UK children taken away because of parent's political ideology.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/27/uk-fo … cal-party/
You will notice their political ideology.....although not having anything to do with race.....made them"racist".
Sound familiar?It's already under investigation. Sound like a loose canon not a policy.
Nevertheless saying that party has nothing to do with race is a stretch. The argue you can have many "colors" but one "culture" and oppose "multiculturalism". So you can be any color so long as you act like a European?Oh that party in particular is racist?
Because they don't like the EU?
You know "racist" is the latest political hammer to hit people with. It almost literally has no real meaning anymore.If you read the official website the KKK isn't racist. It is very different as ground level. Try hanging at one of their meetings when all the cameras are turned off, and see if they still seem non-racist after that. UKIP is well known for racism, they are just a tad less band than BNP.
That said, she was looking after the kids well and should have kept them.Don't you think they maybe need a better reason than they "think" someone is a racist to remove their children?
Did you read my post? Of course I do.
But that doesn't make UKIP non-racist as a party. They clearly pander to a semi-bigoted support base that surveys find is about half way between rabid BNPers and the mainstream. They are just open about being anti-Muslim (because that is more mainstream) and speak in code about being anti non-whites (anti multicultural, anti-immigrant etc).
You are absolutely correct, racism has no meaning any longer.
How one can live in America and not experience and see racism is beyond me, you must either be blessed or blind as bats. Racism is treating people differently based on race and unfortunately those with a political agenda are all to happy to pretend it does not exist and is not relevant anymore and as a consequence intentionally or not increase it's lifespan and prevent society advancing beyond it.
It is easy to avoid if you are the privileged race in your community. Otherwise, not so much.
With the election and reelection of Obama we have transcended race! Of course the only people talking about race are liberals, I treat everybody I meet with the same respect they give me.
Don't be preposterous just because 50 something percent of the American population supports a black president does not mean racism is gone it's a complete non sequitur.
Goodness no, racism is still alive! Look at everybody who talks about it.
Isn't it interesting where hate crimes occur?
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_ha … ce-relatedOh look it's a chart of states by racial diversity, how amazing
I think its amazing that more hate crimes occur in the states that claim to be the most tolerant of race.
I think it's amazing that conservatives are so white. Wait no i don't
As I said it's a chart of racial diversity the more people of different races there are the more likely race motivated crimes are to occur, it's called simple math.I think that it actually comes down to population, but whatever. The second most populated state is number 9 on the list. I wonder what race is committing the most hate crimes?
OH, that was a good one. "The president's black, so no more racism!" Where do you live sir? Surely not here in the south. If you do, you may be in denial. I'm never one of the first people to call someone racially prejudiced unless it's obvious, and let me tell you, sweetheart, there are still places in the country where it is obvious.
Racism is alive and well in the U.S. and many other countries.
Sadly councils and UK politics overall can be very harsh and cruel to people. Over the past couple of years I have read a number of disaster stories about councils taking foster children away. In one case another person was refused to write to foster because of health problem. UK politics and I don't like to say this but it is somewhat true can be very ugly and loaded with discrimination. Overall it should not matter what your politics are. UKIP is a relatively moderate political party. There are some extreme parties out there and yet its members still qualify for fostering.
Oh yes they are racist, they specifically target multiculturalism as a policy.
I don't agree with the decisions but it's worth noting that they are not having their kids taken away they are foster children living there who are being moved out.
The question is whether the political views of parents should affect whether they are granted foster status, would you be comfortable with neo-nazis acting as foster parents?How do we know those people share all those same views?
That's a lot of what I have been hearing lately is well that's not all of us.
I do not like an action like that based on what some bureaucrat "thinks" someone may or may not be thinking.
You have no idea what level of emotional attachment parents and children....whether foster or not ...have attained.
Not good....not good.We don't. But maybe you should concede the point that UKIP has strong prejudiced and racist elements. Before asking others to concede the point that these people may not hold any such beliefs. It's a 'lead by example' thing,
It wouldn't matter to me what their political views are, so long as they provided a loving home for the children.
Those poor confused children, who were being actively encouraged to speak in their native tongue inside this caring English couple's home, will now be stuck back in an orphanage where they are open to the rampart abuse that seems to have become part and parcel of UK so-called 'care homes'.
And that is preferable to the risk that they might become 'indoctrinated' in a family home with foster parents who happened to be members of UKIP?As long as Hitler gives the ayran children a good home, it doesn't matter what he teaches them about Jews, homosexuals, or non-aryans.
Great idea! Political views are completely irrelevant.Hey Sooner I am conservative and have been called Nazi.....should i lose my kids?
I don't know the exact nexus but you made me laugh by reminding me that very recently I had it explained to me that black people, ipso facto; cannot be racists - only white people are able to be racists. <g>
If you were actually a white supremacist yes. I am guessing you aren't though
.
