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

philologos · 24-11-2012 5:44pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

For children? Bollocks. Don't bother trying to steer the discussion towards your mind-numbing evangelism and piousness - it's boring and I've told you on many occasions I'm not interested in it.

The reality is that children eventually make up their own mind irrespective of whether their parents like it. I wasn't sure of my beliefs in respect to God or anything else until I took the time and energy to mull it over.

Please don't make this personal. I'm responding to your points and I don't want to get into an ad-hominem discussion. I genuinely don't believe that babies, and small children have made up their mind sufficiently about religion. I don't care what you think of me, but I am interested in having a respectful discussion with you. Please don't throw your toys out of the pram, and please discuss this properly.

I actually agreed with the British Humanist Association when they campaigned on this issue. Their billboards said:
"Don't label me. Let me grow up and decide for myself".

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Read the study I've posted above. It backs up the stance of most civilised countries (which I agree with) as regards foster placement and culture - not your naivety.

What do you define as a "civilised" country?

I don't believe that it is naive to believe that a child of any ethnicity can be brought up well by those of other ethnicities.

I wish you wouldn't make snotty accusations, and instead I wish you'd make an actual argument for your position.

Edit: This isn't about being pious or anything else. If you think that I genuinely think that, you don't know very much about what I believe.

Shryke · 24-11-2012 5:48pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

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)_/¯

Hi, that's me your referring to..
I won't argue that cultural sensitivity is a good thing, but I completely disagree with it being an overriding thing. You're placing huge emphasis on heritage but heritage for a child will be based on the family and the place in which they were raised, whatever about where their ancestors hailed from.

You say you believe this should be an overriding precedent from birth, and that I cannot agree with and it is colouring the rest of your argument in my eyes as one based on ethnic segregation and the idea that an asian baby doesn't belong in a white household. That's a backward assertion.
If a child is part of a caring family then they won't be missing out on anything, and if they are put with a more culturally sympathetic family then they are still being raised in England as a British citizen. There life experience isn't going to be impacted, aside from the level of care they get, and that has little to do with where their biological parents hailed from.

With regards to older kids that are being placed into care I can agree with you more so. I still wouldn't put emphasis on culture but on genuine care. Jesus man, we're all just people.

Rascasse · 24-11-2012 5:55pm

Britain is predominantly a white country and, unsurprisingly, most foster carers are also white. Minority or mixed races make up 13% of children nationally yet 17% of those that are cared for by the state. So while it may best best to place children with those of the same ethnicity it will often not be possible I'd also imagine that its very hard to find a family willing or able to take 3 children (including a baby).

These children have now been split up with the boy separated from to the two girls. That is the real shame here - I hope they do a u-turn on this decision so they can be reunited. Looking at the profile of the family in the Telegraph (who broke the story) they sound ideal foster parents.

The couple, who do not want to be named to avoid identifying the children they have fostered, are in their late 50s and live in a neat detached house in a village in South Yorkshire.

The husband was a Royal Navy reservist for more than 30 years and works with disabled people, while his wife is a qualified nursery nurse.

Former Labour voters, they have been approved foster parents for nearly seven years and have looked after about a dozen different children, one of them in a placement lasting four years.

They took on the three children — a baby girl, a boy and an older girl, who were all from an ethnic minority and a troubled family background — in September in an emergency placement.

They believe that the youngsters thrived in their care. The couple were described as “exemplary” foster parents: the baby put on weight and the older girl even began calling them “mum and dad”.

Killer Wench · 24-11-2012 6:01pm

If I was the social worker placing these children, I would have been alarmed too. This is taken from the UKIP's Immigration and Asylum platform:

"End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies."

This topic is particularly sensitive for me. In the US, there was an active policy of taking Native children and placing them in the homes of White Christian families with the intention of assimilating the children into the dominant culture, and to destroy Native families and communities by decimating their youth population (evolution of the "Kill the Indian, Save the Man" thought) As a result, there were many children of my grandfather's generation who were taken from their communities and families, and raised by non-Natives only to attempt to return to their cultural communities and be viewed as outcasts.

Thus, it isn't a stretch for my imagination to conjure up an image of two radical individuals who took in non-British children with the idea that they would take on the "Kill the Indian, Save the Man" approach.

bbam · 24-11-2012 6:06pm

DiggingDeep wrote: »

If these kids aren't showing up to school with whipping scars on their back chances are they're being looked after just fine. Unless you're one of those who believes teaching religion = child abuse.

