Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
  • 24-11-2012 8:34am
    #1
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭


    From BBC:

    A couple have had three foster children removed from their care because they belong to the UK Independence Party.
    Rotherham Borough Council said the children were "not indigenous white British" and that it had concerns about UKIP's stance on immigration.
    It said it had to consider the "needs of the children longer term".
    The unnamed couple told the Daily Telegraph
     social workers had accused them of belonging to a "racist party". UKIP said it was an appalling decision.
    'Dumbfounded'
    The couple, who have been approved foster parents for seven years, were eight weeks into the placement when they were approached by social workers about their membership of the party.
    The wife told the Daily Telegraph: "I was dumbfounded. Then my question to both of them was, 'What has UKIP got to do with having the children removed?'
    "Then one of them said, 'Well, UKIP have got racist policies.' The implication was that we were racist. [The social worker] said UKIP does not like European people and wants them all out of the country to be returned to their own countries."
    The paper says the woman denied she was racist but the children were taken away by the end of the week.
    She said the social worker told her: "We would not have placed these children with you had we known you were members of UKIP because it wouldn't have been the right cultural match."
    The couple said they had been "stigmatised and slandered".
    Rotherham Borough Council's Strategic Director of Children and Young People's Services, Joyce Thacker, told the BBC: "We always try to place children in a sensible cultural placement.
    "These children are not UK children and we were not aware of the foster parents having strong political views. There are some strong views in the UKIP party and we have to think of the future of the children."
    She said the issue related to the party's policies on immigration issues.
    The council said there was no blanket ban on UKIP members being foster parents and that this couple would be allowed to foster other children in the future.
    'Political bias'
    UKIP leader Nigel Farage condemned the decision
     and said the council had many questions to answer.
    "They have to look at themselves in the mirror and ask who it is that is prejudiced? A normal couple who have fostered for seven years, or themselves who are blinded by political bias?
    "Publicly they must make absolutely clear the decision-making process in this case, who was responsible for this decision and why."
    The UKIP describes itself as a "Libertarian, non-racist party seeking Britain's withdrawal from the European Union".
    It currently has 12 MEPs and 31 councillors, with three peers in the House of Lords.


    Not too sure I'm comfortable with this. As long as foster carers are safe, qualified, sane i think it is fair that they represent a cross section of the society, not a sanitised homogenised version of society which some penpusher approves of. If the foster parents are full on nazis thats one thing but there is no evidence of that.

    Thoughts?


«134567

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    CrazyRabbit
    Registered Users Posts: 8,659 ✭✭✭CrazyRabbit


    I don't know enough about the UKIP party to form an educated opinion. Perhaps Rotherham Borough Council doesn't either...


  • Options
    #3
    Gloomtastic!
    Registered Users Posts: 8,335 ✭✭✭Gloomtastic!


    Maybe they should take away any foster kids from Guardian readers as well. They might grow up thinking the world owes them a living.


  • Options
    #4
    Sunnyisland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,562 ✭✭✭✭Sunnyisland


    Where would this end ? No FF parents to raise children here in case they educate them in corruption and greed ? And I wont even go into militant Republicanism and where that might lead,

    If the parents are giving there children a good education in national schools and keeping them well whats the problem ?


  • Options
    #5
    CruelCoin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭CruelCoin


    The parents belong to a party whose entire policy can be boiled down to:

    "dem outsiders tuk ur jebs".

    So the kids being placed with parents who are campaigning to have people like them removed is clever how?

    Fair? maybe not. Wise in the long run, i think so.


  • Options
    #6
    mackg
    Registered Users Posts: 3,938 ✭✭✭mackg


    UKIP's immigration policy.

    http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/1499-immigration-ukip-policy


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    its the PC brigade at it again, rotherham has a large asian community,but very few asian foster carers,its a matter of we dont want them,but because of your link to UKIP,you cannot have them either,


  • Options
    #8
    WindSock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,239 ✭✭✭✭WindSock


    Well. That's retarded. If I were the couple I would take the social worker to court for slander. Calling someone a racist is a huge thing in the UK.


