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

conorhal

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.

Angela Merkel said much the same thing (so has David Cameron):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-german-multiculturalism-failed

Why there are all sorts of people out there that need to be kept as far away from children as possible it would seem!

hay_maker

Shenshen wrote: »

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.

if their are racist , why would the take the kids in the first place

Shenshen

the_syco wrote: »

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

An anonymous tip-off, that's all the papers reveal at the moment.

hay_maker

the_syco wrote: »

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

some busybody ( working for some quango ) probably alerted them

conorhal

Shenshen wrote: »

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.

So we're arguing about what people 'might' do based on their political affiliation?

Well Shenshen, answer me this, 'are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party'?

Remember that 'ol chestnut?

Has the left forgotten the lessons of McCarthyism, or is it perhaps the case that they have learned them all too well?

Shenshen

hay_maker wrote: »

if their are racist , why would the take the kids in the first place

Who is talking about race? All three children are European.
UKIP - apparently - has no problem with different races, but with different cultures, in other words multi-culturalism.
And these children were from a different culture than the foster parents.

And in all honesty, I do not care about the foster parents. Fostering has to be exclusively about the children. And personally, I'd rather see social workers being perhaps over-zealous in matching the best foster parents to children rather than even the slightest bit too lax.

suicide_circus

conorhal wrote: »

So we're arguing about what people 'might' do based on their political affiliation?

Well Shenshen, answer me this, 'are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party'?

Remember that 'ol chestnut?

Has the left forgotten the lessons of McCarthyism, or is it perhaps the case that they have learned them all too well?

Ah look, people who back this decision are too far brainwashed to try and convince.

Shenshen

conorhal wrote: »

So we're arguing about what people 'might' do based on their political affiliation?

Well Shenshen, answer me this, 'are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party'?

Remember that 'ol chestnut?

Has the left forgotten the lessons of McCarthyism, or is it perhaps the case that they have learned them all too well?

No, but my parents were.

And they would not have qualified as foster parents here anyway, seeing as they weren't Catholic.
Me and my husband were told that to be considered, we would have to give up being vegetarian. Oh, and get rid of our cats.

Tell me, would you be happy to place a child from a Muslim family with Jehova's Witnesses foster parents?

Fostering is about finding a family suiting the child, not about the parents suiting anybody's ideology. And a child of non-English background can be better placed than with a people who pay a party membership fees that openly and forcefully opposes multi-culturalism.

SuperGrover

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.

What?

Lemming

I'm really tempted to scan some of the UKIP "vote-for-us Literature" I've been getting in the post given that the Rotherham local elections are this Thursday so you can all see a flavour of what the UKIP are under the rather thin veneer of social acceptance. Some of said literature could at first glance be mistaken as BNP until you flip it over and see the £UKIP logo. They are - imo - the "socially acceptable, TV-friendly" BNP-lite party.

As for the council's decision; I'm uneasy about the fact that these parents were deemed suitable in the first place only to have the decision reversed, causing further uncertainty & distress to the children. If the parents were deemed unsuitable then the process for selection wasn't followed or isn't working properly by allowing them access in the first place. So which is it Rotherham council? Are they unsuitable foster parents? Did someone f*ck up? Or is someone on the council chasing an agenda?

The parents themselves may be nice people, or they may be closet raving loonies; we just don't know & it's pointless to speculate on their character as party political affiliation does not define a person. Plenty of misguided or easily-led people out there.

Shenshen

Lemming wrote: »

I'm really tempted to scan some of the UKIP "vote-for-us Literature" I've been getting in the post given that the Rotherham local elections are this Thursday so you can all see a flavour of what the UKIP are under the rather thin veneer of social acceptance. Some of said literature could at first glance be mistaken as BNP until you flip it over and see the £UKIP logo. They are - imo - the "socially acceptable, TV-friendly" BNP-lite party.

As for the council's decision; I'm uneasy about the fact that these parents were deemed suitable in the first place only to have the decision reversed, causing further uncertainty & distress to the children. If the parents were deemed unsuitable then the process for selection wasn't followed or isn't working properly by allowing them access in the first place. So which is it Rotherham council? Are they unsuitable foster parents? Did someone f*ck up? Or is someone on the council chasing an agenda?

The parents themselves may be nice people, or they may be closet raving loonies; we just don't know & it's pointless to speculate on their character as party political affiliation does not define a person. Plenty of misguided or easily-led people out there.