Oh for goodness sake...
There are far more ways to abuse and bully children than whipping them.. this is nothing about religion... If these children are from a particular ethnic background this deserves to be respected and nurtured.. If they were placed with parents who have an objection to non british nationals being in the country then its not a good placement, simple as that.

philologos · 24-11-2012 6:11pm

Killer Wench wrote: »

If I was the social worker placing these children, I would have been alarmed too. This is taken from the UKIP's Immigration and Asylum platform:

"End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies."

This topic is particularly sensitive for me. In the US, there was an active policy of taking Native children and placing them in the homes of White Christian families with the intention of assimilating the children into the dominant culture, and to destroy Native families and communities by decimating their youth population (evolution of the "Kill the Indian, Save the Man" thought) As a result, there were many children of my grandfather's generation who were taken from their communities and families, and raised by non-Natives only to attempt to return to their cultural communities and be viewed as outcasts.

Thus, it isn't a stretch for my imagination to conjure up an image of two radical individuals who took in non-British children with the idea that they would take on the "Kill the Indian, Save the Man" approach.

This is utterly sensationalist. This isn't about creating a policy to "assimilate" anyone. Rather it is pretty simple, people should be allowed to foster children even if they are of a different ethnicity. Adding non-existent racist connotations to something that is simply about saying that people even if they are of a different ethnicity can do a brilliant job of raising children.

Chuck Stone · 24-11-2012 6:12pm

philologos wrote: »

The reality is that children eventually make up their own mind irrespective of whether their parents like it.

Stop talking shite and stop trying to steer the conversation towards your bullshit. [/QUOTE]

What do you define as a "civilised" country?

No death penalty. No torture. Due process. Separation of powers. Civilian policing. Social safety nets etc.

I don't believe that it is naive to believe that a child of any ethnicity can be brought up well by those of other ethnicities. I wish you'd make an actual argument for your position.

I've already said that we've arrived from a time when kids were placed because of notions of cultural superiority and imbalanced power. Thankfully we're more humane these days and attempt to value cultural differences between people and this extends to placing children in foster care.

Read the abstract of the study.

My name is URL · 24-11-2012 6:12pm

Killer Wench wrote: »

If I was the social worker placing these children, I would have been alarmed too. This is taken from the UKIP's Immigration and Asylum platform:

"End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies."

This topic is particularly sensitive for me. In the US, there was an active policy of taking Native children and placing them in the homes of White Christian families with the intention of assimilating the children into the dominant culture, and to destroy Native families and communities by decimating their youth population (evolution of the "Kill the Indian, Save the Man" thought) As a result, there were many children of my grandfather's generation who were taken from their communities and families, and raised by non-Natives only to attempt to return to their cultural communities and be viewed as outcasts.

Thus, it isn't a stretch for my imagination to conjure up an image of two radical individuals who took in non-British children with the idea that they would take on the "Kill the Indian, Save the Man" approach.

That most definitely is a stretch. Fine Gael as a party have some terribly old fashioned and archaic views (granted they're not comparable to UKIP), but you wouldn't assume that every member of the party agrees with every single one of those ideals.

It's an extremely cynical way of looking at things.. to imagine that the people involved merely want to instill racist views in the children they look after.

Killer Wench · 24-11-2012 6:16pm

philologos wrote: »

This is utterly sensationalist. This isn't about creating a policy to "assimilate" anyone. Rather it is pretty simple, people should be allowed to foster children even if they are of a different ethnicity. Adding non-existent racist connotations to something that is simply about saying that people even if they are of a different ethnicity can do a brilliant job of raising children.

Unless you are the foster parents, or know them intimately, you can't say that they would or would not use their position of influence and authority to try to assimilate children under their care to their position. Parents raise their children in a household that reflects their own personal values and their own cultural heritage. Their party advocates for the elimination of the multicultural state which seems to me that they do not want to celebrate difference, and that they believe that every immigrant should assimilate into British culture.

Killer Wench · 24-11-2012 6:24pm

My name is URL wrote: »

That most definitely is a stretch. Fine Gael as a party have some terribly old fashioned and archaic views (granted they're not comparable to UKIP), but you wouldn't assume that every member of the party agrees with every single one of those ideals.

It's an extremely cynical way of looking at things.. to imagine that the people involved merely want to instill racist views in the children they look after.

People on this board frequently misuse the term racist and racism. In this particular situation, the primary concern would be Xenophobia which is a fear, dislike, or hatred of individuals from another country or culture.

