Quit whinging about whingers! :lol: 
So there's a load of people having a major rant about "OMG THE LAW HAS BEEN BENT" and "SHE SHOULDNT HAVE THIS CHILD."The decision by a Malawian court gives the singer and her husband, film-maker Guy Ritchie, temporary custody of 13-month-old David Banda for 18 months.
A group of charities has tried to stop the adoption.
They say it is unlawful because Madonna has not lived in the country.
Who cares if he'd choose it or not? They are rich, so everything 'must' be ok, huh?hermand said:I'm not saying he'll be your normal kid, but who here would choose poverty over being brought up by a star?
Laws be damned, a child is been given the chance of a good life.
Haha, there's a certain irony, I grant you.DarrenW said:Quit whinging about whingers! :lol:![]()
And look at the other option - where you're doing well if you make it to 35 and then dying of AIDS as you orphan off yet another child or two to start the process all over again.Clem said:Who cares if he'd choose it or not? They are rich, so everything 'must' be ok, huh?
After all most famous offspring are really well balanced .....
Laws be damned indeed. Its only a childs wellbeing at stake!
Yeah...didnt you here on the news last night..."the child has now left on a flight heading back to the US with one of Madonna's bodyguards"....she cares so much about his welfare, shes not even bothering to fly home with him.Clem said:Who cares if he'd choose it or not? They are rich, so everything 'must' be ok, huh?
After all most famous offspring are really well balanced .....
Laws be damned indeed. Its only a childs wellbeing at stake!
lmao :lol::lol:DarrenW said:Quit whinging about whingers! :lol:![]()
Yep the £3m donation is a good move. The publicity also, but doing this kidnap/adoption, IMO, she has brought the whole episode down to a selfish celeb level.Brian Burrows said:You don't think this has given the 'big picture' major publicity then?
I also understand she's financing the building of an orphanage and school in Malawi
The reason she was there in the first place was to help fight poverty and aids.Brian Burrows said:You don't think this has given the 'big picture' major publicity then?
I also understand she's financing the building of an orphanage and school in Malawi
He didn't fly to the US, he landed at Heathrow early this morning. It was enough of a media frenzy without Madonna at the airport - it would have been an absolute circus had she been there.Mr Big said:Yeah...didnt you here on the news last night..."the child has now left on a flight heading back to the US with one of Madonna's bodyguards"....she cares so much about his welfare, shes not even bothering to fly home with him.![]()
Can you make a £3m donation and bring the plight of the country to the headlines, though? Nobody is saying it's 'fair', but like it or not, celeberities have influence and at least she's using hers for good. I can't bring myself to argue against that.girlofleisure said:Imagine you were trying to adopt a child from Malawi and had to wait up to 18 months AND have to spend time LIVING in the country in order to qualify. Whereas Madonna sinply flys in, chooses a child and flies him home within a matter of days. It's not right is it?
exactly - if she gave a damn about helping kids in Malawi, there are very many much better ways that would have cost less money and been easier to achieveClem said:Yep.
Plucking one kid out of a community helps the big picture how though?
And its the big picture that counts ....
I agree, the rules are there to protect the child, in madonnas case they would only be protecting it from the best upbringing money can buy, If it saves one child/future family from the poverty and disease then let it. In the words of Tesco, Every little helps.wedgedout said:IF the kid is bought up by madonna, I bet he goes on to do a lot of good for his home country.
Classic case of the "rules" getting in the way of common sense.