I've no further insight than anyone else who knows how to use google, but I don't think the foster parents should be immediately disqualified. I don't see why they shouldn't in future foster white British children without problem.
I just would not place non-British children with them, based on what is known.

My name is URL

Shenshen wrote: »

I've no further insight than anyone else who knows how to use google, but I don't think the foster parents should be immediately disqualified. I don't see why they shouldn't in future foster white British children without problem.
I just would not place non-British children with them, based on what is known.

That they're members of a perfectly legal political party? Why should that be the overriding factor in such a decision?

The husband volunteers his time to help disabled people, and the wife is a qualified nurse... surely those two facts carry more weight than their UKIP membership? =/

And again, would you be comfortable with having the kids placed under the care of those who openly supported an illegal war and by extension the murder of over 100,000 civilians? There's something real to actually consider... rather than what is printed in a manifesto completely unrelated to the foster parents ability to care for the kids.

Shenshen

My name is URL wrote: »

That they're members of a perfectly legal political party? Why should that be the overriding factor in such a decision?

The husband volunteers his time to help disabled people, and the wife is a qualified nurse... surely those two facts carry more weight than their UKIP membership? =/

And again, would you be comfortable with having the kids placed under the care of those who openly supported an illegal war and by extension the murder of over 100,000 civilians? There's something real to actually consider... rather than what is printed in a manifesto completely unrelated to the foster parents ability to care for the kids.

Again, there is nothing illegal about being vegetarian, not being married, keeping certain pets, etc., yet it can disqualify you as a foster parent.
Nobody is debating the right of the couple to be members of any party they choose.

And as I said before, if I was a social worker in the UK, I too would err on the side of caution, considering how many cases there have been recently where the media and the public cried that the social services "should have been able to see the warning signs, why didn't do anything to prevent it?"
This time they tried to see the warning signs before anything could possibly happen to the children, and they're not getting any thanks for it.

conorhal

Shenshen wrote: »

No, but my parents were.

Then you should carefully consider the implications if what 'political affiliation and it's relationship to the suitability of a parent' might be.
There was a time your parents would have been blacklisted from many state jobs and unlikely to be considered suitable to raise children regardless of their ability to do so.

Shenshen wrote: »

And they would not have qualified as foster parents here anyway, seeing as they weren't Catholic.
Me and my husband were told that to be considered, we would have to give up being vegetarian. Oh, and get rid of our cats.

Given your stance, you should should be fine with that, but oddly you seem a bit disgruntled.

Shenshen wrote: »

Tell me, would you be happy to place a child from a Muslim family with Jehova's Witnesses foster parents?

I wouldn't be unhappy with the situation provided that they had been suitably vetted and were capable of providing a safe and caring enviornment for the child.

Shenshen wrote: »

Fostering is about finding a family suiting the child, not about the parents suiting anybody's ideology. And a child of non-English background can be better placed than with a people who pay a party membership fees that openly and forcefully opposes multi-culturalism.

It seems that fostering in this case is ALL about suiting sombody's ideology, the social workers, and as I pointed out in an earlier post, Angela Merkel called multiculturalism a failed ideology. It is.

greendom

hay_maker wrote: »

some busybody ( working for some quango ) probably alerted them

Maybe UKIP did it themselves, knowing the storm it would create.

Shenshen

conorhal wrote: »

Then you should carefully consider the implications if what 'political affiliation and it's relationship to the suitability of a parent' might be.
There was a time your parents would have been blacklisted from many state jobs and unlikely to be considered suitable to raise children regardless of their ability to do so.

Funny how they never were, growing up in Germany.

Given your stance, you should should be fine with that, but oddly you seem a bit disgruntled.

I am not. We applied, we had talks with social workers, and it was explained to us why we weren't suitable.
I can see their point. Children who just went through the traumatic experience of being removed from their parents do not need a home that differs from the one they're used to, they need one that's as similar as possible. And that includes the food, possible religion, the lot.
Also, children can have allergies, and pets can cause them.
Perfectly sensible to me, I never once thought of making this a media case about how vegetarians are being vilified and discriminated against.

It seems that fostering in this case is ALL about suiting sombody's ideology, the social workers, and as I pointed out in an earlier post, Angela Merkel called multiculturalism a failed ideology. It is.