These individuals have taken on a multicultural household yet they belong to a party that condemns multiculturalism and believes that it has led to the destruction of traditional British society. It is a reason to be concerned.

philologos · 24-11-2012 6:25pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Stop talking shite and stop trying to steer the conversation towards your bullshit.

You're the one who is making this personal. I'm simply responding to your posts.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

No death penalty. No torture. Due process. Separation of powers. Civilian policing. Social safety nets etc.

This is getting sensationalist. Why is allowing people of different ethnicities foster children not "civilised"? If you feel that way, why don't you apply it to other subjects like inter-racial marriage? Why does the "keep them all with their own kind" logic extend further?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I've already said that we've arrived from a time when kids were placed because of notions of cultural superiority and imbalanced power. Thankfully we're more humane these days and attempt to value cultural differences between people and this extends to placing children in foster care.

Exactly. That's why I feel that we can move towards not having these sorts of draconian, archaic restrictions on foster parenting and adoption any more.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Read the abstract of the study.

The study doesn't say that this shouldn't be a possibility, and it doesn't recommend taking kids away from foster parents after 8 weeks for this reason.

Killer Wench wrote: »

Unless you are the foster parents, or know them intimately, you can't say that they would or would not use their position of influence and authority to try to assimilate children under their care to their position. Parents raise their children in a household that reflects their own personal values and their own cultural heritage. Their party advocates for the elimination of the multicultural state which seems to me that they do not want to celebrate difference, and that they believe that every immigrant should assimilate into British culture.

By the by, David Cameron has suggested in the past that there is a responsibility on immigrants to integrate into British life. Is that inherently wrong?

I mean even from my perspective, I understand that I as an Irish person should make an effort to fit into British life.

Parents will always impart their values onto children that they are bringing up. That's unavoidable, and I think it's pretty silly to suggest that they can do this.

philologos · 24-11-2012 6:28pm

Killer Wench wrote: »

People on this board frequently misuse the term racist and racism. In this particular situation, the primary concern would be Xenophobia which is a fear, dislike, or hatred of individuals from another country or culture.

These individuals have taken on a multicultural household yet they belong to a party that condemns multiculturalism and believes that it has led to the destruction of traditional British society. It is a reason to be concerned.

Why would people foster children of different ethnicities if they were genuinely xenophobic?

Although I disagree with UKIP's stance on the European Union, the party isn't xenophobic. What it campaigns for is tighter restrictions on immigration.

Killer Wench · 24-11-2012 6:32pm

philologos wrote: »

Why would people foster children of different ethnicities if they were genuinely xenophobic?

Although I disagree with UKIP's stance on the European Union, the party isn't xenophobic. What it campaigns for is tighter restrictions on immigration.

And for the end of multicultural policies:

"6 Our Way Of Life

• Our traditional values have been undermined. Children are taught to be ashamed of our past. Multiculturalism has split our society. Political correctness is stifling free speech.

• The law of the land must be single and apply to us all. We oppose any other system of law.

• End the ban on smoking in allocated rooms in public houses, clubs and hotels.

• Hold County wide referenda on the hunting ban."

Re: why Xenophobic individuals would foster children of a different culture, again, because they could be hoping to assimilate a younger generation into their preferred culture, or they could be in it for the monetary benefits.

philologos · 24-11-2012 6:39pm

Killer Wench wrote: »

And for the end of multicultural policies:

"6 Our Way Of Life

• Our traditional values have been undermined. Children are taught to be ashamed of our past. Multiculturalism has split our society. Political correctness is stifling free speech.

• The law of the land must be single and apply to us all. We oppose any other system of law.

• End the ban on smoking in allocated rooms in public houses, clubs and hotels.

• Hold County wide referenda on the hunting ban."

Re: why Xenophobic individuals would foster children of a different culture, again, because they could be hoping to assimilate a younger generation into their preferred culture, or they could be in it for the monetary benefits.

There are numerous forms of thinking about how immigration should work in a society. For example the 'melting pot' approach of America is rather different to the 'multiculture' approach of European states.

I don't see anything xenophobic about the 'melting pot' approach. It makes clear that we are all in this society together rather than having different societies within a single state.

I disagree with the smoking ban stuff and with the hunting ban stuff. I think there is a discussion to be had on what form multiculturalism takes. I don't think that's a xenophobic discussion either.

As I said, if these foster parents were really xenophobic I can't imagine them taking in kids of other backgrounds.

Killer Wench · 24-11-2012 6:40pm

philologos wrote: »

By the by, David Cameron has suggested in the past that there is a responsibility on immigrants to integrate into British life. Is that inherently wrong?

I mean even from my perspective, I understand that I as an Irish person should make an effort to fit into British life.

