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

My name is URL

Meanwhile - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2237786/Is-UKs-worst-parent-Woman-leaves-child-outside-betting-shop-tied-reins-goes-place-bet.html

What a place! The Mother probably votes Labour though, so it's not a big deal.

Chuck Stone

philologos wrote: »

What the heck does that even mean in practice?

I'll make it simple for you.

Putting children with Afro-Caribbean heritage with Afro-Caribbean FP's.

(You'll love this one)

Not putting children with Christian heritage with Muslims and vice versa.

Shryke

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Would you mind quoting the specific points and refuting them?

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

Would you mind addressing the brunt of my post in any meaningful way instead of being evasive?
This "brush stroke" talk... I replied to your post, I don't like this trying to imply manipulation of context where there is none.

philologos

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'll make it simple for you.

Putting children with Afro-Caribbean heritage with Afro-Caribbean FP's.

(You'll love this one)

Not putting children with Christian heritage with Muslims and vice versa.

What if that isn't always possible, or in the event that there is a foster parent with a brilliant track record who will take good care of the children who isn't from a certain cultural background, or of a certain religion?

Also, what age does this start being relevant in the child's case?

Finally, a question that you brushed over last time. In the case of minority groups let's say a child of Bangladeshi origin, and let's argue that there isn't any foster parents of Bangladeshi origin available to take the child what happens in this case? Let's say there is a family of Pakistani origin available to take the child. Who is to argue as to how similar the cultures are?

Your solution is utterly impractical. It's not the States job to act as cultural analysts.

It's encouraging to see that Michael Gove is going to investigate this, and most political parties have condemned this. It also seems that the council is going to reverse its ignorant and ill-informed opinion.

Chuck Stone

Shryke wrote: »

Would you mind addressing the brunt of my post in any meaningful way instead of being evasive?
This "brush stroke" talk... I replied to your post, I don't like this trying to imply manipulation of context where there is none.

Sorry Shryke but I'm not being evasive. You made the claim that my points don't stand.

Which points exactly? I think it's only fair you treat them as I have Getzs' points above and break them down instead of me second guessing which ones.

I'm having three people question me at this point so be fair.

philologos

Oh, another point as well. The fostering system shouldn't be dependant on how multicultural a State is.

If a state didn't have anywhere near as much diversity and let's say it was fairly homogenous something like 90% of a particular ethnicity. There is a child of an origin which isn't widely represented and there is no foster carers present (of that ethnicity) to take care of them. What do you do? Leave the child without foster parents?

A policy or a law that is based on how diverse a population is (something the State has no control over) in respect to this is very clearly an ass.

donegal_road

its a smear cmpagn against UKIP, an in particular Nigel Farage. He is not popular amongst the EU beurocrats, in particular Martin Schulz, as he seems to be one of the few who are exposing the European Union for the fiasco that it is.

Farage worked as a trader with his own brokerage for 20 years, he understands how the markets work, and how they will eventually destroy the Euro project.

Schulz went as far as his high school final exams, and ran a book shop after that. Now (by whatever pull he has in high places) he is the president of the European Parliament.

Chuck Stone

philologos wrote: »

What if that isn't always possible,

As close as you can get.

or in the event that there is a foster parent with a brilliant track record who will take good care of the children who isn't from a certain cultural background, or of a certain religion?

They will be considered of course but the children's culture/heritage will be given due regard.

Also, what age does this start being relevant in the child's case?

Birth.

In the case of minority groups let's say a child of Bangladeshi origin, and let's argue that there isn't any foster parents of Bangladeshi origin available to take the child what happens in this case? Let's say there is a family of Pakistani origin available to take the child. Who is to argue as to how similar the cultures are?

In the UK or Ireland I guess they will place the child with Asian/Muslim heritage with FP's of an Asian/Muslim heritage.

Your solution is utterly impractical. It's not the States job to act as cultural analysts.

It's not my solution at all - do you think I'm making this up as I'm going along?. You trying to take me down a peg-or-two again? Think my ego is out of check is it?

Shryke

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Sorry Shryke but I'm not being evasive. You made the claim that my points don't stand.

Which points exactly? I think it's only fair you treat them as I have Getzs' points above and break them down instead of me second guessing which ones.

I'm having three people question me at this point so be fair.

I see that you are. It's the fundamentals that I disagree with you on.

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?