In this case, they are irrelevant.
There was no suggestion the children were being indoctrinated, any more than they would be in any other home whose parents are not members of a political party.
This was UKIP, not the BNP.
Not only that, just ask the vast majority of people in the UK if they think the politicians have overly-embraced multi-culturalism, and you will hear a resounding YES.
No-one wants to speak out for fear of being branded racist.Basically they lost their foster kids for daring to be politically incorrect.
I wasn't equating the UKIP with the Nazis, just so we are clear on that. I was attacking the principle that political affiliation doesn't matter when raising a child.
I also want to draw a distinction between two different types of indoctrination: one that results in moral consequences, and another immoral. Most indoctrinate their kids to believe all the typical moral injunctions we all agree to. The other side would be a racist telling his kids African Americans are inferior. Both of them lay down laws that parents don't like the children be questioned. I happened to agree with the RESULTS of the first type, but it is still indoctrination nonetheless.
Furthermore, there could be real criticism about multiculturalism. Does it make people afraid to speak out against cultures that are acting immorally, such as much of middle eastern culture treating women as inferior? I have absolutely no issue with such a situation.
Unfortunately, many of those who don't like multiculturalism are just small minded, and don't like when people act differently from the majority. I'm not sure why most human beings are like this, but it seems to be a fundamental characteristic of the majority.
The UKIP asserts, "· End mass, uncontrolled immigration. UKIP calls for an immediate five-year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement. We aspire to ensure that any future immigration does not exceed 50,000 people p.a." This strikes me as expressing a fear that too many people who are different from me are going to come into my country and change it. These people don't share the same skin color or the same beliefs about interpersonal relationships that I hold dear. It doesn't NECESSARILY have to be racist, but it would still be overly dogmatic.
I would fear for any child who was different from what the parents thought of as normal if they truly believed something like that.You have to understand what is happening in the UK right now.
There is upwards of 150,000 people arriving on our shores every year and either demanding 'political asylum' or they come from the European Union where the free movement of workers between member states is allowed.
The vast majority of these people bypass every other European country and head for the UK because of the social welfare benefit and free health care system.
As a result, Britain is going down the tubes. We simply cannot afford to keep paying out for both health tourists and cheats.
Add the immigration situated to the huge problem we already had with not only high unemployment rates, but we have whole generations who have never worked, and never want to work, because they have learned how to work the system so that they live very well on benefits.
Then we have thousands if not millions more who claim they are unable to work through ill health when there is nothing wrong with them.
We have to sort our own unemployed before we can even think about taking people from other countries.
In some parts of the UK now, Christmas lights and trees are banned from the city streets in case they offend non-Christians.
If they is multiculturalism they can keep it.Sounds like this is a better argument against capitalism than controlling illegal immigration. If welfare pays more than work, what is really being indicted by that state of affairs?
There are two options. Either welfare is far too generous, or the alternative of private employment doesn't pay enough. It can hardly be argued that helping people avoid starvation and providing them health care when they are sick could be described as "overly generous." Therefore, it follows that alternative private employment doesn't pay enough.
So, if welfare pays more than work, then alternate private employment doesn't pay enough. If private employment doesn't pay enough, then either minimum wage has to be drastically increased, or the overall system needs to be changed. Conservatives claim increasing the minimum wage too much would, literally, "bankrupt business." If we can't have that option, then the only other choice is to change the overall system.Don't you think that there is ever a point that welfare can be 'too generous'? In any case, you assume that the British welfare state helps people avoid starvation and provides them healthcare only, which is quite untrue. The prevalence of people "living off benefits", as we like to call them, is huge thanks to New Labour's welfare 'reforms'. Though it does help hard-working, yet poor, families, it allows many to live quite comfortably without having to do a day's work in their lives. I've seen it in my own family.
And naturally, in order to pay for this expensive enterprise, the government needs to do two things: tax, which we have to assume comes from productive sources otherwise there would be no revenue, and borrow. Both of these things inhibit the market's ability to produce and create jobs, and following that, increase wages.
Blaming capitalism for this problem is akin to stabbing someone in the liver and crying "see! Livers just don't work!". You're failing to see the unintended consequences of massive social programs.Same thing that happened to Marxism.
People make those kind of judgements all the time.That's news to me and many others. It was Thatcher, a conservative who destroyed the industrial base in the UK and in so doing destroyed work opportunities for many.
I'm no great fan of New Labour, but credit where it is due, and in this case the credit is totally with the conservatives.It's not the only reason, you're quite right about Thatcher, but it's a bit naive to dismiss the incredible spending of New Labour. Other reasons for unemployment include excessive regulation by both Tories and Labour, and the incredible expense of European Union membership.
