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

suicide_circus

From BBC:

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


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

Thoughts?

CrazyRabbit

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

Gloomtastic!

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

Sunnyisland

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

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

CruelCoin

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

"dem outsiders tuk ur jebs".

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

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

mackg

UKIP's immigration policy.

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

getz

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

WindSock

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

spank_inferno

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

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

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

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

quickbeam

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

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

[/godwin]

bbam

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

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

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

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

R0ot

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

R0ot

CruelCoin wrote: »

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

"dem outsiders tuk ur jebs".

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

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

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

Queen-Mise

spank_inferno wrote: »

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

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

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

spank_inferno

bbam wrote: »

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

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

It's a ridiculuous decision IMO

quickbeam

spank_inferno wrote: »

Thing is... UKIP (not quite as nuts as the BNP) ....

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

getz

spank_inferno wrote: »

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

It's a ridiculuous decision IMO

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

spank_inferno

Queen-Mise wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

getz

spank_inferno wrote: »

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

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

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

here we go,and there was me thinking it was going so well,

Gloomtastic!

getz wrote: »

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

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

bbam

Queen-Mise wrote: »

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

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

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

Rascasse

bbam wrote: »

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

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

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

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

suicide_circus

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

getz

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

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

if rotherham is anything like its lancashire twin bury,the make up of its town hall will be mainly asian.

suicide_circus

Rascasse wrote: »

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

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

yes.

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

googled eyes

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

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

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

getz

googled eyes wrote: »

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

or even religious beliefs

GalwayGuy2

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

Like a Scandinavian country:pac:

philologos

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

DiggingDeep

suicide_circus wrote: »

a sanitised homogenised version of society which some penpusher approves of

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

bbam wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Queen-Mise wrote: »

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

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

With the children's referendum in we have opened the door at least slightly more to allowing this sort of thing to happen in Ireland as well.

spank_inferno wrote: »

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

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

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

It is enforced normalness, diversity isn't valued there. I wonder how much hassle someone who's into survivalism, enjoys a spot of hunting, lives off the grid in the countryside would have in fostering a child. I'd say such a person could forget about it - mandatory town house where everything was done by registered installers and builders.

bbam wrote: »

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

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

It is unfortunate that you don't see the diversity destroying effect of your 'take no risk' approach. If these kids aren't showing up to school with whipping scars on their back chances are they're being looked after just fine. Unless you're one of those who believes teaching religion = child abuse.

suicide_circus wrote: »

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

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

matrim

googled eyes wrote: »

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

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.

getz

the couple in their 50s live in a village in a neat detached house,the husband was a royal navy reservist for more than 30 years and works with disabled people, while his wife is a qualified nursery nurse,they took in ,a baby girl,a boy, and a older girl,all from an ethnoc minority and troubled family background in a emergency placement ,the youngsters have thrived in their care,the couple were discribed as exemplary foster parents,the baby put on weight and the older girl has even began calling them mum and dad,

googled eyes

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.

I didn't mean the foster parents had legal rights to the children. I ment that one social worker has what seems to be absolute final say over where these children are placed. From what I've read this couple seem to be fairly decent people and because the social worker may not agree with their political beliefs they're deemed unsuitable to look after these children.

Chuck Stone

I was born into a Catholic nationalist (not staunchly) household in norniron. Would it be appropriate, had I needed care as a developing child, to place me with foster parents who were dyed-in-the-wool DUP paisleyites?

No. It would be a fucking stupid mistake. SW's are supposed to place children in an environment that is culturally analogous to the one from which they hail.

In the olden days they used to take children from 'savages' and place them with 'respectable' people. It was savagery that allowed such a practice to happen in the first place.

suicide_circus

getz wrote: »

the couple in their 50s live in a village in a neat detached house,the husband was a royal navy reservist for more than 30 years and works with disabled people, while his wife is a qualified nursery nurse,they took in ,a baby girl,a boy, and a older girl,all from an ethnoc minority and troubled family background in a emergency placement ,the youngsters have thrived in their care,the couple were discribed as exemplary foster parents,the baby put on weight and the older girl has even began calling them mum and dad,

Wow, they sound like total monsters
The more i think about it, the more disturbing and worrying this news story becomes.

Shryke

UKIP are a terrible party, but 2 members of it may well be moderates, and will probably have their own take on things. After the politicking is said and done they chose to take in and care for some children. God knows what kind of sick implications they must be suffering under, whatever their nationalist/isolationist ideals (neither of these things needs racism to function).
There's a fine line with all of these things. I don't like UKIP but I would never jump to the conclusion that someone being a member makes them racist. There are plenty in it I'm sure, but that goes for all walks of life and it makes this move seem all the more cheap and offensive.

suicide_circus

DiggingDeep wrote: »

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




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




With the children's referendum in we have opened the door at least slightly more to allowing this sort of thing to happen in Ireland as well.



It is enforced normalness, diversity isn't valued there. I wonder how much hassle someone who's into survivalism, enjoys a spot of hunting, lives off the grid in the countryside would have in fostering a child. I'd say such a person could forget about it - mandatory town house where everything was done by registered installers and builders.



It is unfortunate that you don't see the diversity destroying effect of your 'take no risk' approach. If these kids aren't showing up to school with whipping scars on their back chances are they're being looked after just fine. Unless you're one of those who believes teaching religion = child abuse.



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

great post. Do you have a blog?

getz

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I was born into a Catholic nationalist (not staunchly) household in norniron. Would it be appropriate, had I needed care as a developing child, to place me with foster parents who were dyed-in-the-wool DUP paisleyites?

