Reuters reports that a Belgian boy was purchased over the Internet by a couple in Ghent. Reports indicate that the potential parents paid between $6421.90 and $12843.81 USD for the child.The couple denies paying for the actual child, stating that any costs they paid were merely pregnancy costs that were charged to the natural parents.
Dutch officials state that the couple have broken the laws for adopting children and as such the baby must be handed over to welfare authorities. The Netherlands courts have asked that the boy be placed into temporary custody until a decision is made by the Belgian government as to what action is required.
The temporary withholding of the child according to the Netherlands Justice Council is due to the lack of clarity in regards to the child's family history, something that "is of fundamental importance for a child growing up."
Inquiries are being made by both Dutch and Belgian officials.
those are like betamax, ancient and extinct
those are like betamax, ancient and extinct
lol
those are like betamax, ancient and extinct
...and the quality is better! :woot:
I've noticed a lot more people getting quicker at pointing out the flaws or annoyances in news articles posted.
Agreed. Why is there such a drive to have "original content" on Neowin these days? We just want the news from other web sites filtered for us. The occasional "original content" article is fine. I don't want to point any fingers at particular news posters, but the quality of these "original content" articles has been really poor lately.
If you have any persisting issues throw Marshalus a private message and let him know what you think.
If you have any persisting issues throw Marshalus a private message and let him know what you think.
I think the "Around the World" section needs to be combined with the OC news TBH... it isn't like you aren't doing what most news sites do anyway. However, I think it might be more appropriate to say "Reuters reports that..." rather than "report" with a link.
Instead articles like this are being reworded so that it looks like an original article - I'm not saying it's malicious but it is bad practice. Having a link within the article and rewording the article is verging on plagiarism. A simple "Source: Reuters" at the bottom is all that is needed.
I don't fault the author for their enthusiasm and desire to contribute but issues like this are very important and speak to the integrity of the site. Other sites could take issue, particularly if they feel their content is being used to profit other sites (from advertising revenue).
Is this such a big deal? I just hope it has not been sold into abuse. That the real scandal, unfortunately child trafficking rings are always covered up by those in power.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.