Parents will always impart their values onto children that they are bringing up. That's unavoidable, and I think it's pretty silly to suggest that they can do this.

Right - he has taken the position of integration which is not the same thing as assimilation. To integrate means that one can observe their own cultural rites and rights, but they should be accept the country's laws, perspectives on freedom or restrictions, and there is a commitment to allow for the minority culture to coexist with the majority culture. To assimilate means to force the minority culture to adopt the cultural values of the majority culture; it does not allow for a two way street - you simply become one of them.

philologos · 24-11-2012 6:41pm

Killer Wench wrote: »

Right - he has taken the position of integration which is not the same thing as assimilation. To integrate means that one can observe their own cultural rites and rights, but they should be accept the country's laws, perspectives on freedom or restrictions, and there is a commitment to allow for the minority culture to coexist with the majority culture. To assimilate means to force the minority culture to adopt the cultural values of the majority culture; it does not allow for a two way street - you simply become one of them.

Where has this happened in this case?

Killer Wench · 24-11-2012 6:46pm

philologos wrote: »

There are numerous forms of thinking about how immigration should work in a society. For example the 'melting pot' approach of America is rather different to the 'multiculture' approach of European states.

I don't see anything xenophobic about the 'melting pot' approach. It makes clear that we are all in this society together rather than having different societies within a single state.

I disagree with the smoking ban stuff and with the hunting ban stuff. I think there is a discussion to be had on what form multiculturalism takes. I don't think that's a xenophobic discussion either.

As I said, if these foster parents were really xenophobic I can't imagine them taking in kids of other backgrounds.

I'm American. I'm part of the 'Melting Pot' approach and the reason we take this approach is because of the numerous ethnic communities that have migrated to America over the centuries. I am also American Indian who is the descendant of those who were part of the assimilation programs and projects funded and operated by the federal government that evolved from genocide to ethnic cleansing to assimilation. There are now federal laws in place to protect Native children from being adopted out of their tribal communities because there were non-Native families adopting Native children with the primary goal of assimilating those children.

Someone called my cynical but I am the product of assimilation programs.

The UKIP does not take a "Melting Pot" approach nor do they take a multicultural approach. They are about locking down Britain and assimilating the non-British folk into the British culture. It isn't about melting identities into one unified identity (melting pot) nor is it about the co-existence of multiple cultures under one unified government structure (multiculturalism).

Killer Wench · 24-11-2012 6:47pm

philologos wrote: »

Where has this happened in this case?

It could have been happening or it could have happened which is why the children were removed!

Rascasse · 24-11-2012 6:51pm

1. UKIP are against the state forcing multiculturalism on everyone and that is what they want to end, not trying to assimilate everyone into Church of England attending, Queen loving, M&S shopping, cricket playing, flag waving Britons.

2. Supporting a political party does not mean one agrees with all of their policies. It is notable these people are former Labour voters.

philologos · 24-11-2012 6:53pm

Killer Wench wrote: »

It could have been happening or it could have happened which is why the children were removed!

I think that's your assumption rather than anything else.

I don't agree with UKIP's policy but their main objection is that they feel there has been too much immigration into Britain too quickly and that they want to limit this. That's not the same thing as a hatred of foreigners and you'd have to be highly dishonest to believe that.

This family wouldn't have taken children from other ethnic backgrounds if they were genuinely xenophobic.

My name is URL · 24-11-2012 6:56pm

Killer Wench wrote: »

It could have been happening or it could have happened which is why the children were removed!

Even the head the Government department responsible for children's services, who was himself adopted as a child; has come out and condemned the decision to remove the children from their care.

It was a screw-up, plain and simple. It's indefensible, and building strawman / hypothetical arguments and situations to excuse it doesn't change the fact that major screw-ups were made.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-11-2012 6:57pm

Does anyone know what sort of political views they were fostering ?

end of the road · 24-11-2012 7:00pm

Killer Wench wrote: »

Children are taught to be ashamed of our past.

in fairness that is true, same is happening here, but thats down to political correctness.

Killer Wench wrote: »

Multiculturalism has split our society.

it has but it is not a reason for Multiculturalism not to happen

Killer Wench wrote: »

Political correctness is stifling free speech.

would agree whole heartedly with that.

Killer Wench wrote: »

• The law of the land must be single and apply to us all. We oppose any other system of law.

absolutely, whats wrong with that?

Killer Wench wrote: »

• End the ban on smoking in allocated rooms in public houses, clubs and hotels.

completely agree.