Though, I don't mean to be rude, but blaming anything other than Capitalism is not on your radar, so logic is not going to persuade you.What excessive regulation? Like minimum wages and not being allowed to kill off workers?
I'd actually love to see a bit more logic from you rather than the knee jerk reaction that says it's all the fault of the government and the EU, speaking of which, how much do we get back from the EU and how much of this is spent on projects that our government would not fund?
And how many leave our shores each year for foreign climes?
Bunkum, we have about the worst welfare benefits in the EU and many other countries have public healthcare. The one thing we do have that attracts is the English language, spoken by many as a second language.
We make a net gain from immigrants, yes, they pay more into the system than they take out. Remember that when you come to collect your pension.
More blind prejudice. Most immigrants come here to work. Remember the Chinese cockle pickers that died in Morecambe Bay a few years ago? How many English people would put themselves in that position for a few measly quid?
And how many would work the fields for a few pounds a day so that YOU can have cheap vegetables?
Remember how a conservative government desperate to reduce unemployment figures turned a lot of the unemployed into sick people, unable to work?
Unemployment is a product of capitalism, not immigration.
Name me one place where this is the case?When we go abroad, we have to either have work to go to, pensions to live off, or return home in poverty.
You are kidding yourself if you think we have the worst welfare benefits. All of Europe have either none, or some that is totally dependent on what you already paid into the country. Yes hospitals will treat you abroad in emergency, then bill you later. You better have healthcare insurance or an NHS European card.
I can see that is working very well indeed already. Having paid the big stamp for 35 years, I now have to wait an extra 7 years before I can claim my pension.
Yes I remember that tragedy. Most British cockle pickers do it in their own time, when the tides are right, and earn themselves some money in the process. These immigrant workers were used, and badly. Not by the State but by their masters, probably Chinese too.
I know many people who take on summer jobs picking veg and fruit. Nature of the job means it attracts long-term unemployed, students and immigrants. It pays well enough, for not for long enough (short season, climatic conditions).
I remember a certain conservative government who made a lot of people sick, yes.
As to you the rest of your post, I would have to do a web search to find those English cities who conformed by taking down Christmas lights. I can't be bothered right now.That's all irrelevant to the question.
Again, more bunkum. All of Europe, well apart from some of the eastern countries, pay much higher unemployment benefits, for example, Eire was paying about £140 per week for a single unemployed against £60 in this country.
Why is that the fault of immigrants? Does an ageing population not have any affect on that?
If you think less than the minimum wage is paying well enough, I'm not inclined to agree with you.
Then let me help you, there are none.
Thank you for being the voice of sense here. As far as I'm aware UKIP doesn't advocate racist policies - they just think that Britain should put limits on the amount of immigration into the country. Whatever my own beliefs on that score, I can see where they're coming from - the UK is smaller than some US states, yet it has a population of over 60 million.
With regard to multiculturalism: where it becomes "too much" is where it stops being a voluntary, educational thing and is used as a psychological or even legal tool against people, to compel them to conform. No, I don't see why I should stop wishing people "Happy Christmas" and say "Happy Holidays" instead. And if I were a practising Christian (which BTW I'm not), I would want to be allowed to wear a small cross around my neck when at work, if people of other religions were allowed to wear similar symbols of their faith. More seriously, I don't see why Sharia law should be allowed in Britain. This is Britain - not Iran. None of these statements make me racist, and I don't see why the "political class" should get away with branding me one.
ETA: It seems that crying "racist" is a tool often used by people when they want to derail a debate and silence the opposition. Because there are enough people out there nowadays who are afraid of being branded with the r-label, and who can therefore be silenced by the threat of that label. This is why I disagree with hate speech laws, although in today's climate I realise I'm swimming against the tide here.
But we're forgetting a bit of history here, Izzy. Remember baby P? His mother's boyfriend's brother was a member of the BNP, Jason Owen. The BNP, just like UKIP are odious at best, fascistic at worst. And like I said earlier in this post the child is safe, as far as SSD is concerned that is a win win situation, they are not at liberty to discuss every aspect of this case because there is not a failing on their behalf. How do any of us know what other factors led to this decision by SSD? Who did those foster parents also associate with, what other influences might have been brought to bare in that child's life? Unless a child is at risk of significant harm, there is rarely just one factor which is the deciding factor for removing a child. And whilst everyone is screaming that it is PC gone mad, we'd also be screaming if that child was injured/murdered/neglected because SSD did not take into account other issues that they were aware of.
A summary of UKIP's policies can be read here:
http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-polici … -stand-for
I have to say that they don't scream "odious" to me - it's a bit of a stretch (to put it kindly) to say that believing in the UKIP manifesto makes you a bad, uncaring person who's unfit to be allowed anywhere near children.