No. It would be a fucking stupid mistake. SW's are supposed to place children in an environment that is culturally analogous to the one from which they hail.

In the olden days they used to take children from 'savages' and place them with 'respectable' people. It was savagery that allowed such a practice to happen in the first place.

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,

My name is URL

CruelCoin wrote: »

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

"dem outsiders tuk ur jebs".

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

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

Well who gets to decide on the criteria used to restrict those eligible for fostering, and more importantly who those criteria are applied to?

What about all the politicians that were happy to support an illegal war based on lies and deceit, and by extension the murder of thousands upon thousands of people? Or those socially conservative types that are uncomfortable with homosexuality or whatever? Should they not also be disallowed from fostering kids?

It's a slippery slope, and one that the UK are traveling down at great speed at the minute.

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.

Chuck Stone

getz wrote: »

i bit more intermixing would not of done northern ireland any harm,

Not forced by the state by way of child protection placement policy though. Get real.

we have already proved that the UKIP are not racist,

Great but that doesn't mean the placement of the children was culturally sympathetic.

finding a perfect match would be impossible,

Strive for excellence not perfection is the saying isn't it?

if the couple had racist views why would they have taken in the children in the first place

The probably weren't racist at all. The SW who said that they were was an uninformed twat.

My points stand.

K-9

Seems a dumb decision.

I don't think the childrens referendum here would stop dumb decisions either, they'd still happen.

LivelineDipso

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.

That's what the referndum was about and THIS WILL happen here.

All of this is being driven by QUANGOS, which are funded by the EU to subvert democracy by creating a kind of police state Franco-Germanic traditional totalitarianism across Europe and especially on these island with our long traditions of social justice and pluralism.

We had been coached to believe that homosexuals marrying is a civil right, while parents have no natural rights to their own children. I am not anti-Gay marraige, just pointing out that often these hype up ideas of social justice are often used as a smokescreen for state injustices on others. That's why political correctness was invented.

The only thing wrong with UKIP, is I can't vote for them here in Ireland. To listen to some of the muppets on here comparing them to the BNP shows why we are ****ed in Europe.

No measured thinking - everthing reactive. The end result is self-evident, divide and conquer under the CCTV camera.

LivelineDipso

spank_inferno wrote: »

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

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

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

Run to the Hills is right on a lot of this kind of stuff - the problem with fellas like him is they focus on too much 'out there' stuff. If the CT folks posted and made a point of more issues like this they would win a lot of friends.

Less Alex Jones and more Mother Jones and they'll be on the right path.

LivelineDipso

larry_duff wrote: »

UKIP are in favour of the uk withdrawing from the EU , how does that make them racist

Did you not listen to the Pro-Lisbon Treaty 'debates'?

Anyone skeptical of the EU is obviously a backward, knuckle-scraping halfwit who hates all that is good in the world.

RTE told me that.

swimming in a sea

You have to remember most of the top brass in the civil service in the UK joined up in the 70's. Most of these weirdo lefties went to bed with the little red book under their pillow.

UKIP is a libertarian Party, it wants the UK to get out of the EU and believe in small government, that's a nightmare for career long civil servants a lot of whom see a job in Brussels as their holy grail.

Shryke

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Not forced by the state by way of child protection placement policy though. Get real.

....

My points stand.

Your point doesn't stand, you're mixing criteria and your comparison is poor. The state in this case is forcing apart what sounds like a healthy family unit and it's not under an extremist backdrop but an insinuated slight against political affiliation that has nothing to do with the care or treatment of the children involved.

philologos

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I was born into a Catholic nationalist (not staunchly) household in norniron. Would it be appropriate, had I needed care as a developing child, to place me with foster parents who were dyed-in-the-wool DUP paisleyites?

No. It would be a fucking stupid mistake. SW's are supposed to place children in an environment that is culturally analogous to the one from which they hail.

In the olden days they used to take children from 'savages' and place them with 'respectable' people. It was savagery that allowed such a practice to happen in the first place.

Children should be given to the best parents. These foster parents had these children for 7 years and the council decided to take these kids from their parents because of a political party. That's so daft.

Why do you bring up savagery? It has nothing to do with this case, unless you consider it savagery that someone should be involved in UKIP?

Finding kids a culturally analogous setting isn't 1) always possible, or 2) always necessary particularly if they come from minorities not represented widely in the foster scheme. Sure you could say put them in a culture that is like their own, but even then there are arguments to be had about which cultures are like which. Leave it out and just put the kids with good parents and leave them there.

Chuck Stone

philologos wrote: »

These foster parents had these children for 7 years

Read the OP properly before you start spouting your crap. If the children had been with them for seven years it would be barbaric to remove them for some oversight in best practice.

The couple, who have been approved foster parents for seven years, were eight weeks into the placement when they were approached by social workers about their membership of the party.

(My emphasis)

philologos

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Read the OP properly before you start spouting your crap.

(My emphasis)

Fair enough. Nonetheless though, they had proven themselves as foster carers for 7 years.

Would you mind evaluating the other criticisms I had of your argument that people should be put into a "culturally analogous" settings.

What the heck does that even mean in practice?

Chuck Stone

Shryke wrote: »

Your point doesn't stand, you're mixing criteria and your comparison is poor. The state in this case is forcing apart what sounds like a healthy family unit and it's not under an extremist backdrop but an insinuated slight against political affiliation that has nothing to do with the care or treatment of the children involved.

Would you mind quoting the specific points and refuting them?

You've painted over my points with a broad brush.