(UK) Foster parents, members of UKIP, have children removed from their care.

larry_duff wrote: »

so you think a muslim child should if possible go to a muslim family ?

First, children aren't born with a religion they're indoctrinated into one. Regardless, yes, kids of Muslim heritage should be placed with Muslim FP's and I believe this is best practice.

You know they used to take children from indigenous people's in British colonies and place the little savages with civilised adoptive and foster parents in the UK?

Who were the savages in this scenario?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

As close as you can get.

I don't understand why this is such a huge deal.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

They will be considered of course but the children's culture/heritage will be given due regard.

It depends on the age of the child. Most children from birth are only beginning to generate an idea of culture or heritage.

A guideline that creates a policy depending on how diverse a state's population is (without consideration of the fact that diversity is never guaranteed in a country) is an ass. It can't work legitimately in practice.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Birth.

I can't see how it should be relevant from birth. Most children don't have a cultural identity at birth.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

In the UK or Ireland I guess they will place the child with Asian/Muslim heritage with FP's of an Asian/Muslim heritage.

This is confusing though in a number of cases.

Let's use the example you used earlier of the DUP and an "Catholic nationalist" child (a notion which I'm sceptical of, but let's go with it).

Let's say the child was raised in the Republic to Protestant parents. Should we put the child with "Catholic nationalists" or with "Protestant unionists"? Neither wholly represent the child.

Or should the State just get on with it without cultural analysis?

Asian / Muslim culture differs, and Asians aren't necessarily Muslims, and vice versa. There are shades of grey in between. This is why I think it's far easier to put the child with the best family who will take the best care of them.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's not my solution at all - do you think I'm making this up as I'm going along?. You trying to take me down a peg-or-two again? Think my ego is out of check is it?

I'm legitimately criticising your view. You've posted that you think this is reasonable, and I'm questioning that. This is a discussion forum, leave your personal opinion of me out of it.

I genuinely don't think it is all that viable.

Thanks for taking the time to address the points separately.

Shryke wrote: »

Not applicable. Just not applicable. There is no comparison between the situation you're describing and a couple in England that happen to belong to a political party.

I'm not saying the case would be identical - I'm just trying to make a more distinct and closer-to-home example to make a point. I'm trying to glean from the OP how 'unmatched' the kids were to the FP's. I'm guessing the FP's were white English people and the kids were non-white non-English. I'm guessing that the SW's could have made a more culturally sympathetic placement.

And basing this entirely on their subscription to a political party? Ludicrous.

See above. I doubt the decision to change the placement of the kids was based purely on the political persuasion of the FP's.

They're children. They're growing up and developing as people and they're doing it in England. They didn't just get off the boat from an extremist camp in the middle east.

Yes but if 'English' was good enough then they wouldn't bother taking people's heritage into account at all. You can have two English people with very different world views, cultural practices, heritage etc.

Your criteria would see no children being placed anywhere. It's unrealistic and damaging to the welfare of the kids. What they need are good parents, not ethnically correct ones ffs.

Not my criteria. Although I agree with it. And yes they were probably fine FP's.

Tbh you're saying they should stick with their own kind, which doesn't come off too well at all and it's more the attitude I would expect to hear from a UKIP member than this couple who have been treated so poorly for wanting to provide a good home.

Consider my point in my previous post. They used to take children from indigenous people and place them with white middle class parents who didn't even speak the language of the community they came from. Is that fair? Of course it's not. The extended family is the first place SW's look to place kids and their community next. What exactly is wrong with this?

philologos wrote: »

I don't understand why this is such a huge deal.

That's obvious.

It depends on the age of the child. Most children from birth are only beginning to generate an idea of culture or heritage.

Well spotted.

A guideline that creates a policy depending on how diverse a state's population is (without consideration of the fact that diversity is never guaranteed in a country) is an ass. It can't work legitimately in practice.

Nothing is ever guaranteed.

I can't see how it should be relevant from birth. Most children don't have a cultural identity at birth.

None do. But they still have a heritage as much as you'd like to deny it.

Let's say the child was raised in the Republic to Protestant parents. Should we put the child with "Catholic nationalists" or with "Protestant unionists"? Neither wholly represent the child. Or should the State just get on with it without cultural analysis?

Impossible. The person making the decision will not be immune from their own cultural bias - that's why we have guidelines and best practice.

I think it's far easier to put the child with the best family who will take the best care of them.

People have thought of this and they've gone with being sensitive to children's culture/heritage of origin and consider it best practice - this is how child protection has been working (with flaws of course) for decades. If you have a problem with it write to your MP/TD.

I'm legitimately criticising your view. You've posted that you think this is reasonable, and I'm questioning that. This is a discussion forum, leave your personal opinion of me out of it.

You described my posts as being 'my view' as if I created them - they're not (although I agree with them). You have a history with me (among others) don't pretend you don't.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

None do. But they still have a heritage as much as you'd like to deny it.

What do you mean by this? - Personally, I don't think it is a good idea to say that just because a child is of a certain ethnicity that they should be put with parents of that ethnicity. That isn't always wise, or even actually relevant to the welfare of the child.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Impossible. The person making the decision will not be immune from their own cultural bias - that's why we have guidelines and best practice.

The decisions on the basis of these guidelines aren't immune from "cultural bias" either.