Killer Wench wrote: »

• Hold County wide referenda on the hunting ban."

couldn't agree more, such a ban was doomed to fail anyway so lets see what the people really think, not the bleeding hearted city slicker tree-huggers who don't understand the vital traditions and way of life of the countryside.

Chuck Stone · 24-11-2012 7:04pm

philologos wrote: »

Why is allowing people of different ethnicities foster children not "civilised"

It's not banned. Children do get placed with FP's of different ethnicities. It's just that FK's culture is considered in the process and rightly so.

If you feel that way, why don't you apply it to other subjects like inter-racial marriage? Why does the "keep them all with their own kind" logic extend further?

Children require care and are not developed enough to decide where is best for them to be placed so the state acts 'In loco parentis'.

Adults can do whatever the **** they like. In fact, adults they don't have enough freedom afaic.

Exactly. That's why I feel that we can move towards not having these sorts of draconian, archaic restrictions on foster parenting and adoption any more.

There is no laws against children being placed in care outside their culture. Cultural matching is shown to be easier on the children and the foster carers.

By the by, David Cameron has suggested in the past that there is a responsibility on immigrants to integrate into British life. Is that inherently wrong?

He wasn't talking about vulnerable children.

Yawn.

Killer Wench · 24-11-2012 7:08pm

philologos wrote: »

I think that's your assumption rather than anything else.

I don't agree with UKIP's policy but their main objection is that they feel there has been too much immigration into Britain too quickly and that they want to limit this. That's not the same thing as a hatred of foreigners and you'd have to be highly dishonest to believe that.

This family wouldn't have taken children from other ethnic backgrounds if they were genuinely xenophobic.

It is an assumption that seems to have been shared with the social worker on charge of this case. Xenophobia isn't solely about hating foreigners, it is also about disliking foreign cultures and fearing the rise of those foreign cultures. Again, one does not have love or embrace the culture of the children they take in; there are many nefarious reasons why people take children from different cultures into their home, some do it with the goal of influencing those children and others do it because of the money or benefits they receive from the state for taking children in.

Here's another case where a foster family - who had previously fostered children - were blocked from fostering other children because of their views.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8370280/David-Cameron-defends-ban-on-anti-gay-foster-parents.html

Ultimately, the state has a desire in seeing children raised in homes that are "tolerant, welcoming, and broad-minded".

Rascasse · 24-11-2012 7:10pm

The foster mother has spoken to the local paper and had this to say:

“Joyce Thacker referred to us as carers not being able to meet the cultural needs of these children in the long term. My argument here is that we feel that we were meeting the cultural needs of these children - we were actively encouraging these children to speak their own language and to teach us their language.

“We enjoyed singing one of their folk songs inn their native language, and having been told of the religious denomination of these children we took steps to ensure that a school of their denomination was found.

“These children have now bee placed with families who are also white British, therefore how are these people going meet the cultural needs of the children?”

No much evidence of assimilation or xenophobia there.

Killer Wench · 24-11-2012 7:12pm

My name is URL wrote: »

It's indefensible, and building strawman / hypothetical arguments and situations to excuse it doesn't change the fact that major screw-ups were made.

:rolleyes:

Killer Wench · 24-11-2012 7:14pm

Rascasse wrote: »

The foster mother has spoken to the local paper and had this to say:

No much evidence of assimilation or xenophobia there.

That's great that they weren't responsible for irrevocable harm to young and vulnerable children.

Nodin · 24-11-2012 7:15pm

end of the road wrote: »

in fairness that is true, same is happening here, but thats down to political correctness.

.............

...ye wha?

philologos · 24-11-2012 7:17pm

Killer Wench wrote: »

It is an assumption that seems to have been shared with the social worker on charge of this case. Xenophobia isn't solely about hating foreigners, it is also about disliking foreign cultures and fearing the rise of those foreign cultures. Again, one does not have love or embrace the culture of the children they take in; there are many nefarious reasons why people take children from different cultures into their home, some do it with the goal of influencing those children and others do it because of the money or benefits they receive from the state for taking children in.

Here's another case where a foster family - who had previously fostered children - were blocked from fostering other children because of their views.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8370280/David-Cameron-defends-ban-on-anti-gay-foster-parents.html

Ultimately, the state has a desire in seeing children raised in homes that are "tolerant, welcoming, and broad-minded".

For the record, I think that decision was wrong also. Another case of excellent foster parents (with experience of fostering 15 children) being excluded from the system because the State doesn't like the fact that they refused to applaud and celebrate something they disagreed with.

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

Comments