You're right in one thing, we don't know what (if any) other factors were involved in Rotherham Council's decision. But if it was made solely on the basis of this couple's membership of UKIP, then it's an appalling abuse of power. Maybe that's the problem - these people have way too much power.I talked about the BNP and UKIP, not just one party, I said odious at best and fascistic at worse. UKIP as a party can conceivably be described as ethnocentric, that might not equate to odious to you but it sometimes does to those who are descendants of other European countries, residing in this one and having to live day in day with what defines Britishness. Or perhaps I'm being ethnocentric, too? And you misquoted me I talked about screaming of PC gone mad, not screaming that UKIP is odious, although I still maintain that they are. And yes, I am right, not one of us here know every aspect of that case or every issue that led to that child's removal, which is why I would never speculate and say that " if it was made soley on that basis of this couple's membership of UKIP, then it is an appalling abuse of power" because the fact is, we don't know-everything else is speculation.
I didn't misquote you. You saw I'd written the word "scream" and jumped to that conclusion. Perhaps I should have used a different word instead but I don't see why I should minutely second guess your thought processes on the offchance that you'll be offended.
I said IF the decision was solely made on that basis, THEN it was an abuse of power. Meaning that I acknowledged there could be other factors at work that we don't know about. Geesh.I'm not offended, EF. And actually that was my point all along, whatever I think or you think of a political party is irrelevant. Because a party cannot screen all it's voters- I don't like UKIP, but I don't believe that all it's members are not fit to be parents or whatever, that's daft. You may or may not vote for UKIP for whatever reasons, but your neighbour may vote for them for completely (and wholly unacceptable reasons, ie, because they don't like foreigners, they are racist etc) some people really are that daft.
But I stand by the fact that there is more than one reason why SSD removed the child, the foster parents affiliation with UKIP obviously comes into play, but what else? Who else? In an earlier post I'd stated that I'd read that BNP members had flocked to UKIP. What intelligence might SSD have that everyone else doesn't?
That'll be all of of us then.
My great-granny was Argentinian, all the rest of my ancestors seemed to have come over from Ireland in the dim and distant past.
Actually talking of my great granny, I'd one day like to write an article about her. Probably not here on HP because no searchers will be looking for it, but this woman married my great grandfather when he was a young doctor, having moved to Buenos Aires at the time of the great Yellow Fever Plague around 1870 when ? millions died?
He was later commemorated for being one of the last medics to keep working, or was offered an award and refused, there is some articles on the web about him.
Anyway, he came back to Scotland to die (aged about 28), having finally contracted the disease himself, and brought his young wife and family with him.
She brought up their 4 surviving children alone here, and all of them went to become university trained in medicine. Or at least my grandfather did. I don't actually know about the rest. I think one died young.
So, anyway, none of us can claim to be truly British, whatever that is, but if immigration continues at its current rate, Britain will become a Sharia State within 20 years.
I read that somewhere about 5 years ago. The thinking was that when Muslims outnumber native Brits, which is expected to happen by 2025, they will be able to vote in a Muslim government. I wish I could find the site.
I thought it was a government agency that wrote it, but maybe they have been forced to take it down.
I have no problem with anyone coming in (up to a point) so long as they have something to add to the country.
Workers, professionals etc are welcome, but only so long as they are prepared to work at the going rate, none of this doing it on the cheap.
Eastern European workers are the workers of choice on building sites, because they are prepared to work long hours for low pay. Never mind the fact that they can't speak a word of English. They are good workers I'll grant them that, but there is no way they should be encouraged here at a time when the local workers deserve a pay rise, not a pay drop or lay-offs.
I'm pro-European, but against the free movement of non-workers. All those young fit lads come over and work, then all those young fit girls appear with a mountain of babies to live off social security. They probably aren't even their babies! There is a healthy market in forgery of birth certificates going on here.But Izzy, you're talking about Muslims as if they are a race, coming in. They're belong to a religion. I still believe that this is scare mongering brought about by an anti Islamist press and successive governments. I mean think about it, clearly there are Caucasian Muslims, but Islam is far more more prevalent in Arabic countries- the UK can curb immigration on that front, but not not from European countries, they can't control that. All this about we will become a Sharia country is ludicrous. Muslims, for the most part, who settle in this country raise generations who become far more moderate when it comes to religion. If it were not the case, why do we have so many female Muslim students? Look around in diverse cities, are males of the Muslim faith out numbering females of the same faith in our universities? If we are becoming "something" where is the evidence?
Found this quotation from the Labour Councillor dealing with the case.
"This is a sensitive child protection case. It involves both vulnerable children and the foster carers, so the information the council is able to release publicly is limited by law."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho … 52607.htmlThe couple were told the children were being removed because they were members of 'a racist party' so anything they might say now is completely irrelevant.