Not applicable. Just not applicable. There is no comparison between the situation you're describing and a couple in England that happen to belong to a political party.
If you want to paint a picture for me of the troubles and all the crap that came with it superimposed on this modest couples life in England I would like to see it. And basing this entirely on their subscription to a political party? Ludicrous.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

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.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

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

They're children. They're growing up and developing as people and they're doing it in England. They didn't just get off the boat from an extremist camp in the middle east.
England is one of the most multicultural countries in the world. They were with caring parents. Your criteria would see no children being placed anywhere. It's unrealistic and damaging to the welfare of the kids. What they need are good parents, not ethnically correct ones ffs.

Tbh you're saying they should stick with their own kind, which doesn't come off too well at all and it's more the attitude I would expect to hear from a UKIP member than this couple who have been treated so poorly for wanting to provide a good home.

Segregation and ghettos for minorities or diversity, care and understanding in a multicultural society. It's a tough one.

donegal_road

is it any coincidence that this was from three days ago.. dont mess with the elites

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFGD6VChlJw

Chuck Stone

larry_duff wrote: »

so you think a muslim child should if possible go to a muslim family ?

First, children aren't born with a religion they're indoctrinated into one. Regardless, yes, kids of Muslim heritage should be placed with Muslim FP's and I believe this is best practice.

You know they used to take children from indigenous people's in British colonies and place the little savages with civilised adoptive and foster parents in the UK?

Who were the savages in this scenario?

ScumLord

Sounds more like the Social worker is the racist.

suicide_circus wrote: »

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."

Translation: We want to keep these kids with their own kind??
I don't think it makes much sense to force a culture onto what are British citizens. In due course they may well take an interest in their heritage but at this stage in their life's all they need is education, a home and loving parents.

philologos

Chuck Stone wrote: »

As close as you can get.

I don't understand why this is such a huge deal.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

They will be considered of course but the children's culture/heritage will be given due regard.

It depends on the age of the child. Most children from birth are only beginning to generate an idea of culture or heritage.

A guideline that creates a policy depending on how diverse a state's population is (without consideration of the fact that diversity is never guaranteed in a country) is an ass. It can't work legitimately in practice.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Birth.

I can't see how it should be relevant from birth. Most children don't have a cultural identity at birth.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

In the UK or Ireland I guess they will place the child with Asian/Muslim heritage with FP's of an Asian/Muslim heritage.

This is confusing though in a number of cases.

Let's use the example you used earlier of the DUP and an "Catholic nationalist" child (a notion which I'm sceptical of, but let's go with it).

Let's say the child was raised in the Republic to Protestant parents. Should we put the child with "Catholic nationalists" or with "Protestant unionists"? Neither wholly represent the child.

Or should the State just get on with it without cultural analysis?

Asian / Muslim culture differs, and Asians aren't necessarily Muslims, and vice versa. There are shades of grey in between. This is why I think it's far easier to put the child with the best family who will take the best care of them.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's not my solution at all - do you think I'm making this up as I'm going along?. You trying to take me down a peg-or-two again? Think my ego is out of check is it?

I'm legitimately criticising your view. You've posted that you think this is reasonable, and I'm questioning that. This is a discussion forum, leave your personal opinion of me out of it.

I genuinely don't think it is all that viable.

Blowfish

swimming in a sea wrote: »

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.

Though they may have some similar economic policies, they have some policies that would be completely contrary to an actual libertarian party. Things like wanting increased military expenditure, promoting nationalism, limiting immigration, opposing same sex marriage etc. are all completely against libertarian principles.

Chuck Stone

Thanks for taking the time to address the points separately.

Shryke wrote: »

Not applicable. Just not applicable. There is no comparison between the situation you're describing and a couple in England that happen to belong to a political party.

I'm not saying the case would be identical - I'm just trying to make a more distinct and closer-to-home example to make a point. I'm trying to glean from the OP how 'unmatched' the kids were to the FP's. I'm guessing the FP's were white English people and the kids were non-white non-English. I'm guessing that the SW's could have made a more culturally sympathetic placement.

And basing this entirely on their subscription to a political party? Ludicrous.

See above. I doubt the decision to change the placement of the kids was based purely on the political persuasion of the FP's.

They're children. They're growing up and developing as people and they're doing it in England. They didn't just get off the boat from an extremist camp in the middle east.

Yes but if 'English' was good enough then they wouldn't bother taking people's heritage into account at all. You can have two English people with very different world views, cultural practices, heritage etc.

Your criteria would see no children being placed anywhere. It's unrealistic and damaging to the welfare of the kids. What they need are good parents, not ethnically correct ones ffs.

Not my criteria. Although I agree with it. And yes they were probably fine FP's.

Tbh you're saying they should stick with their own kind, which doesn't come off too well at all and it's more the attitude I would expect to hear from a UKIP member than this couple who have been treated so poorly for wanting to provide a good home.