  • Options
    #9
    spank_inferno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,892 ✭✭✭spank_inferno


    I was listening to the civil-servent who made the decision on BBC radio 4 just now.

    She sounded a slimy so & so.
    Apparently the people were fine candidates for foster parents.

    With this story and the "secret courts bill" thankfully struck down by the house of Lords during the week.

    Britain isn't sleepwalking towards a police state... it's already there.


  • Options
    #10
    quickbeam
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 16,287 Mod ✭✭✭✭quickbeam


    I'd agree with the decision. If they are anti minority races (I won't call them racists, but if they're a member of UKIP then it's fairly certain that they don't like non-whites in their country at least), then a minority race shouldn't be left with them. Not to say they're bad people, and unsuitable to foster white children. It's just these particular children that may be at risk and the council should have the children's concern as a prioirty.

    You wouldn't leave a Jewish child with a member of the Nazi party?

    [/godwin]


  • Options
    #11
    bbam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,410 ✭✭✭bbam


    It could have been the right decision for the long term.
    In fairness Forster placements has to be ALL about the children. Placing them with parents with links to a political party that would be against the presence of the children's cultural peers might cause problems.

    It's possible there are loads of details not given in the article.

    Regarding placements. If there is ANY risk that the environment would be unsuitable ten it needs to be stopped. Offending the parents is secondary.

    Personally I'd support the decision. I'd even go as far as saying that parents with links to political parties with such policies are unsuitable.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    R0ot
    Registered Users Posts: 4,473 ✭✭✭R0ot


    In before kids removed from Sinn Fein foster parents due to their previous radical views of a united Ireland because the kids were from a protestant family in the North.....


  • Options
    #13
    R0ot
    Registered Users Posts: 4,473 ✭✭✭R0ot


    CruelCoin wrote: »
    The parents belong to a party whose entire policy can be boiled down to:

    "dem outsiders tuk ur jebs".

    So the kids being placed with parents who are campaigning to have people like them removed is clever how?

    Fair? maybe not. Wise in the long run, i think so.

    Yes let's base foster care and rights to raise children on political views because that's a great road to go down... [/sarcasm]


  • Options
    #14
    Queen-Mise
    Registered Users Posts: 7,462 ✭✭✭Queen-Mise


    spank_inferno wrote: »

    Britain isn't sleepwalking towards a police state... it's already there.

    I agree thoroughly - Britain has been heading towards a police state for the past 15/20 years. Britain is heading towards 1984 - soon the kids will be telling on the parents :rolleyes:

    A crazy decision by the social workers - but then social workers generally are ****. Rather than the family being looked at; the social workers could look do with looking at themselves.


  • Options
    #15
    spank_inferno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,892 ✭✭✭spank_inferno


    bbam wrote: »
    Personally I'd support the decision. I'd even go as far as saying that parents with links to political parties with such policies are unsuitable.

    Thing is... UKIP (not quite as nuts as the BNP) have immigration policies very similar to that of the Tory party.
    They just dont implement them.

    It's a ridiculuous decision IMO


  • Options
    #16
    quickbeam
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 16,287 Mod ✭✭✭✭quickbeam


    spank_inferno wrote: »
    Thing is... UKIP (not quite as nuts as the BNP) ....

    You're right. I was getting mixed up between UKIP and BNP. I was thinking of crazy BNP parents with non-white children and thought it a bad idea. UKIP not so bad, so maybe a little too far taking them away from them. Still, better safe than sorry I suppose.


  • Options
    #17
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    spank_inferno wrote: »
    Thing is... UKIP (not quite as nuts as sa the BNP) have immigration policies very similar to that of the Tory party.
    They just dont implement them.

    It's a ridiculuous decision IMO
    rotherham has 63 councillors...covering the range of these political parties, BNP,conservative,england first party, independant,labour, liberal dems, something tell me we will not have heard the last of this,


  • Options
    #18
    spank_inferno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,892 ✭✭✭spank_inferno


    Queen-Mise wrote: »
    I agree thoroughly - Britain has been heading towards a police state for the past 15/20 years. Britain is heading towards 1984 - soon the kids will be telling on the parents :rolleyes:

    A crazy decision by the social workers - but then social workers generally are ****. Rather than the family being looked at; the social workers could look do with looking at themselves.