Of course, if they wanted to nit-pick, they are bound to find some other reason.
If they wanted to remove the children for their own safety because the foster parents in some way were not suitable, surely the political party they belonged to should not have been mentioned?I read that they'd been a tip off from neighbours, yes, about the party but who knows what else. Speculation I agree, but when someone tips SSD off, they are not at liberty to discuss exactly what has been said. They rely on tip offs and have to protect the identity of the informer. They may have had to ask the foster carers if it were the case that they belonged to that political party to establish what is fact- any other information they may or may have we simply do not know and not only are they not at liberty to disclose to the foster parents the information that they have received, in many cases they just can't.
Stone reapeated ""As we said on Saturday, membership of Ukip should not bar someone from fostering."
He also went on to say:
But the Labour council leader said it was a "very complex case" involving legal advice and an external agency.
What external agency? What other information have they received? Clearly this about more than just repeated tip offs and affiliation to the party. It doesn't mean that the foster carers have deliberately put the child in harms way, and if they haven't it must be very frustrating for them. But at the end of the day the feelings of the foster parents are secondary. You say that the council can say what they want now, but they cannot fabricate intelligence or evidence which has been shared by another statutory agency. Social workers and Social Services manage risk, any potential risks to the child, that is the beginning and end of their job. They don't manage what will happen, they manage what might happen- If they have prevented any potential harm to that child, then surely this is child protection at its best, not its worst.Also, I found this discussing a small (4,000 respondents) study of the attitudes of (some) UKIP members. Links to the study are included within the article. It's quite illuminating.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/robert- … 93055.html
On this note in particular, a few years I did a college course as an adult returner, and a young girl in my class was an Indian Hindu. She had a boyfriend who was a Pakistani Muslim, but the relationship was secret.
She told me that if her parents found out, she would be cast out from the family, and possibly even sent to India, a country she had never set foot in.
There have been several cases over the years of young girls being taken out of school aged around 14, and sent off to India or Pakistan to marry someone their parents had arranged for them.
That is not integrating into our society, even if on the face of it they seem to have.
Then we have the honour killings, quite a few of them have made the Press in recent years.
I used to love listening to the young Pakistani kids playing on the streets, and calling to each other in broad Glaswegian. That seemed to me to be integration.
Then they grow up and murder their sister for bringing shame upon the family by wearing Western-style clothes or make-up.Izzy, I agree that honour killings etc are a huge problem in this country and indeed other European and non European nations. And I also agree that this is more prevalent in Pakistani communities than in it is in other Asian communities etc. And I'd never try to minimise any of this. But, and I know when I say this you might be shocked initially, in some respects we are partly to blame for the honour killings not being prevented..
The no recourse rule ensures that women from other countries, even when they have married a British Citizen, cannot obtain state benefits. For women in abusive relationships this means that when they want to flee a domestic violence situation they cannot have a place in a women's hostel or safe house and take advantage of some other support networks. Clearly, some of those women die.
Every week two women die at the hands of men in this country, I'm not talking about honour killings here- just as the result of DV situatons. And these are women who do have right of recourse- if they didn't, how many women from our culture would we lose each week?
When you add what is happening to legal immigrants in the UK from particular communities, with Police (previously at any rate) not investigating because, they claim, they may be deemed Islamaphobic. We have massive inequalities in the Criminal justice system etc when it comes to Asian women and domestic abuse. They define forced marriages and honour killings as extreme violence against women, I define all violence against women as extreme. Every time there is an honour killing it is plastered all over the news, yet every week two women are murdered by current and X partners from non (Muslim, Pakistani communities) and it rarely makes the news. What's going on there?
Hang on, these are fostered children not biological or adopted children!
Furthermore, they are children of immigrants, namely precisely the sort of people UKIP wish to prevent from coming to Britain.
I can imagine a massive psychological conflict arising with respect to the children's ethnicity if they are being brought up by UKIP members and indoctrinated into those political views.
I think the fostering service has a right to be concerned.So that party is populated with dangerous people?
Foster care decisions should be based on the care provided, not presumed thought crimes. They could have investigated rather than just taken the poor kids out of the home immediately.
Welll...........duh!
That's where I am going here.
It is populated by people with an intense hatred of anyone whose ethnic origin does not derive from the UK.
From the BBC report:
Rotherham Borough Council's Strategic Director of Children and Young People's Services, Joyce Thacker, told the BBC that her decision was influenced by UKIP's immigration policy, which she said calls for the end of the "active promotion of multiculturalism".
UKIP's immigration policy states the party wants an "end [to] the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government", ........
.....She added during an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today: "I have to look at the children's cultural and ethnic needs.
"I have legal advice I have to follow for the placement of children and I was criticised before for not making sure their cultural and ethnic needs were met............