Consider my point in my previous post. They used to take children from indigenous people and place them with white middle class parents who didn't even speak the language of the community they came from. Is that fair? Of course it's not. The extended family is the first place SW's look to place kids and their community next. What exactly is wrong with this?

philologos

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yes but if 'English' was good enough then they wouldn't bother taking people's heritage into account at all. You can have two English people with very different world views, cultural practices, heritage etc.

Surely, if two English people can have radically different worldviews, so can two different Bangladeshi people, or two different Indian people, and so on?

Chuck Stone

philologos wrote: »

I don't understand why this is such a huge deal.

That's obvious.

It depends on the age of the child. Most children from birth are only beginning to generate an idea of culture or heritage.

Well spotted.

A guideline that creates a policy depending on how diverse a state's population is (without consideration of the fact that diversity is never guaranteed in a country) is an ass. It can't work legitimately in practice.

Nothing is ever guaranteed.

I can't see how it should be relevant from birth. Most children don't have a cultural identity at birth.

None do. But they still have a heritage as much as you'd like to deny it.

Let's say the child was raised in the Republic to Protestant parents. Should we put the child with "Catholic nationalists" or with "Protestant unionists"? Neither wholly represent the child. Or should the State just get on with it without cultural analysis?

Impossible. The person making the decision will not be immune from their own cultural bias - that's why we have guidelines and best practice.

I think it's far easier to put the child with the best family who will take the best care of them.

People have thought of this and they've gone with being sensitive to children's culture/heritage of origin and consider it best practice - this is how child protection has been working (with flaws of course) for decades. If you have a problem with it write to your MP/TD.

I'm legitimately criticising your view. You've posted that you think this is reasonable, and I'm questioning that. This is a discussion forum, leave your personal opinion of me out of it.

You described my posts as being 'my view' as if I created them - they're not (although I agree with them). You have a history with me (among others) don't pretend you don't.

Chuck Stone

philologos wrote: »

Surely, if two English people can have radically different worldviews, so can two different Bangladeshi people, or two different Indian people, and so on?

Yet again you state the obvious. This will be considered in any placement of children.

Try harder before coming back to me asking me to assuage your every concern in intricate detail.

My name is URL

ScumLord wrote: »

Sounds more like the Social worker is the racist.



Translation: We want to keep these kids with their own kind??
I don't think it makes much sense to force a culture onto what are British citizens. In due course they may well take an interest in their heritage but at this stage in their life's all they need is education, a home and loving parents.

Aye.. for all their talk about how important inclusivity and integration is, and how bigotry must be opposed at all costs; they don't seem too bothered about making wild generalisations themselves.

Shryke

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Thanks for taking the time to address the points separately.



I'm not saying the case would be identical - I'm just trying to make a more distinct and closer-to-home example to make a point. I'm trying to glean from the OP how 'unmatched' the kids were to the FP's. I'm guessing the FP's were white English people and the kids were non-white non-English. I'm guessing that the SW's could have made a more culturally sympathetic placement.

You say culturally sympathetic but what you mean is that they were a closer shade together. Kids don't care about culture, adults do. You're predicating culture on young lives based on their genetics which is a bigoted thing to do and has nothing to do with the welfare of the child.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

See above. I doubt the decision to change the placement of the kids was based purely on the political persuasion of the FP's.

That's what seems to be the case actually, but I might have missed something in the reading?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yes but if 'English' was good enough then they wouldn't bother taking people's heritage into account at all. You can have two English people with very different world views, cultural practices, heritage etc.

You can, and you have tolerance and genuine care for other human beings too. These things go a little passed the fact that a kid is Asian, African or Hispanic.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Not my criteria. Although I agree with it. And yes they were probably fine FP's.

It's the same difference then, if you agree with it. But then agree the FP's were probably fine. This is a bit too here and there. You're sitting on the fence here.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Consider my point in my previous post. They used to take children from indigenous people and place them with white middle class parents who didn't even speak the language of the community they came from. Is that fair? Of course it's not. The extended family is the first place SW's look to place kids and their community next. What exactly is wrong with this?

Not an applicable example, again it's another extreme that's out of joint with the reality. The kid aren't prejudiced or bigoted. It's bigotry that would have a brown kid placed with a brown family over a white family for purely racial reasons.
Culture hardly comes into it. We're talking about children. They need a loving home, it's a very questionable thing to assume a child of a certain ethnicity should be put "with their own". That's appalling thinking Chuck!
Any family is a good family unless you want to subscribe to the idea of them sticking to their own, which is rather racist and xenophobic, running to the contrary of a healthy and integrated society. The only criteria should be that they are good people.

wilkie2006

quickbeam wrote: »

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?