Simply put, all one needs to do is investigate the circumstances and investigate who is best even if that means placing them with someone of a different ethnicity.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

People have thought of this and they've gone with being sensitive to children's culture/heritage of origin and consider it best practice - this is how child protection has been working (with flaws of course) for decades. If you have a problem with it write to your MP/TD.

If it is so obvious, and if you are defending this, then you should be able to make an argument for it.

Just because something has been used doesn't mean it shouldn't change. Indeed David Cameron and the Tories have discussed changing this. From The Telegraph:

Senior Tories have criticised “politically correct” rules requiring children to be adopted by families of the same ethnic background.

In March, David Cameron pledged to tackle “absurd” barriers to mixed-race adoption, while Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, said last year that “Left-wing prescriptions” were denying children loving new homes.

It might be a good job to get some law reforms on.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You described my posts as being 'my view' as if I created them - they're not (although I agree with them). You have a history with me (among others) don't pretend you don't.

This has nothing to do with you personally.

You've posted that you support this, I find your argument weak so I'll ask you about it and challenge your view. This is how civilised debate works.

If I have a history of disagreeing with you, I have a history of disagreeing with your posts and your arguments (which could have been made by anyone), but it isn't about you, it's about what you've posted. I genuinely believe in not attacking the poster, but going for the argument.

Shryke wrote: »

Kids don't care about culture, adults do.

You're right. Kids don't but as they grow up they do. This is especially true for adopted and fostered kids.

You're predicating culture on young lives based on their genetics which is a bigoted thing to do and has nothing to do with the welfare of the child.

I'm not. Jesus Shyrke... you're better than this. Kids grow up to be curious adults and the vast majority will want to know about where they came from. The closer FK's are matched to FP's the more they will know growing up and understand as an adult.

That's what seems to be the case actually, but I might have missed something in the reading?

In this case, yes, it looks like a mess and I have sympathy for the FP's. I do however understand why SW's might think that the children could be better placed and this is not a reflection of the parenting standards of the FP's.

You can, and you have tolerance and genuine care for other human beings too. These things go a little passed the fact that a kid is Asian, African or Hispanic.

They'd be absolutely critical. Cultural matching would be a bonus. I know I would like it to have been done for me had I required it.

It's the same difference then, if you agree with it. But then agree the FP's were probably fine. This is a bit too here and there. You're sitting on the fence here.

I'm not. Im drawing a distinction between the policy and the FP's competence. The FP's sound like they were fine people.

Not an applicable example, again it's another extreme that's out of joint with the reality.

That was very much a reality until they became culturally sensitive.

The kid aren't prejudiced or bigoted. It's bigotry that would have a brown kid placed with a brown family over a white family for purely racial reasons.

Nope. It's best practice.

Culture hardly comes into it. We're talking about children. They need a loving home, it's a very questionable thing to assume a child of a certain ethnicity should be put "with their own". That's appalling thinking Chuck!

Loving home first? Yes. Parents who'd be sensitive to the children's unique needs - all the better.

Lads. Just google 'foster child placement guidelines' and you will see that culture and heritage are very much considered when children are placed and for very good reason imo.

in post #61 I put up a clip of Nigel Farage speaking at the European Parliament three days ago. He is challenging David Cameron to a head to head debate on EU membership. He also states that 2 out of 3 people in the UK would vote for withdrawal from the EU.

Three days later, UKIP are being dragged through the mud by the media

Those in power both in UK and Europe are in fear of Farage's rising popularity.













.

The fact they fostered the children in the first place would indicate they are not hardline subscribers to the party - they probably just agree with some of its policies. Is it not quite relieving to see not all UKIP supporters are nut-jobs? Not that it's a nut-job party (in general) in the first place.

I think this is absolutely dreadful - it's just prejudice the other way (but I'm at a loss re the rather silly comments that all public sector workers in the UK are Guardian readers and social workers in general are ****; plus Britain is hardly heading towards 1984, which is an imagined society where people are urged to be cruel. I don't see a problem with a culture of being tolerant, although I agree isolated incidents such as this and the lad going to prison for a Facebook post are taking that policy too far).

The "Would you let a nazi couple foster a Jewish child?" comment is just ridiculous, seeing as UKIP is nowhere near the nazi party, and in that case there would be genuine concerns for the child's safety... not that a nazi party couple would be likely to foster a Jewish child... or would be fostering in the first place, should their fascist views be known.

A nationalist child in the north being fostered by a unionist/presbyterian couple... I don't know... not all unionists/presbyterians are going to automatically hate all from a nationalist/republican background. A lot of them aren't very political and are very christian (in the good way) - they just view themselves as British but don't want loyalist atrocities or sectarianism towards catholics. Again, I would see such a couple fostering a catholic/nationalist background child as simply being very openminded.

Ok , matching should be a priority. But if there was a mismatch in the first place due to not all info about the couple being known (like in this case) it's unfair to take the children off them. What if the children are happy there?

Madam_X wrote: »

Ok , matching should be a priority. But if there was a mismatch in the first place due to not all info about the couple being known (like in this case) it's unfair to take the children off them. What if the children are happy there?

Oh I agree that this was very badly handled but we don't have the details of the case. I'm talking about the practice of matching children to potential FP's not this couple in particular (indeed, they have my sympathy and the SW who cried racism should be fired)

You can see how people are using it to question the entire practice of culturally sensitive foster placements which is more about their own prejudices and perhaps a little anti-state axe grinding.

I've as much as been called a bigot and racist by people who should know better just because I believe that culturally sensitivity as regards placing FK's is a good thing.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