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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

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

12357

Comments

  • #122
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,057 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Killer Wench wrote: »
    :rolleyes:

    Well done.. have a star


  • #123
    Killer Wench
    Registered Users 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 Posts: 28,983 ✭✭✭✭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.

    shut down alcohol action ireland now! end MUP today!



  • #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 Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭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 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 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
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭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 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 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 Posts: 25,057 ✭✭✭✭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 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 Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭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
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭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