Ah, hold the fook on a minute. UKIP aren't the BNP or the EDL. They're just far-right Tories.

Chuck Stone

ScumLord wrote: »

Translation: We want to keep these kids with their own kind??

I don't think it makes much sense to force a culture onto what are British citizens. In due course they may well take an interest in their heritage but at this stage in their life's all they need is education, a home and loving parents.

Denying foster children a chance to be placed with 'their own kind' would be ****ing stupid. Also, foster parents who don't share the culture/heritage of foster children are required to be sensitive to foster kids' culture.

Who can foster

People from different cultures, ethnic or religious backgrounds – having carers from different cultures allows us to match children and young people with suitable families.

www.hse.ie

Parents who adopt from foreign countries where the kids have absolutely no contact with their heritage/culture bring children up these days with due regard to it.

philologos

Chuck Stone wrote: »

None do. But they still have a heritage as much as you'd like to deny it.

What do you mean by this? - Personally, I don't think it is a good idea to say that just because a child is of a certain ethnicity that they should be put with parents of that ethnicity. That isn't always wise, or even actually relevant to the welfare of the child.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Impossible. The person making the decision will not be immune from their own cultural bias - that's why we have guidelines and best practice.

The decisions on the basis of these guidelines aren't immune from "cultural bias" either.

Simply put, all one needs to do is investigate the circumstances and investigate who is best even if that means placing them with someone of a different ethnicity.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

People have thought of this and they've gone with being sensitive to children's culture/heritage of origin and consider it best practice - this is how child protection has been working (with flaws of course) for decades. If you have a problem with it write to your MP/TD.

If it is so obvious, and if you are defending this, then you should be able to make an argument for it.

Just because something has been used doesn't mean it shouldn't change. Indeed David Cameron and the Tories have discussed changing this. From The Telegraph:

Senior Tories have criticised “politically correct” rules requiring children to be adopted by families of the same ethnic background.

In March, David Cameron pledged to tackle “absurd” barriers to mixed-race adoption, while Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, said last year that “Left-wing prescriptions” were denying children loving new homes.

It might be a good job to get some law reforms on.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You described my posts as being 'my view' as if I created them - they're not (although I agree with them). You have a history with me (among others) don't pretend you don't.

This has nothing to do with you personally.

You've posted that you support this, I find your argument weak so I'll ask you about it and challenge your view. This is how civilised debate works.

If I have a history of disagreeing with you, I have a history of disagreeing with your posts and your arguments (which could have been made by anyone), but it isn't about you, it's about what you've posted. I genuinely believe in not attacking the poster, but going for the argument.

hatrickpatrick

This is why I voted no to the Children's referendum. Removal powers have gone absolutely batsh!t in the UK, and I have absolutely no confidence that the same won't happen here.

Shenshen

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is why I voted no to the Children's referendum. Removal powers have gone absolutely batsh!t in the UK, and I have absolutely no confidence that the same won't happen here.

What, that social workers will look for a good match when placing childrn in foster homes, and not place a child with, say, Muslim background and upbringing in a family of Jehova's witnesses?
I fail to see what's so terrible about the idea to provide an environment that is as familiar as possible to a child in such difficult circumstances?

hatrickpatrick

Shenshen wrote: »

What, that social workers will look for a good match when placing childrn in foster homes, and not place a child with, say, Muslim background and upbringing in a family of Jehova's witnesses?
I fail to see what's so terrible about the idea to provide an environment that is as familiar as possible to a child in such difficult circumstances?

Removing children based on what political party the foster parents belong to, and calling them racist, is bullsh!t. Should someone be automatically labelled a terrorist because they support SF? What if the family supports UKIP over its anti-EU stance for instance, and not its anti immigrant stance? It's discrimination of the highest order.

If they had another reason to remove them that would be different, but making assumptions about someone purely based on political party is appalling, and the fact that this kind of thing happens all the time in the UK says it all. Seems like every week we see another story of children being removed and their lives being uprooted for utterly ludicrous reasons.

Chuck Stone

Shryke wrote: »

Kids don't care about culture, adults do.

You're right. Kids don't but as they grow up they do. This is especially true for adopted and fostered kids.

You're predicating culture on young lives based on their genetics which is a bigoted thing to do and has nothing to do with the welfare of the child.

I'm not. Jesus Shyrke... you're better than this. Kids grow up to be curious adults and the vast majority will want to know about where they came from. The closer FK's are matched to FP's the more they will know growing up and understand as an adult.

That's what seems to be the case actually, but I might have missed something in the reading?