...... She added that the children were placed with the family temporarily and were never intended to stay with the family long-term.
The council said there was no blanket ban on UKIP members being foster parents and that this couple would be allowed to foster other children in the future."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20474120
Everyone dislikes some group or another. Let it be because of race, gender, sexuality, people from certain areas, people who wear certain clothes, or any other of the reasons people find to dislike another group. Over half of the foster homes I was in were racist in one way or another. It had no long term impact on me. So I guess my question would be, does being a racist really change parenting ability? Then what limit on hates do you put? Do you say people who dislike gays or women who work shouldn't have foster children either?
Exactly. They needed to assess the care. If the care was good, the fostering was good. They were short term fosterers anyway. So beyond being warm, safe and meeting their physical needs, I don't see any high philosophical requirements here especially for the little baby.
WAIT WAIT WAIT.
The child is not the war of the foster parents the child is the ward of the state which means the state has the right and responsibility to decide what is best for the child and the state makes all decisions (ideally) by representing the will of the people, I certainly don't want children being raised with my tax dollars (if I were a British tax payer) by racists and being brainwashed with that doctrine, I rather suspect that most British tax payers would feel the same way.I'm guessing you've never been a foster child. I would have rathered one set of crazy racist foster parent that wanted to keep me and take care of me than a non racist who treated me like crap. Plenty of my foster parents were racist, I didn't turn out that way. Following that logic, almost every white person in America would hate black people since most of their parents did. I get not wanting bad things pushed on kids, but with an already limited amount of foster parents the care for the children should be the priority over their likes and dislikes.
I was raised in an orphanage not a foster home but the extreme religious views there had very harmful effects on many of the "occupants" children crave approval, some are stronger and won't be easily led but for many that is not the case.
Religion and conservative views ruin children!
I didn't say that but inflicting such shame on a teen who is discovering he is gay that he hangs himself in the closet is not what I would call ideal parenting how about you?
SO yes I believe fundamental religious upbringings are harmful for children, I have seen it, and I don't see what business anyone has inflicting their own religious beliefs on immature minds, if they choose to do that in their own homes then I don't like it but it's their right and I accept that, if they choose to do it to children who are wards of the people then I am quite happy for the kids to be taken away and placed somewhere healthy where people can make their own choices.Sure, sure. Oh yeah, I know conservatives and religion are the cause of all the problems!
Your words not mine but I will be sure to quote you in future
Go ahead, quote me quote Jesse Jackson, its all good. Ive discovered that all anyone has to say is its somebody else's fault and over 50 million Americans believe it. Doesn't matter that none of its true.
I just feel that no matter the country there are no where near enough homes for all the children. Because of that I think some things have to be left alone in order to provide safe homes.
I suspect not, given that the person who made the decision is being investigated.
Initially I was 'kind of surprised' that SSD might remove a child because of (if this was the deciding factor, there may have been several) a foster parents affiliation to a political party, even though I believe UKIP are rather odious. But there may have been a number of reasons why SSD removed the child, they are not really at liberty to discuss the case in it's entirety with the press. Having said that, there is much speculation that UKIP have recently picked up the floating voters which have previously voted for the BNP, which may speak volumes about the motivations of those who vote for UKIP. Also, Nigel Farrage has to be one the most ethnocentric politicians of the day, he just seems to mask his prejudices by pontificating about the 'cost' of European membership.
What might be of interest to non Uk hubbers is the past history of abuse in Rotherham. The town's social services have been under the spot light recently because of a grooming gang. Indeed univeristies are using the conduct of the social workers as examples of poor practise. It may be that working in a department which has been in error those who are left there are desperate not to make any mistake,. It appears from the BBC that the foster family supported UKIP mainly because they did not want to stay in the EU. If that were a condition against fostering or adoption it might be argued that the whole process would dry up!
Anyway if anyone is interested I post the link to the Rotherham issue so you can see how serious it was and maybe understand why the social workers have been rather over cautious.
http://forgetoday.com/news/rotherham-ch … -services/I'll bet you anything you like that the reason Rotherham's police and social services were so slow to act was because a large proportion of the men doing the abusing were of Asian origin. "Don't want to touch that hot potato and get accused of racism, no way!"
I think I wanted to put in the link because it gives some context to what is happenning in Rotherham, for the benefit of non UK hubbers.
Why would he/she be accused of racism for pointing out facts? Oh, yeah, nevermind.
I could spend all day trying to defend UKIP members but it's worth pointing out that people join for a multitude of reasons, some that have nothing to do with race. I, myself, support UKIP for one issue: getting Britain out of the EU as soon as is humanly possible. Also, being against government promotion of multiculturalism isn't necessarily a racist position. If you're a libertarian like me and think the government messes up pretty much everything it does, you would naturally be against it, regardless of your racial views. Just one of many political views that might agree with UKIP yet are not racist.
