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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

13

Comments

  • #102
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    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.


  • #103
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    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? :confused:

    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.


  • #104
    Killer Wench
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,386 ✭✭✭Killer Wench


    philologos wrote: »
    Why would people foster children of different ethnicities if they were genuinely xenophobic? :confused:

    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.


  • #105
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    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.


  • #106
    Killer Wench
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,386 ✭✭✭Killer Wench


    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.


  • #107
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    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? :confused:


  • #108
    Killer Wench
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,386 ✭✭✭Killer Wench


    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).


  • #109
    Killer Wench
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,386 ✭✭✭Killer Wench


    philologos wrote: »
    Where has this happened in this case? :confused:

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


  • #110
    Rascasse
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭Rascasse


    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.


  • #111
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,069 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    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.


  • #113
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,483 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


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


  • #114
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,142 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    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.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words.



  • #115
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    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.


  • #116
    Killer Wench
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,386 ✭✭✭Killer Wench


    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".


  • #117
    Rascasse
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭Rascasse


    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.


  • #118
    Killer Wench
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,386 ✭✭✭Killer Wench


    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:


  • #119
    Killer Wench
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,386 ✭✭✭Killer Wench


    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.


  • #120
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    end of the road wrote: »
    in fairness that is true, same is happening here, but thats down to political correctness.


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

    ...ye wha?


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    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.


  • #122
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,069 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Killer Wench wrote: »
    :rolleyes:

    Well done.. have a star


  • #123
    Killer Wench
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,386 ✭✭✭Killer Wench


    My name is URL wrote: »
    Well done.. have a star

    I'm fabulous. I'll take two.


  • #124
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Shryke wrote: »
    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.

    Now you're starting to build a strawman.

    The 'overriding thing' would be a safe environment for a foster child (see: Maslow's hierarchy of needs). They're not going to put an Afro-Caribbean child with a risky AC family 200 miles away because they only have white FP's to chose from.
    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.

    In the here-and-now yes; historically, in the long term and in general no (see the study).
    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.

    Strawman. Doesn't deserve a considered response.
    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.

    A newborn's needs are primarily nourishment, shelter and stimulation. Eventually the child will grow up and start asking questions. Do you think he should be denied his heritage? Of course you don't - so what's wrong with finding adoptive/foster parents who will take it in their stride?
    Jesus man, we're all just people.

    Yes, but we're complex creatures.

    Would you argue the Pyramids are a big bunch of stones? Of course you wouldn't.


  • #125
    Shryke
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,199 ✭✭✭Shryke


    Ah Chuck, it deserves an incredibly considered response. It shows the cultural talk for garbage. You can make it fly with an older child who is already used to a certain environment but not with a new born.
    Mandating that children shouldn't be given to families of a different colour is stone aged and repugnant, especially on the notion that you would be denying them "heritage" as opposed to a good life.
    I'm sure they would ask questions and have issues like every other kid that's ever lived, and if they're in a good family then they will get through them, grow up and have a good chance at life.
    I'm appalled at this "them and us" attitude.

    Mexican pyramids or Egyptian pyramids, culturally speaking?


  • #126
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Okay then, I'll bite.
    Shryke wrote: »
    You say you believe this should be an overriding precedent from birth,

    No I didn't. You're misrepresenting me.
    and that I cannot agree with

    You're not able to agree with something I made no such claim of.
    and it is colouring the rest of your argument in my eyes as one based on ethnic segregation

    Nope. Fwiw taking children from their ethnic background without attempting to culturally match them with FP's would lead to greater levels of ethnic segregation.
    and the idea that an asian baby doesn't belong in a white household. That's a backward assertion.

    Where has anyone claimed this mad strawman of a non-argument is desirable?

    There you go.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Shryke
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,199 ✭✭✭Shryke


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Okay then, I'll bite.



    No I didn't. You're misrepresenting me.



    You're not able to agree with something I made no such claim of.



    Nope. Fwiw taking children from their ethnic background without attempting to culturally match them with FP's would lead to greater levels of ethnic segregation.



    Where has anyone claimed this mad strawman of a non-argument is desirable?

    There you go.

    From birth, in this post.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81910912&postcount=59

    If I'm misrepresenting you then you could clarify my statements with your own. What I'm putting forth is within the remit of your position on "heritage" and the apparent harm you would do a child if they weren't left with their own.


  • #128
    dj jarvis
    Registered Users Posts: 3,485 ✭✭✭dj jarvis


    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.


    Context is everything - the line i have highlighted has been put forward as a bad thing , but do you know why it is worded that way ?