In this case, yes, it looks like a mess and I have sympathy for the FP's. I do however understand why SW's might think that the children could be better placed and this is not a reflection of the parenting standards of the FP's.

You can, and you have tolerance and genuine care for other human beings too. These things go a little passed the fact that a kid is Asian, African or Hispanic.

They'd be absolutely critical. Cultural matching would be a bonus. I know I would like it to have been done for me had I required it.

It's the same difference then, if you agree with it. But then agree the FP's were probably fine. This is a bit too here and there. You're sitting on the fence here.

I'm not. Im drawing a distinction between the policy and the FP's competence. The FP's sound like they were fine people.

Not an applicable example, again it's another extreme that's out of joint with the reality.

That was very much a reality until they became culturally sensitive.

The kid aren't prejudiced or bigoted. It's bigotry that would have a brown kid placed with a brown family over a white family for purely racial reasons.

Nope. It's best practice.

Culture hardly comes into it. We're talking about children. They need a loving home, it's a very questionable thing to assume a child of a certain ethnicity should be put "with their own". That's appalling thinking Chuck!

Loving home first? Yes. Parents who'd be sensitive to the children's unique needs - all the better.

Lads. Just google 'foster child placement guidelines' and you will see that culture and heritage are very much considered when children are placed and for very good reason imo.

Shenshen

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Removing children based on what political party the foster parents belong to, and calling them racist, is bullsh!t. Should someone be automatically labelled a terrorist because they support SF? What if the family supports UKIP over its anti-EU stance for instance, and not its anti immigrant stance? It's discrimination of the highest order.

If they had another reason to remove them that would be different, but making assumptions about someone purely based on political party is appalling, and the fact that this kind of thing happens all the time in the UK says it all. Seems like every week we see another story of children being removed and their lives being uprooted for utterly ludicrous reasons.

As I said, people wouldn't be shouting if the children had come from a Muslim family and the social workers thought twice about placing them with Jehova's witnesses.
In this case, the children were not white British, but were placed with a family who is member of a party promoting the removal of non-white British and non-British in general from the UK.
It's clearly a potential conflict of interest, and the interest of the children is the one that needs to be considered and protected here, not the interest of the foster parents.

quickbeam

wilkie2006 wrote: »

Ah, hold the fook on a minute. UKIP aren't the BNP or the EDL. They're just far-right Tories.

In fairness I took that comment back in a later post.

quickbeam wrote: »

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.

Rascasse

Shenshen wrote: »

In this case, the children were not white British, but were placed with a family who is member of a party promoting the removal of non-white British and non-British in general from the UK.
It's clearly a potential conflict of interest, and the interest of the children is the one that needs to be considered and protected here, not the interest of the foster parents.

Stop peddling lies. That is not, and has never been, the policy of UKIP. Either you have mistaken them for the BNP, or you are a far left socialist with an agenda to to push.

donegal_road

in post #61 I put up a clip of Nigel Farage speaking at the European Parliament three days ago. He is challenging David Cameron to a head to head debate on EU membership. He also states that 2 out of 3 people in the UK would vote for withdrawal from the EU.

Three days later, UKIP are being dragged through the mud by the media

Those in power both in UK and Europe are in fear of Farage's rising popularity.













.

Chuck Stone

philologos wrote: »

If it is so obvious, and if you are defending this, then you should be able to make an argument for it.

Because placing black Muslim foster children with white Christian FP's is dumb if you can get black Muslim FP's - it's pretty much self-evident.

Children grow up and ask questions. They will want know their heritage and the more they know about it the less dissonance it will engender for them when they do find out.

You think the child's cultural values, norms and heritage are inconsequential. That's what led to cultural superiority based child placement in the past; 'the savages' were placed with 'the civilised'.

In times gone by foster and adoptive children's culture and heritage were purged from them because of an imbalance of power - it was destructive and insensitive. Legislation and guidelines have put an end to the barbarism of the past and now children's needs are put first.

wilkie2006

suicide_circus wrote: »

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?

Completely agree with you. I don't like UKIP but they're not a dangerous political party (not in the BNP sense anyway). UKIP are just full of posh toffs/Tory party defectors (Nigel Farage is the leader and a founding member) . Sure, they don't like Europe and probably miss the good old days when they could take a darky man servant but they're not violent or overt hate-mongers.

wilkie2006

quickbeam wrote: »

In fairness I took that comment back in a later post.

Sorry - didn't see that.

Kisses

Madam_X

The fact they fostered the children in the first place would indicate they are not hardline subscribers to the party - they probably just agree with some of its policies. Is it not quite relieving to see not all UKIP supporters are nut-jobs? Not that it's a nut-job party (in general) in the first place.