Ultimately what should dictate the suitability of parents to foster children is their level of care and affection, not their political views. The council admitted that the level of care was not the issue in the slightest, only their membership of a party they deemed as 'racist'. Guilty before proven innocent is the assumption from this Orwellian council. In an ethical world, once there is solid proof that the child is actually being harmed in this relationship then it is right that they are taken away. Finally, one has to beg the question: if the parents are racist, why did they foster asian children in the first place?
Considering the amount of children that need real homes, we don't want to be putting off potential foster parents because they might be persecuted for their political views.In an ethical world, once there is solid proof that the child is actually being harmed in this relationship then it is right that they are taken away
At which point they have acted too late. Their job is to prevent harm, not just act once the harm has taken place.Yes, but what harm? Every possible indicator except for their political views told the council that they were perfectly suitable foster carers for these children.
Earlier in the thread, that is exactly the question I'm asking, the same question as you- what harm might they be exposed to. Everyone is talking as if it's a given that the children have been removed because of their foster parent's political affiliation to UKIP and that's it.. Even Michael Gove has condemned the decision before he has been given all the facts in the case. The Independent's article states that (I'm paraphrasing) the Lab Councillor stated that this is a complex child protection case involving legal advice and an another external agency. And I keep asking what other external agency, the police, education, Probation-some intelligence gathering unit- what? We just don't know.
Having attended more mapa meetings than I've had hot dinners, I find it very hard to believe that the kids were removed solely on the grounds of their foster carers affiliation to UKIP. What I can't understand is, if this were the case, and social workers had decided that some of the children's needs may not be met in terms of their cultural identity etc. They could just remove the kids without even getting into the whole UKIP thing with the foster carers. They were in short term care. Also, the Indy mentions repeated tip offs, by the same person, or different people- what.
I just think there's more to this case which we are not aware of.It's the council that seems to be making it clear that the reason they took the children away was because the foster carers were members of a political party that had 'certain views about multiculturalism', the comment about some 'external agency' is so vague we can hardly assume anything. If there have been new developments that I'm not aware of, please enlighten me.
Well, I understood that it was the foster parents who claim that a social worker had told them that the BNP is a racist party and this was why the children were removed. But according to this report in the indie, the council have stated that this is a very complex case involving legal advice and an external agency.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho … 52607.html
As a child of Polish parents in London, I suffered a lot of prejudice and rudeness during my schooldays in the 1950s-1960s from "Little Englanders" and their brainwashed offspring, whose spiritual homes I would today consider to be represented by UKIP and BNP. Even though my parents took "British" nationality and I was "British" by being born in the UK, I was seen as scum because I was not "English".
People like this should not be allowed to care for children of E. European origin or any non-English origin for that matter. Such children represent the very people this couple and others like them would like to see expelled from the country.
The couple are paid foster carers, not natural or adoptive parents. They had the children in their care for less than 2 months and there was apparently never any intent for the children to remain there on a long-term basis. It is ridiculous to make emotional statements about what was an interim care solution that has since been found unsatisfactory.As I've demonstrated, and is evident from both UKIP's public stance and personal experience with members and supporters, very few UKIP members believe non-English people to be "scum" or want all of them expelled from the country. It's a fallacy to assume something of individuals based on a minority in a group they subscribe to.
Likewise, it's also wrong to assume that just because you and the UKIP voters you know don't hold those views, you are in the majority when it comes to UKIP's membership. UKIP, for a variety of reasons, do seem to be attracting voters with different motivations to yours. This is interesting, links to the study are included in the article.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/robert- … 93055.htmlThis does not contradict what I've been saying in the slightest. Naturally, any party holding views remotely anti-immigration are going to be supported by racists, but it doesn't make every UKIP member racists. The point still stands: the council was wrong.
Innersmiff, I didn't say that every UKIP member is racist. Some just want out of Europe, they see it as expensive and unnecessary, I get that, I do. But like you yourself admit anti immigration policies will attract racists. And unless you can guarantee that the only reason those children were taken from the parents is because they were members of UKIP, you might have a point, but you can't because you don't know the case. Neither can you say the comment about some external agency is so vague we can hardly assume anything. We can assume this, that a statutory agency has shared information about the case and we do not know how significant this information is. But I will tell you this, as someone who's worked with sex offenders, perpetrators of dv and those who neglect children which is one of the greatest risks to the welfare of children, someone from another agency has obtained information which they feel might pose a risk of harm to those children, which is why they've shared it, and probably why the council will not apologise to the foster carers.
Fostering children is not a right, it's a temporary care position that is compensated by the state.