    UKIP want the laws to stay the SAME as they are now, and not bend to wishy washy PC nazis who want to give ethnic minority's rights above the " locals " for want of a better word

    the case in question is Muslim groups fighting for the right to practice sharia law in their community's while living in the UK , total madness - you live in the UK then live by its laws - you want sharia law ? go to Sudan or another country that practices this backward medieval law.

    that is what that statement is about - so can you tell me again why a political party fighting to keep its laws, and not bend to extremism is a bad thing ?

    really - how long would the Irish population ( who in my opinion are mostly fair minded, middle of the road people ) put up with a small group getting their own laws above and beyond all else ?

    a lot of ignorance on this thread about UKIP , they are not the BNP or even close , and in fairness if 2/3 people in the UK want to leave the EU , well let them , good luck lads - HOW THE **** IS THAT RACIST ?

    a earlier poster was 100% correct when they stated that the ruling elite are ****ting themselves becasue people are going to vote for this lot


  • #129
    bbam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,410 ✭✭✭bbam


    dj jarvis wrote: »
    really - how long would the Irish population ( who in my opinion are mostly fair minded, middle of the road people ) put up with a small group getting their own laws above and beyond all else ?

    Travellers ??


  • #130
    dj jarvis
    Registered Users Posts: 3,485 ✭✭✭dj jarvis


    bbam wrote: »
    Travellers ??

    i am not aware that the traveling community have separate laws than any other irish citizen

    they might not chose to follow these laws but they are still bound by them

    the UKIP statement refers to Islamic community's have TOTALLY separate laws from the ones the rest of the UK population have to follow

    certain community's in the UK want to be ruled by sharia law - over and above the laws of the land - hence the UKIP stance , one law for all

    if they want lives lived under this law then go to a country that has them - its bonkers that they are looking for their own rules and laws while living in the UK

    UKIP are 100% right on this matter - one law for ALL


  • #131
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Shryke wrote: »
    From birth, in this post.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81910912&postcount=59

    You're being a bit evasive there now.

    You said:
    Shryke: You say you believe this should be an overriding precedent from birth

    I never once said it should be the 'overriding precedent from birth' - you're being disingenuous and you know it.

    In fact, I responded with this.
    Chuck: The 'overriding thing' would be a safe environment for a foster child (see: Maslow's hierarchy of needs).
    Shryke: If I'm misrepresenting you then you could clarify my statements with your own.

    Done.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Shryke
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,199 ✭✭✭Shryke


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    You're being a bit evasive there now.

    You said:



    I never once said it should be the 'overriding precedent from birth' - you're being disingenuous and you know it.

    In fact, I responded with this.





    Done.

    As evasive as you've been in straying away from the negative connotations of your argument and the implied unsuitability of foster families due to the ethnicity of a child (from birth).

    I said: It's bigotry that would have a brown kid placed with a brown family over a white family for purely racial reasons.
    You replied: Nope. It's best practice.

    Sounds like an overriding precedent to me.

    You make plenty of sense and come across moderate enough but then you throw something like that out. I can't not call you on it and it goes against the more sensible elements of your argument.

    I'm not being disingenuous here.


  • #133
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Shryke wrote: »
    I said: It's bigotry that would have a brown kid placed with a brown family over a white family for purely racial reasons.
    You replied: Nope. It's best practice.

    I think you've read what I've implied as 'racist' when 'realist' would be more applicable.

    I'll clarify.

    All things being equal, if two families, one black AC family and one white 'indigenous' English, present themselves as equally suitable candidates for foster care and a black AC child needs care?

    Yes, the child will be matched and race/heritage will be the difference.

    I'm the only person in the whole thread who has backed up my statements with a study and families in the study attest to the efficacy of cultural matching in fostering.

    What more do you want me to say?


  • #134
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,142 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    dj jarvis wrote: »
    how long would the Irish population ( who in my opinion are mostly fair minded, middle of the road people ) put up with a small group getting their own laws above and beyond all else ?
    forever, the irish population will put up with whatever is thrown at them indefinitely, do you honestly think their going to protest about it? no, some will mouth off and be like wannabe vidulanties but when they come up against the wrong people they will run away.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words.



  • #135
    dj jarvis
    Registered Users Posts: 3,485 ✭✭✭dj jarvis


    end of the road wrote: »
    forever, the irish population will put up with whatever is thrown at them indefinitely, do you honestly think their going to protest about it? no, some will mouth off and be like wannabe vidulanties but when they come up against the wrong people they will run away.

    i honestly do

    some one group in the state gets to live under their own laws, you bet your life people would not stand for it - you could not - we are a republic - one law for all


  • #136
    Shryke
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,199 ✭✭✭Shryke


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    I think you've read what I've implied as 'racist' when 'realist' would be more applicable.

    I'll clarify.

    All things being equal, if two families, one black AC family and one white 'indigenous' English, present themselves as equally suitable candidates for foster care and a black AC child needs care?