    I don't mean to sound all "Run_to_da_hills" conspiracy-esque.
    Britain does seem to have this "group-think" mentality.

    A level of PC extremeism where dissent from the norm is crushed.

    Another example is James McClean for not wearing a poppy.
    Its weird that no one on UK screens was without one.


  • Options
    #19
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    spank_inferno wrote: »
    I don't mean to sound all "Run_to_da_hills" conspiracy-esque.
    Britain does seem to have this "group-think" mentality.

    A level of PC extremeism where dissent from the norm is crushed.

    Another example is James McClean for not wearing a poppy.
    Its weird that no one on UK screens was without one.
    here we go,and there was me thinking it was going so well,


  • Options
    #20
    Gloomtastic!
    Registered Users Posts: 8,335 ✭✭✭Gloomtastic!


    getz wrote: »
    rotherham has 63 councillors...covering the range of these political parties, BNP,conservative,england first party, independant,labour, liberal dems, something tell me we will not have heard the last of this,

    However, the people who work for the council will be predominantly left-wing - Guardian readers. They will implement their own personal policies before abiding by the elected councillors' wishes.


  • Options
    #21
    bbam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,410 ✭✭✭bbam


    Queen-Mise wrote: »
    - but then social workers generally are ****. Rather than the family being looked at; the social workers could look do with looking at themselves.

    I've dealt with quite a few social workers and in the whole they are a good honest professional group. I've come across the odd head the ball but on the whole they do a good job for the children they represent.
    The problem is that we only ever hear about the bad cases which are by far the exception.
    It's easy on the outside to critisize but these people are charged with making the right decision regarding the welfare of children. They have to weigh up the information and decide, it's understandable that they would make cautious conservative decisions as in this case. It's better to be cautious and avoid any risk.

    Can you imagine the fallout if the children were bullied or abused by these parents because of their political opinions. It may be a slim chance but still best avoided.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Rascasse
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭Rascasse


    bbam wrote: »
    I've dealt with quite a few social workers and in the whole they are a good honest professional group. I've come across the odd head the ball but on the whole they do a good job for the children they represent.
    The problem is that we only ever hear about the bad cases which are by far the exception.
    It's easy on the outside to critisize but these people are charged with making the right decision regarding the welfare of children. They have to weigh up the information and decide, it's understandable that they would make cautious conservative decisions as in this case. It's better to be cautious and avoid any risk.

    Can you imagine the fallout if the children were bullied or abused by these parents because of their political opinions. It may be a slim chance but still best avoided.

    Bullied or abused? This is UKIP, they want out of Europe, lower taxes and smaller government. They are not the BNP! The smearing of UKIP by the two big parties really has been incredibly successful.

    If these people had a disliking of foreigners they would have refused to take the children. Simple as that.


  • Options
    #23
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    The UK is fairly scary in terms of its politically correct health and safety anti personal liberty 24/7 cctv group think mindset.
    Are we going the same way?


  • Options
    #24
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    Gloomtastic! wrote: »
    However, the people who work for the council will be predominantly left-wing - Guardian readers. They will implement their own personal policies before abiding by the elected councillors' wishes.
    if rotherham is anything like its lancashire twin bury,the make up of its town hall will be mainly asian.


  • Options
    #25
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Rascasse wrote: »
    Bullied or abused? This is UKIP, they want out of Europe, lower taxes and smaller government. They are not the BNP! The smearing of UKIP by the two big parties really has been incredibly successful.

    If these people had a disliking of foreigners they would have refused to take the children. Simple as that.
    yes.

    If Ron Paul were British, he'd probably be head of UKIP. And Ron Paul tends to make an awful lot of sense.


  • Options
    #26
    googled eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 4,629 ✭✭✭googled eyes


    This is along the lines of what John Waters said could happen if the children's referendum was passed. One social worker has the power to decided if a couple who have been fostering for years are now unfit to foster non uk kids because of their political beliefs


  • Options
    #27
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Political correctness is destroying the UK from the inside. There seems to be nobody with common sense left. The fact that these foster parents were involved in democratic politics should, in fact, make them even more suitable as foster parents.