I think this is absolutely dreadful - it's just prejudice the other way (but I'm at a loss re the rather silly comments that all public sector workers in the UK are Guardian readers and social workers in general are ****; plus Britain is hardly heading towards 1984, which is an imagined society where people are urged to be cruel. I don't see a problem with a culture of being tolerant, although I agree isolated incidents such as this and the lad going to prison for a Facebook post are taking that policy too far).

The "Would you let a nazi couple foster a Jewish child?" comment is just ridiculous, seeing as UKIP is nowhere near the nazi party, and in that case there would be genuine concerns for the child's safety... not that a nazi party couple would be likely to foster a Jewish child... or would be fostering in the first place, should their fascist views be known.

A nationalist child in the north being fostered by a unionist/presbyterian couple... I don't know... not all unionists/presbyterians are going to automatically hate all from a nationalist/republican background. A lot of them aren't very political and are very christian (in the good way) - they just view themselves as British but don't want loyalist atrocities or sectarianism towards catholics. Again, I would see such a couple fostering a catholic/nationalist background child as simply being very openminded.

Chuck Stone

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Children grow up and ask questions. They will want know their heritage and the more they know about it the less dissonance it will engender for them when they do find out.

Just to tease out this point a little...

Benefits of Cultural Matching in Foster Care

Abstract.

Sixty-one foster parents from Manitoba were recruited to examine the benefits of cultural matching in foster care placement. The authors used telephone interviews to gather 51 unique answers to the question: “What are the benefits of fostering children who have the same values, beliefs and traditions as you?” (p.1019).

Thirteen foster families were recruited to assist in analyzing the results using concept mapping. Themes extrapolated from participant responses were that cultural matching in foster care placement made it easier for parents to expand on their held values, aided in a child’s sense of security and safety due to familiarity of culture, made the adoption transition smoother, and was less stressful for the family to adapt to fostering a child. Foster parents also responded that cultural matching was beneficial for the adopted child and family relationship because of commonalities in communication and a sense of similarity.

Children and Youth Services Review, Volume 31, Issue 9, pp. 1019-1024. [2009]

There's a bit of science to complement the common sense.

Madam_X

Ok , matching should be a priority. But if there was a mismatch in the first place due to not all info about the couple being known (like in this case) it's unfair to take the children off them. What if the children are happy there?

philologos

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Because placing black Muslim foster children with white Christian FP's is dumb if you can get black Muslim FP's - it's pretty much self-evident.

Becoming a Christian or a Muslim is a decision on the part of the person.

The State's job is to find the best parents for the child and ensure that the parents will treat them properly.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Children grow up and ask questions. They will want know their heritage and the more they know about it the less dissonance it will engender for them when they do find out.

There are means by which kids can find this out when they are old enough anyway. That's even true of the adoption system.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You think the child's cultural values, norms and heritage are inconsequential. That's what led to cultural superiority based child placement in the past; 'the savages' were placed with 'the civilised'.

I think for children that it does not matter a great deal. They are far too young to have accumulated any cultural values in most cases.

I think the savages versus civilised argument is limited in value. I think if anything the racist side comes from the point of view that you should keep people in their own kinds. If this idea is not held in terms of marriage, or in terms of other social institutions I don't see any reason why it should be held in terms of foster parenting.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

In times gone by foster and adoptive children's culture and heritage were purged from them because of an imbalance of power - it was destructive and insensitive. Legislation and guidelines have put an end to the barbarism of the past and now children's needs are put first.

What culture? - Cultural identity is generated as kids grow up, it isn't something that exists from birth or from a very young age.

I think the idea that kids should be kept in their own kinds is archaic and silly in many ways.

Chuck Stone

Madam_X wrote: »

Ok , matching should be a priority. But if there was a mismatch in the first place due to not all info about the couple being known (like in this case) it's unfair to take the children off them. What if the children are happy there?

Oh I agree that this was very badly handled but we don't have the details of the case. I'm talking about the practice of matching children to potential FP's not this couple in particular (indeed, they have my sympathy and the SW who cried racism should be fired)

You can see how people are using it to question the entire practice of culturally sensitive foster placements which is more about their own prejudices and perhaps a little anti-state axe grinding.

I've as much as been called a bigot and racist by people who should know better just because I believe that culturally sensitivity as regards placing FK's is a good thing.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Chuck Stone

philologos wrote: »

Becoming a Christian or a Muslim is a decision on the part of the person.

For children? Bollocks. Don't bother trying to steer the discussion towards your mind-numbing evangelism and piousness - it's boring and I've told you on many occasions I'm not interested in it.