    Yes, the child will be matched and race/heritage will be the difference.

    I'm the only person in the whole thread who has backed up my statements with a study and families in the study attest to the efficacy of cultural matching in fostering.

    What more do you want me to say?

    Absolutely nothing, this has gone on long enough I think. Your study isn't everything and your views are your own. I'm inclined to agree to a certain extent but not the extent you would. I think we've hashed this out.


  • #137
    asherbassad
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭asherbassad


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

    So they can join the forces and fight for freedom in foreign fields.


  • #138
    biko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,220 ✭✭✭✭biko


    The lefty PC movement has gone too far over in the UK. I hope it won't get as bad over here before it gets better.

    Similar case:
    Member is banned by Barnardo's from caring for children
    District nurse said charity told her it would 'not be appropriate'
    A row over two UKIP members having their foster children removed took a new twist last night when another woman claimed she had been barred from looking after children because she was a party candidate.
    Nigel Farage, UKIP leader, condemned ‘another appalling case of discrimination’ after former district nurse Anne Murgatroyd said she had been prevented from volunteering as a mentor for young adults by leading children’s charity Barnardo’s.
    Ms Murgatroyd, a mother of three, claims she told the charity of her political affiliation and was told it would ‘not be appropriate’ for her to perform the role, which involves supporting children coming out of the care system, because UKIP ‘opposes multi-culturalism’. SRC


  • #139
    CruelCoin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭CruelCoin


    R0ot wrote: »
    Yes let's base foster care and rights to raise children on political views because that's a great road to go down... [/sarcasm]

    Yes, lets give them the benefit of the doubt and let them subject the kids to racist rhetoric because the alternative is so much worse... [/sarcasm]

    Have you ever seen one of the rallies? The rhetoric is aweful, and a damn sight harsher than that in the official mission statement tat.

    You telling me the parents would be 100% able to seperate those views from home life? I doubt it.


  • #140
    CruelCoin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭CruelCoin


    My name is URL wrote: »
    Presumably these people were deemed to be fit as parents before kids were placed under their care, their membership of a completely legal political party shouldn't come into it.

    You're not given a menu...

    "so sir, you have a choice between a caucasian, an asian, an african..."
    "hmmm, i'll have the caucasian, goes well with my hood".

    I'm guessing that (based on political views) the parents weren't banking on being lumped with non-caucasian kids.


  • #141
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    CruelCoin wrote: »

    Yes, lets give them the benefit of the doubt and let them subject the kids to racist rhetoric because the alternative is so much worse... [/sarcasm]

    There's no evidence of racism in this case. Why would a racist family even take on kids of a different race to begin with.

    This family have been slandered in the public now when they did nothing wrong.

    One is innocent unless there is evidence to show otherwise. Indeed give the benefit of the doubt to those who evidently are not racist.

    This is honestly absurd logic.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Shenshen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭Shenshen


    In all honesty, if there had been an incident, any incident at all, with foster children that had been placed with someone, and the media had found out afterwards that the foster parents had affiliations with a anti-multi-culturalism party or organisation of any kind, can you imagine the uproar?

    In the last 5 years or so, there have been plenty of cases, particularly in the UK, where the media demanded why nobody took preventative action, as all the "indicators" were there.
    So now a council looks at the indicators, and decides that a anti-multi-cultural couple may not be the best choice for 3 mixed-ethnic children, and now they're being accused of being prejudiced.
    The couple has not been told they cannot foster anyone ever again, the council simply decided that it might be better for these particular children to be placed elsewhere. They went with the information available to them and were trying to make a decision on what will be best for the children based simply on that.

    People, do make up your mind.
    Either care workers are obliged to look at the entire life of a foster parent and compare it to the circumstances of the foster child to find a good match, or else they are forced to hand the kid over to the first couple on the list to avoid offending foster parents.
    I'm sorry, but to me the rights of the children take first seat here.


  • #143
    CruelCoin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭CruelCoin


    philologos wrote: »
    There's no evidence of racism in this case. Why would a racist family even take on kids of a different race to begin with.

    This family have been slandered in the public now when they did nothing wrong.

    One is innocent unless there is evidence to show otherwise. Indeed give the benefit of the doubt to those who evidently are not racist.

    This is honestly absurd logic.

    By your logic it would be fine for a man with pedophilic thoughts and beliefs (albeit never committed or proven) to be entrusted with the care of young kids. Also absurd.

    People who are members of a borderline (admit it actually racist) racist organisation are no more worthy of looking after multicultural kids than a man looking at jailbait porn is worthy of looking after young kids.

    Nothing is proven, but that's a case where the law is an ass, and its best to ignore.


  • #144
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    CruelCoin wrote: »

    By your logic it would be fine for a man with pedophilic thoughts and beliefs (albeit never committed or proven) to be entrusted with the care of young kids. Also absurd.