Accusing a social worker for choosing to be over-careful rather than not careful enough of having an ideological problem... good grief.

Angela Merkel also repeatedly claimed that the Euro-crisis was over, that didn't make it so. What does she have to do with the case of these children?

conorhal

Shenshen wrote: »

Funny how they never were, growing up in Germany.

Yeah, there it worked the other way around....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margot_Honecker

"She was also responsible for the forced adoption of children of jailed dissidents or people who attempted to flee from East Germany, which meant that their children were taken away from them and given to communist parents."

Shenshen wrote: »

I am not. We applied, we had talks with social workers, and it was explained to us why we weren't suitable.
I can see their point. Children who just went through the traumatic experience of being removed from their parents do not need a home that differs from the one they're used to, they need one that's as similar as possible. And that includes the food, possible religion, the lot.
Also, children can have allergies, and pets can cause them.
Perfectly sensible to me, I never once thought of making this a media case about how vegetarians are being vilified and discriminated against.

...wow you sound so much less suitable then a violent alcoholic/drug addicted parent alright.... Nut roast, why it's almost as evil child abuse!

Shenshen wrote: »

Accusing a social worker for choosing to be over-careful rather than not careful enough of having an ideological problem... good grief.

Rubbish, the social workers sole concern was 'reds blues under the bed'.
Good greif indeed, but no surprise from the PC Rochdale social services who, if you'll remember, RAN A MILE from a 'better safe then sorry' policy when it came to investigating the grooming of young girls by Asian gangs in the area, then 'better safe then sorry' involved a cover up, but yeah, the social workers main concern was definately the welfare of the children in question.....

end of the road

Lemming wrote: »

which is it Rotherham council?
is someone on the council chasing an agenda?

i'd say your right to be honest. that was probably what it was.

greendom

end of the road wrote: »

i'd say your right to be honest. that was probably what it was.

Unlike UKIP of course

Shenshen

conorhal wrote: »

Yeah, there it worked the other way around....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margot_Honecker

"She was also responsible for the forced adoption of children of jailed dissidents or people who attempted to flee from East Germany, which meant that their children were taken away from them and given to communist parents."

Who said East Germany?

...wow you sound so much less suitable then a violent alcoholic/drug addicted parent alright.... Nut roast, why it's almost as evil child abuse!

At least I'm grown up enough to understand that one of the key principles of fostering is to force as little additional change as possible on a child.
Fostering is not a right for the foster parent, it's a crucial right for the child.

Rubbish, the social workers sole concern was 'reds blues under the bed'.
Good greif indeed, but no surprise from the PC Rochdale social services who, if you'll remember, RAN A MILE from a 'better safe then sorry' policy when it came to investigating the grooming of young girls by Asian gangs in the area, then 'better safe then sorry' involved a cover up, but yeah, the social workers main concern was definately the welfare of the children in question.....

Rotherham, not Rochdale.

So, which is it? Social workers working with due care and diligence, or not?
Blame them when they do try their best just as much as you blame them when they don't?

Rascasse

Shenshen wrote: »

At least I'm grown up enough to understand that one of the key principles of fostering is to force as little additional change as possible on a child. Fostering is not a right for the foster parent, it's a crucial right for the child.

In an ideal world maybe, but in the UK there is a shortage of foster carers and those children that can't be found somewhere end up in a care home. As I mentioned earlier, the UK is predominantly white and, unsurprisingly, most foster carers are white. Conversely, minorities make up 13% of the population, yet 17% of those that need care.

If its a choice between placing children with a family of a different ethnicity or placing them in a care home I think its obvious which is better.

suicide_circus

conorhal wrote: »

Rubbish, the social workers sole concern was 'reds blues under the bed'.
Good greif indeed, but no surprise from the PC Rochdale social services who, if you'll remember, RAN A MILE from a 'better safe then sorry' policy when it came to investigating the grooming of young girls by Asian gangs in the area, then 'better safe then sorry' involved a cover up, but yeah, the social workers main concern was definately the welfare of the children in question.....

Of course they ran a mile, investigating the crimes of minorities would be intolerance. Better focus on thought crimes.

Shenshen

Rascasse wrote: »

In an ideal world maybe, but in the UK there is a shortage of foster carers and those children that can't be found somewhere end up in a care home. As I mentioned earlier, the UK is predominantly white and, unsurprisingly, most foster carers are white. Conversely, minorities make up 13% of the population, yet 17% of those that need care.