I think if anything the racist side comes from the point of view that you should keep people in their own kinds. I think the idea that kids should be kept in their own kinds is archaic and silly in many ways.

Read the study I've posted above. It backs up the stance of most civilised countries (which I agree with) as regards foster placement and culture - not your naivety.

philologos

Chuck Stone wrote: »

For children? Bollocks. Don't bother trying to steer the discussion towards your mind-numbing evangelism and piousness - it's boring and I've told you on many occasions I'm not interested in it.

The reality is that children eventually make up their own mind irrespective of whether their parents like it. I wasn't sure of my beliefs in respect to God or anything else until I took the time and energy to mull it over.

Please don't make this personal. I'm responding to your points and I don't want to get into an ad-hominem discussion. I genuinely don't believe that babies, and small children have made up their mind sufficiently about religion. I don't care what you think of me, but I am interested in having a respectful discussion with you. Please don't throw your toys out of the pram, and please discuss this properly.

I actually agreed with the British Humanist Association when they campaigned on this issue. Their billboards said:
"Don't label me. Let me grow up and decide for myself".

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Read the study I've posted above. It backs up the stance of most civilised countries (which I agree with) as regards foster placement and culture - not your naivety.

What do you define as a "civilised" country?

I don't believe that it is naive to believe that a child of any ethnicity can be brought up well by those of other ethnicities.

I wish you wouldn't make snotty accusations, and instead I wish you'd make an actual argument for your position.

Edit: This isn't about being pious or anything else. If you think that I genuinely think that, you don't know very much about what I believe.

Shryke

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Oh I agree that this was very badly handled but we don't have the details of the case. I'm talking about the practice of matching children to potential FP's not this couple in particular (indeed, they have my sympathy and the SW who cried racism should be fired)

You can see how people are using it to question the entire practice of culturally sensitive foster placements which is more about their own prejudices and perhaps a little anti-state axe grinding.

I've as much as been called a bigot and racist by people who should know better just because I believe that culturally sensitivity as regards placing FK's is a good thing.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hi, that's me your referring to..
I won't argue that cultural sensitivity is a good thing, but I completely disagree with it being an overriding thing. You're placing huge emphasis on heritage but heritage for a child will be based on the family and the place in which they were raised, whatever about where their ancestors hailed from.

You say you believe this should be an overriding precedent from birth, and that I cannot agree with and it is colouring the rest of your argument in my eyes as one based on ethnic segregation and the idea that an asian baby doesn't belong in a white household. That's a backward assertion.
If a child is part of a caring family then they won't be missing out on anything, and if they are put with a more culturally sympathetic family then they are still being raised in England as a British citizen. There life experience isn't going to be impacted, aside from the level of care they get, and that has little to do with where their biological parents hailed from.

With regards to older kids that are being placed into care I can agree with you more so. I still wouldn't put emphasis on culture but on genuine care. Jesus man, we're all just people.

Rascasse

Britain is predominantly a white country and, unsurprisingly, most foster carers are also white. Minority or mixed races make up 13% of children nationally yet 17% of those that are cared for by the state. So while it may best best to place children with those of the same ethnicity it will often not be possible I'd also imagine that its very hard to find a family willing or able to take 3 children (including a baby).

These children have now been split up with the boy separated from to the two girls. That is the real shame here - I hope they do a u-turn on this decision so they can be reunited. Looking at the profile of the family in the Telegraph (who broke the story) they sound ideal foster parents.

The couple, who do not want to be named to avoid identifying the children they have fostered, are in their late 50s and live in a neat detached house in a village in South Yorkshire.

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.

Former Labour voters, they have been approved foster parents for nearly seven years and have looked after about a dozen different children, one of them in a placement lasting four years.

They took on the three children — a baby girl, a boy and an older girl, who were all from an ethnic minority and a troubled family background — in September in an emergency placement.

They believe that the youngsters thrived in their care. The couple were described as “exemplary” foster parents: the baby put on weight and the older girl even began calling them “mum and dad”.

Killer Wench

If I was the social worker placing these children, I would have been alarmed too. This is taken from the UKIP's Immigration and Asylum platform:

"End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies."

This topic is particularly sensitive for me. In the US, there was an active policy of taking Native children and placing them in the homes of White Christian families with the intention of assimilating the children into the dominant culture, and to destroy Native families and communities by decimating their youth population (evolution of the "Kill the Indian, Save the Man" thought) As a result, there were many children of my grandfather's generation who were taken from their communities and families, and raised by non-Natives only to attempt to return to their cultural communities and be viewed as outcasts.