    People who are members of a borderline (admit it actually racist) racist organisation are no more worthy of looking after multicultural kids than a man looking at jailbait porn is worthy of looking after young kids.

    Nothing is proven, but that's a case where the law is an ass, and its best to ignore.

    How can you prove someone is a paedophile without evidence?

    UKIP isn't a racist party (I don't agree with them and their policies) and I hope that the right thing is done in this case. Track record proven foster caters should be respected and valued by the State.

    Your argument is heavily flawed.


  • #145
    CruelCoin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭CruelCoin


    philologos wrote: »
    How can you prove someone is a paedophile without evidence?

    UKIP isn't a racist party (I don't agree with them and their policies) and I hope that the right thing is done in this case. Track record proven foster caters should be respected and valued by the State.

    Your argument is heavily flawed.

    If i knew someone was looking at lolita or jailbait porn, then i'd think twice about placing kids with them, proof or no.

    In some cases you just don't need proof.


  • #146
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,069 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    CruelCoin wrote: »
    You're not given a menu...

    "so sir, you have a choice between a caucasian, an asian, an african..."
    "hmmm, i'll have the caucasian, goes well with my hood".

    Who said anything about being given a 'menu'? :confused:

    The people have been registered, approved foster parents for years. I'm pretty sure they knew how the system worked.
    I'm guessing that (based on political views) the parents weren't banking on being lumped with non-caucasian kids.

    Pretty loaded statement there. The kids are all of Eastern European origin., so I'm unsure where you're plucking the 'non-Caucasian' thing from.

    Anyway, the fact that people responsible for legislating for the protection of children in the UK have come out strongly against the decision, and said that the ideology behind it is actually harmful for children in care; trumps the opinions and suppositions of anyone here.


  • #147
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Shenshen wrote: »
    In all honesty, if there had been an incident, any incident at all, with foster children that had been placed with someone, and the media had found out afterwards that the foster parents had affiliations with a anti-multi-culturalism party or organisation of any kind, can you imagine the uproar?

    In the last 5 years or so, there have been plenty of cases, particularly in the UK, where the media demanded why nobody took preventative action, as all the "indicators" were there.
    So now a council looks at the indicators, and decides that a anti-multi-cultural couple may not be the best choice for 3 mixed-ethnic children, and now they're being accused of being prejudiced.
    The couple has not been told they cannot foster anyone ever again, the council simply decided that it might be better for these particular children to be placed elsewhere. They went with the information available to them and were trying to make a decision on what will be best for the children based simply on that.

    People, do make up your mind.
    Either care workers are obliged to look at the entire life of a foster parent and compare it to the circumstances of the foster child to find a good match, or else they are forced to hand the kid over to the first couple on the list to avoid offending foster parents.
    I'm sorry, but to me the rights of the children take first seat here.
    Eh...but they're not anti multicultural, want proof? They took three mixed race kids into their home where the children flurished and the youngest started calling the man 'dad'.

    They are however in favour of controlled immegration and sceptical of the EU project. No this does not make them racist, dangerous or even crazy.

    These children were not removed over an issue of safety. They were removed because of the sinister groupthink ideology which exists in the UK today, it portrays itself as liberal and tolerent but in fact vilifies and mocks any opinion which is not it's own. It is a system of absolutes. A Government of control via fear.


  • #148
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    CruelCoin wrote: »

    If i knew someone was looking at lolita or jailbait porn, then i'd think twice about placing kids with them, proof or no.

    In some cases you just don't need proof.

    I assume it is a blessing that I don't know what either of those are :)


  • #149
    hay_maker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 17 ✭hay_maker


    CruelCoin wrote: »
    If i knew someone was looking at lolita or jailbait porn, then i'd think twice about placing kids with them, proof or no.

    In some cases you just don't need proof.


    your comparison is facile and distastefull


  • #150
    the_syco
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,305 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    You'd wonder how the social workers copped that the foster parents were members of said political party? Did someone complain, or what?


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Shenshen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭Shenshen


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    Eh...but they're not anti multicultural, want proof? They took three mixed race kids into their home where the children flurished and the youngest started calling the man 'dad'.

    They are however in favour of controlled immegration and sceptical of the EU project. No this does not make them racist, dangerous or even crazy.

    These children were not removed over an issue of safety. They were removed because of the sinister groupthink ideology which exists in the UK today, it portrays itself as liberal and tolerent but in fact vilifies and mocks any opinion which is not it's own. It is a system of absolutes. A Government of control via fear.

    Why then be member of a party who in its own statements condemns multi-culturalism in the strongest tones?

    As I understand, the children were with them since September, in an emergency placement which was never meant to be long-term to begin with.


Advertisement