If the UK is anything like the US fostering children can be quite profitable and thus a foster parent will take children for the economic benefits but may not give appropriate care or treatment to those children. Ultimately the children are the wards of the state which means the state has the right to decide who should care for them and if they have any concerns the welfare of the children should be put first while the issue is investigated.
Presumption of innocence exists only in criminal court, in this case the state is the one that bears the responsibility and has just as much right to move a child as a parent has to prohibit their child from a friends house.I take your point. I believe in this case, the council are making the wrong decision based on political prejudice, and breaking up, potentially, a very happy family.
Profitable?
•Alabama - $430
•Alaska - $625
•Arizona $828
•Arkansa $400
•California $425
•Colorado $349
•Connecticut $783
•Delaware $517
•D.C. $827
•Florida $429
•Georgia $416
•Hawaii $529
•Idaho7 $274
•Illinois8 $361 Indiana Each county sets an individual scale; there is no State rate. Foster parents can negotiate with their county director
•Iowa $454I love all the libs coming to defend this action. These children were being cared for, loved and urged to speak in their native tongues. There was absolutely no evidence of any abuse, nor any evidence that this couple was "indoctrinating" any of these children, or emotionally abusing them due to racial make-up. I could make the same claim to take children away from a far left liberal if they were Christian, because overall they show a disdain for religion. Yep, general assumption, just as it is a general assumption made regarding this couple. This move smacks of a fascist government.
As far as I know we have no detailed information and the children's native tongue was English. Those that were old enough to speak at all.
Source?
It's not like the first post was at all accurate so some disagreement with it was predictable.The children's native tongue was not English:
""These children are not UK children and we were not aware of the foster parents having strong political views. There are some strong views in the UKIP party and we have to think of the future of the children."
It clearly states they were immigrant children as well in the original link provided. Defend it all you like, just remember that when they come to take your children because of they don't like your beliefs. Foster or not, it does not matter. What you should be concerned about is the lack of any substantial evidence or reason for the removal because what you condone can and will one day be turned against you.They were from Europe. It says nothing about them not being English speaking. Quite a lot of English is spoken in Europe especially by families emigrating to the UK.
And it says nothing about about the foster parents encouraging them to speak a non-English language.
So you need to either find a source of the assertions or admit they are made up.
And if you read the thread you'd know I think taking the kids was wrong. I just think making things up is the source of the problem, and making more things up is not going to help,I like to research things before posting. I guess I just assume others do so as well.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news … ical-views
"“We enjoyed singing one of their folk songs in their native language,” she said. “Having been told of the religious denomination of these children – we took steps to ensure that a school of their denomination was found.”Yes, but rather than searching at random, I asked for the source. Thank you for providing it. That is how I know info I get from you (or anyone) second hand is actually accurate.
I think the wage paid for fostering in the UK is very generous.
The wages paid by Rotheram are listed here: http://www.fosterinrotherham.co.uk/supp … ncial.aspx
Even at the very lowest level for the youngest children, the wages for fostering 3 children come to over £20,000 per year, which pays well for one of the couple sitting in the house all day. The other person can of course get a job like anyone else.
At the level paid for the oldest children, you are looking at about £34,000 per year for three children. At that point, there is no need for someone to be in house all day, so the second person could also get a job. If both worked over above getting the fostering wage, they would be doing very well for themselves.
Related Discussions
- 16
How does the method by which you were parented affect your political views?
by Billie Kelpin 10 years ago
How does the method by which you were parented affect your political views?I have always been fascinated with the work of Dr. George Lakoff, Professor of Linguistics at Berkeley in CA. His theory is that our political leanings reflect the way they were parented. If you were raised with...
- 14
How do you live with your significant other who has opposite political views as
by kathleenkat 11 years ago
How do you live with your significant other who has opposite political views as you?With the upcoming presidential elections, politics are very heated. If your significant other (or friend, or parent, or sibling) whom you live with has opposing political views as you, how does that affect the...
- 13
Do you think being a foster parent should be a good deed or a career?
by Peeples 7 years ago
Do you think being a foster parent should be a good deed or a career?Maybe I'm biased, but after a comment on one of my hubs I wanted to see what others thought. Do you think being a foster parent should be a career or a good deed?
- 11
Do you have the same or different political views from the rest of your family?
by Allen Williams 11 years ago
Do you have the same or different political views from the rest of your family?If they are different, how do you and your family deal with that? Are their conflicts?
- 11
How important is it to have friends who have different political views that you
by LauraGT 11 years ago
How important is it to have friends who have different political views that you do?
- 10
Why don't people care for their kids anymore??
by igniter8503 6 years ago
Why don't people care for their kids anymore??In today's world we see more parents not taking care of their kids the right way either ditching them with other people to take care of or no caring for them in general why do you think this???Their is more kids growing up in foster care or with grand...