?
God knows there's enough of them out there.

[Tom]

According to the news, the child Elton wants to 'adopt' is HIV positive. If he wants to adopt, that's great in my opinion, but I don't see why they feel the need to call a press conference to announce it. Maybe I'm being too judgemental.

[Diane CBPFC]

I guess it would depend on how old Elton’s partner is.  Elton is only seven years older than my father was when I was born. It is horrific to me that we let millions of children die each year from easily preventable disease and lack of food, let them go blind for lack of a few cents worth of vitamins then all of a sudden become interested in their rights when someone is trying to be kind.  I’m sure there are more than enough HIV orphans to go around should "perfect parents" want them and the kid could always get fashion counselling later in life. 

[Tarquin Thunderthighs lll]

I guess it would depend on how old Elton’s partner is.  Elton is only seven years older than my father was when I was born. It is horrific to me that we let millions of children die each year from easily preventable disease and lack of food, let them go blind for lack of a few cents worth of vitamins then all of a sudden become interested in their rights when someone is trying to be kind.  I’m sure there are more than enough HIV orphans to go around should "perfect parents" want them and the kid could always get fashion counselling later in life. 

Very well put, Diane. I fully understand Roger's feelings about this, but there are always at least two sides to any argument, and this is a very good balance.

[Mince]

Anyone else as sickened as I am about celebrities wandering around the world, trying to adopt children? We've now got Elton John popping into an orphanage in the Ukraine, deciding that one kid has "stolen his heart", and virtually offering to buy the child. We're talking about a 62 year-old recovering alcoholic/drug user. Yes, I know he's got bucketfuls of cash and spends £2,000 a week on flowers for his house but how on earth does that give him the right to attempt to "buy" a child's life? If you think I'm being harsh on old Reg Dwight, then take away the money side of things. Can you imagine an "average" 62 year-old man being even CONSIDERED for this? I'm not even talking about the gay aspect, although it could be argued that, ideally, a matriarchal figure should be involved in these cases. (Having said that, I'm pretty sure an expensive nanny would have been put in place).
What particularly sickens me is that this appears to be a fashion trend among the rich and famous. "Let's go to Africa/Eastern Europe and adopt one of those absolutely charming orphan kiddies!"
Grump over.

For me, it's not about his age or his drug use or his money. For me it comes down to whether Elton John can provide a better upbrining than the one the boy would have in the Ukraine. If so, why not? Wouldn't the orphanage be doing the boy harm by not allowing it? If there's any money involved, and it goes to the orphanage, so much the better. As for choosing a boy who is HIV positive, if that's true, good on him.

[Roger Kettle]

What bothers me is that these kids are being treated like fashion accessories---the next step up from carrying stupid little dogs around in handbags, a trend much beloved by recent divas. I take the point that, if the child's life is being made a better one, then that should be the decisive factor but I really question the motive behind these adoptions. I also question the need for personal visits, news conferences and camera crews when these matters could have been handled discreetly by legal teams in a quiet, effective manner.
Diane, your situation is vastly different---you're talking about a biological father in a stable, family environment. I'M talking about a 62 year-old man whose fame and wealth have allowed him to be in a situation that would be immediately denied to the average man/couple of that age. Maybe I'm being unfair, but the whole thing smacks of pointing at the cutest puppy in the dog pound while oozing sincerity at the camera.

[Mince]

What bothers me is that these kids are being treated like fashion accessories

Maybe I'm being unfair, but the whole thing smacks of pointing at the cutest puppy in the dog pound while oozing sincerity at the camera.

I agree that this bother me as well, and perhaps pop stars take longer to "grow up", but surely the "cutest" would not be a boy with AIDS.

I also agree that the publicity is not necessary, but then, with him being Elton John, what would happen if he did try to keep it quiet? Surely this would cause more people to wonder at his motives?

[Tarquin Thunderthighs lll]

You're right of course, Roger, but underneath all of the bizarre nature that goes on in showbiz people's lives (not all of it of their making - the media demands its diet also), you do have to ask the basic question once their fitness to adopt and look after a child is granted - do they actually want children?

If the answer is yes, then they are surely as entitled to adopt as anyone. If there was evidence to suggest that any of these celebrity adoptions were ephemeral affairs (have any of them tried handing back the children yet?), then you would have to question more deeply, but I've not heard of such cases. I have, on t'other hand, seen a number of cases first hand where, given the power to do so, I'd have locked up the natural parents (after surgery to make sure their status as such could never be reinvoked), and gladly handed over their offspring to the nearest celebrity demonstrating a willingness to show them even a modicum of genuine love.

[Zesty White]

If Elton John spends 2 grand a week on flowers for his house, and World Vision will let you sponsor a child (which, according to the organisation, makes a real difference to the children in question) for £20 a month, then Reg could buy some artificial plants and improve the lives of 400 children with that money. I remember thinking much the same with the whole Madonna scenario. If these stars are so intent on making children's lives better, then why dont they plough some of their vast fortune into materials for schools and hospitals, sponsor staff to build and run them and benefit more than the one child that they want to take home and lavish millions on?
If they did all that and then asked if they could adopt one of the kids, then people may not see it as being quite so much like child purchasing.

[Tarquin Thunderthighs lll]

If Elton John spends 2 grand a week on flowers for his house, and World Vision will let you sponsor a child (which, according to the organisation, makes a real difference to the children in question) for £20 a month, then Reg could buy some artificial plants and improve the lives of 400 children with that money. I remember thinking much the same with the whole Madonna scenario. If these stars are so intent on making children's lives better, then why dont they plough some of their vast fortune into materials for schools and hospitals, sponsor staff to build and run them and benefit more than the one child that they want to take home and lavish millions on?
If they did all that and then asked if they could adopt one of the kids, then people may not see it as being quite so much like child purchasing.

To be fair, I think Madonna did just that, but didn't make a huge fuss about it. Of course, that would be a no-win scenario in many eyes also - if there was a fuss, it would be seen as false and publicity-inspired - do it quietly and it will never be enough.

But you know, in reality, I'd rather not look upon it as being any kind of gesture aimed at improving the lives of one child or many. Adoption is selfish, and that's how it should be. It's less about giving a child a home as having a child of your own, which is a basic human need in so many of us. Nothing wrong with that, and if that is the motive, then it's the correct one, and should ensure that child gets the love and care it needs in the process.

[The Peepmaster]

It took me ages to make those bottoms wobble.

[Roger Kettle]

B******! I burst out laughing.

[Malc]

I think the arrogance comes from people who think "god, what could the UKRAINE offer this child?" as though life under the patronage of a rich pop star has to be a better option than an Eastern European slough of despond. It seems the Ukrainians have a set of standards, and no matter how rich or famous you are, you can't just sashay in and buy one of their kids. Who'd a thunk?

I don't care that Elton is gay, but I do care that he's world-travelling pop star with little or no time to devote to one of the most important jobs on the planet - being a parent. Yes, I do agree that adopting kids seems to be a fad amongst the less grounded celebrities. I'd prefer that they established orphanages with their money and used their conncetions and wealth to make sure they were kept funded.

Celebrities may say "hey, it's OUR money..." and of course it is, but they shouldn't cry foul when nations say "hey. they're OUR kids..."