    Equating being anti-immigration with racism is the same as equating disagreement with Israeli policy with antisemitism. Its not the same at all.


  • Options
    #28
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    googled eyes wrote: »
    This is along the lines of what John Waters said could happen if the children's referendum was passed. One social worker has the power to decided if a couple who have been fostering for years are now unfit to foster non uk kids because of their political beliefs
    or even religious beliefs


  • Options
    #29
    GalwayGuy2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,269 ✭✭✭GalwayGuy2


    A level of PC extremeism where dissent from the norm is crushed.

    Like a Scandinavian country:pac:


  • Options
    #30
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    This is entirely wrong foster parents shouldn't be discriminated against because they are members of a certain political party, or because they vote one way or another.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    DiggingDeep
    Site Banned Posts: 7 ✭DiggingDeep


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    a sanitised homogenised version of society which some penpusher approves of

    This is the unfortunate way that the UK is headed. Take airport security for example, nothing to do with terrorism but just an exercise in enforced normalness. Take anything with you (no matter how harmless) that isn't clothes, toileteries in a silly plastic bag and an iPad or laptop running Windows or Mac because only dissidents use Linux, and you'll be given hassle.

    bbam wrote: »
    It could have been the right decision for the long term.
    In fairness Forster placements has to be ALL about the children. Placing them with parents with links to a political party that would be against the presence of the children's cultural peers might cause problems.

    It's possible there are loads of details not given in the article.

    Regarding placements. If there is ANY risk that the environment would be unsuitable ten it needs to be stopped. Offending the parents is secondary.

    Personally I'd support the decision. I'd even go as far as saying that parents with links to political parties with such policies are unsuitable.

    There is always a risk. A government-loving fully paid up Labour member could inject heroin into his schlong one day, lose the head and give his foster child the biggest kick he's ever given.

    Queen-Mise wrote: »
    I agree thoroughly - Britain has been heading towards a police state for the past 15/20 years. Britain is heading towards 1984 - soon the kids will be telling on the parents :rolleyes:

    A crazy decision by the social workers - but then social workers generally are ****. Rather than the family being looked at; the social workers could look do with looking at themselves.

    With the children's referendum in we have opened the door at least slightly more to allowing this sort of thing to happen in Ireland as well.
    spank_inferno wrote: »
    I don't mean to sound all "Run_to_da_hills" conspiracy-esque.
    Britain does seem to have this "group-think" mentality.

    A level of PC extremeism where dissent from the norm is crushed.

    Another example is James McClean for not wearing a poppy.
    Its weird that no one on UK screens was without one.

    It is enforced normalness, diversity isn't valued there. I wonder how much hassle someone who's into survivalism, enjoys a spot of hunting, lives off the grid in the countryside would have in fostering a child. I'd say such a person could forget about it - mandatory town house where everything was done by registered installers and builders.
    bbam wrote: »
    I've dealt with quite a few social workers and in the whole they are a good honest professional group. I've come across the odd head the ball but on the whole they do a good job for the children they represent.
    The problem is that we only ever hear about the bad cases which are by far the exception.
    It's easy on the outside to critisize but these people are charged with making the right decision regarding the welfare of children. They have to weigh up the information and decide, it's understandable that they would make cautious conservative decisions as in this case. It's better to be cautious and avoid any risk.

    Can you imagine the fallout if the children were bullied or abused by these parents because of their political opinions. It may be a slim chance but still best avoided.

    It is unfortunate that you don't see the diversity destroying effect of your 'take no risk' approach. 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.
    suicide_circus wrote: »
    The UK is fairly scary in terms of its politically correct health and safety anti personal liberty 24/7 cctv group think mindset.
    Are we going the same way?

    For now, not as bad but mostly because the money isn't there. The new atheist young adult group actually seem to support a lot of this government monitoring and what have you because deviating from the norm apparently doesn't fit in "modern society" and "ppl r dumb, sure they believe in religion!" so the mentality that people should be herded into a certain fixed lifestyle by a technocratic government comes into play.


Advertisement