Thus, it isn't a stretch for my imagination to conjure up an image of two radical individuals who took in non-British children with the idea that they would take on the "Kill the Indian, Save the Man" approach.

bbam

DiggingDeep wrote: »

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.

Oh for goodness sake...
There are far more ways to abuse and bully children than whipping them.. this is nothing about religion... If these children are from a particular ethnic background this deserves to be respected and nurtured.. If they were placed with parents who have an objection to non british nationals being in the country then its not a good placement, simple as that.

philologos

Killer Wench wrote: »

If I was the social worker placing these children, I would have been alarmed too. This is taken from the UKIP's Immigration and Asylum platform:

"End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies."

This topic is particularly sensitive for me. In the US, there was an active policy of taking Native children and placing them in the homes of White Christian families with the intention of assimilating the children into the dominant culture, and to destroy Native families and communities by decimating their youth population (evolution of the "Kill the Indian, Save the Man" thought) As a result, there were many children of my grandfather's generation who were taken from their communities and families, and raised by non-Natives only to attempt to return to their cultural communities and be viewed as outcasts.

Thus, it isn't a stretch for my imagination to conjure up an image of two radical individuals who took in non-British children with the idea that they would take on the "Kill the Indian, Save the Man" approach.

This is utterly sensationalist. This isn't about creating a policy to "assimilate" anyone. Rather it is pretty simple, people should be allowed to foster children even if they are of a different ethnicity. Adding non-existent racist connotations to something that is simply about saying that people even if they are of a different ethnicity can do a brilliant job of raising children.

Chuck Stone

philologos wrote: »

The reality is that children eventually make up their own mind irrespective of whether their parents like it.

Stop talking shite and stop trying to steer the conversation towards your bullshit. [/QUOTE]

What do you define as a "civilised" country?

No death penalty. No torture. Due process. Separation of powers. Civilian policing. Social safety nets etc.

I don't believe that it is naive to believe that a child of any ethnicity can be brought up well by those of other ethnicities. I wish you'd make an actual argument for your position.

I've already said that we've arrived from a time when kids were placed because of notions of cultural superiority and imbalanced power. Thankfully we're more humane these days and attempt to value cultural differences between people and this extends to placing children in foster care.

Read the abstract of the study.

My name is URL

Killer Wench wrote: »

If I was the social worker placing these children, I would have been alarmed too. This is taken from the UKIP's Immigration and Asylum platform:

"End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies."

This topic is particularly sensitive for me. In the US, there was an active policy of taking Native children and placing them in the homes of White Christian families with the intention of assimilating the children into the dominant culture, and to destroy Native families and communities by decimating their youth population (evolution of the "Kill the Indian, Save the Man" thought) As a result, there were many children of my grandfather's generation who were taken from their communities and families, and raised by non-Natives only to attempt to return to their cultural communities and be viewed as outcasts.

Thus, it isn't a stretch for my imagination to conjure up an image of two radical individuals who took in non-British children with the idea that they would take on the "Kill the Indian, Save the Man" approach.

That most definitely is a stretch. Fine Gael as a party have some terribly old fashioned and archaic views (granted they're not comparable to UKIP), but you wouldn't assume that every member of the party agrees with every single one of those ideals.

It's an extremely cynical way of looking at things.. to imagine that the people involved merely want to instill racist views in the children they look after.

Killer Wench

philologos wrote: »

This is utterly sensationalist. This isn't about creating a policy to "assimilate" anyone. Rather it is pretty simple, people should be allowed to foster children even if they are of a different ethnicity. Adding non-existent racist connotations to something that is simply about saying that people even if they are of a different ethnicity can do a brilliant job of raising children.

Unless you are the foster parents, or know them intimately, you can't say that they would or would not use their position of influence and authority to try to assimilate children under their care to their position. Parents raise their children in a household that reflects their own personal values and their own cultural heritage. Their party advocates for the elimination of the multicultural state which seems to me that they do not want to celebrate difference, and that they believe that every immigrant should assimilate into British culture.

Killer Wench

My name is URL wrote: »

That most definitely is a stretch. Fine Gael as a party have some terribly old fashioned and archaic views (granted they're not comparable to UKIP), but you wouldn't assume that every member of the party agrees with every single one of those ideals.

It's an extremely cynical way of looking at things.. to imagine that the people involved merely want to instill racist views in the children they look after.

People on this board frequently misuse the term racist and racism. In this particular situation, the primary concern would be Xenophobia which is a fear, dislike, or hatred of individuals from another country or culture.

These individuals have taken on a multicultural household yet they belong to a party that condemns multiculturalism and believes that it has led to the destruction of traditional British society. It is a reason to be concerned.