If its a choice between placing children with a family of a different ethnicity or placing them in a care home I think its obvious which is better.

In this particular place, a different family has been found soon enough, going by official statements.
If that family is better suited, I don't see what the fuss is about.

Rascasse

Shenshen wrote: »

In this particular place, a different family has been found soon enough, going by official statements.
If that family is better suited, I don't see what the fuss is about.

Two different families. They had to be split up to be moved. Also the two families are also "white indigenous British' hence the fuss. Children separated and in the same situation as before. Shameful and damaging for the children.

Shenshen

Rascasse wrote: »

Two different families. They had to be split up to be moved. Also the two families are also "white indigenous British' hence the fuss. Children separated and in the same situation as before. Shameful and damaging for the children.

I cannot say for sure, but I would bet some money that the new famillies are not registered members of a party outspokenly campaigning against multi-culturalism....

So, no, not that same situation, as the skin colour or country of origin of the foster parents never was an issue to begin with.

Rascasse

Shenshen wrote: »

I cannot say for sure, but I would bet some money that the new famillies are not registered members of a party outspokenly campaigning against multi-culturalism....

So, no, not that same situation, as the skin colour or country of origin of the foster parents never was an issue to begin with.

That's okay then. Siblings separated, the bond that had built up broken just so they aren't living with people that vote for a party on the right. This family were such a threat that two of the children remained for them for a week while social services found a place for them.

On the multicultural issue - UKIP campaign against the government forcing it on people. Constant diversity audits, quangos costing millions that work with only one community etc. Also voting for a party doesn't mean you agree with every last word of the manifesto.

People on here make it sound like UKIP want ship out all foreigners and those not of a suitably light complexion.

LiamMc

matrim wrote: »

This could probably happen in Ireland even without the Childern's Referendum. We are talking about foster parents and AFAIK they have no leagal right to keep the kids.

It took three pages for the first proper post of the legal relationship of Foster Parents and Children in Care. It needs to be repeated constantly until the emotive-types hear it. I defender of the decision to remove the Children could say that if the Foster Parents had 7 (seven) years experience of Fostering then surely, surely they should know of the decision-making process.

getz wrote: »

i bit more intermixing would not of done northern ireland any harm, , we have already proved that the UKIP are not racist,they have a election going on in london at this time and their candidate is a black west indian, from what i can gather is that the children are from a ethnic EU background finding a perfect match would be impossible,if the couple had racist views why would they have taken in the children in the first place,

Is it UKIP that is describing their own candidate as west indian? I've heard of a representative cricket side called West Indies, but otherwise it is a very archaic term. Perhaps the candidate isn't Afro-Caribbean or perhaps UKIP want to hang on to phrases that they knew as Children (whether that be with Foster-,Adopted- or Birth-Parents).

(It may be a typo, but in the current context of the discussion. it's more respectful to use capital letters for Proper Nouns. It may be considered mischievously disrespectful otherwise).

Rascasse

LiamMc wrote: »

It took three pages for the first proper post of the legal relationship of Foster Parents and Children in Care. It needs to be repeated constantly until the emotive-types hear it. I defender of the decision to remove the Children could say that if the Foster Parents had 7 (seven) years experience of Fostering then surely, surely they should know of the decision-making process.

No idea what you are getting at here.

LiamMc wrote: »

Is it UKIP that is describing their own candidate as west indian? I've heard of a representative cricket side called West Indies, but otherwise it is a very archaic term. Perhaps the candidate isn't Afro-Caribbean or perhaps UKIP want to hang on to phrases that they knew as Children (whether that be with Foster-,Adopted- or Birth-Parents).

I'll assume you never spent any amount of time in the UK. West Indian is a widely used term for the community that came from what was then the British West Indies after WWII. It is used by the community itself and is not 'very archaic'. Another UKIP smear that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

getz

Rascasse wrote: »

No idea what you are getting at here.



I'll assume you never spent any amount of time in the UK. West Indian is a widely used term for the community that came from what was then the British West Indies after WWII. It is used by the community itself and is not 'very archaic'. Another UKIP smear that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

maybe he should visit one of the many west indian clubs in the UK

VinLieger

And UKIP just got rid of all the sympathy any rational people had for them

http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/Exclusive-UKIP-candidate-Croydon-North-says-gay/story-17426910-detail/story.html