UKIP couple have foster children removed from care

[davieG]

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 Telegraphsocial 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.

He told the BBC he felt: "Very upset and very angry... this couple involved who have been fostering for many years and are very decent people. This was an awful shock to them, not to mention the upset for the children themselves.

"Politically, I am not surprised at all. This is typical of the bigotry you get from the Labour party and Labour controlled councils.

"We have nothing against people from Poland or elsewhere in the world... we are not against immigration. We believe in controlled immigration."

He added in a statement: "They [the council] 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."

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.

[definitely not finners]

Did someone say publicity stunt?

[Harry - LCFC]

Did someone say publicity stunt?

You're saying UKIP set this up to get themselves a bit of media attention?

[bluesbrothers]

Well, that's disguisting. Did RBC even read UKIP's manifesto? There's a very big difference between preventing immigration itself (UKIP) and kicking every non-german blooded saxon out the country (irony of the BNP). Suprise, suprise, it's a Labour council - so any view on immigration other than "more is good" is shouted down as "racist". Because denying someone the right to look after a child based on conflicting ethnicities isnt? Pot, kettle, black, you poisonous scumbags.

Honestly, as a UKIP supporter, who would genuinely be up for adopting a child if I hit my 30s and still don't have one, this is deeply disturbing. Well, look on the bright side - there's a by-election in Rotherham next week, and this can only help the party. Oh, and in case you were wondering if UKIP was purely a party of old tory dinosaurs, here's their candidate for Croydon sporting a rather awesome trilby.

Did someone say publicity stunt?

Get bent.

[Webbo]

Typical vindictive leftwing spite.

[Nick]

Typical vindictive leftwing spite.

Protecting a child from being brought up with discriminatory values by supporters of a party that wishes to end the promotion of multi-culturalism and abolish the Human Rights Act.

That's not vindictive or left wing, it's just common sense.

Should supporters of facism, holocaust deniers or the BNP or EDL be allowed to foster children whom the state have a responsibility to ensure their welfare?

[Captain...]

What the fvck, I sometimes despair of this country, despite its stance on immigration UKIP is clearly not a racist party, and even if it may attract a racist element with its policies, nobody should be condemned solely for supporting any political party, and have children removed from their care, even if it is the BNP.

Children should only be removed from care in extreme circumstances.

[Webbo]

Protecting a child from being brought up with discriminatory values by supporters of a party that wishes to end the promotion of multi-culturalism and abolish the Human Rights Act.

That's not vindictive or left wing, it's just common sense.

Should supporters of facism, holocaust deniers or the BNP or EDL be allowed to foster children whom the state have a responsibility to ensure their welfare?

I knew that if anyone was going to defend this it would be you.

[Captain...]

Protecting a child from being brought up with discriminatory values by supporters of a party that wishes to end the promotion of multi-culturalism and abolish the Human Rights Act.

That's not vindictive or left wing, it's just common sense.

Should supporters of facism, holocaust deniers or the BNP or EDL be allowed to foster children whom the state have a responsibility to ensure their welfare?

Would you take biological children off these people? (Holocaust deniers aside as that is actually illegal).

[Nick]

Would you take biological children off these people? (Holocaust deniers aside as that is actually illegal).

Nope.

[Nick]

I knew that if anyone was going to defend this it would be you.

And vice versa.

[Orkneyfox]

The report doesn't say if this was along term or a short term foster placement or was the placement "working" or if there are other problems?

The principal issue in these cases is and always should be the best interests of the child. The kids are usually in these situations because some shit has already happened in their lives so stability and care, and hopefully love are important. A common language would be good too and people who within their own house didn't make the kids abandon all of their own heritage.

There are a lot of UKIP supporters so that is a significant chunk of people perhaps barred from fostering kids from any where except a Eurosceptic family which seems daft. There is also a difference between fostering and adoption, seems to me cultural matching is maybe more important in an adoption context.

Cultural matching is important but not as important as the issues I have already mentioned, as a silly example would you want your kids brought up by a Forest supporter? There is a separate EDL thread where many of the members of that organisation are roundly slagged off, would that be a good environment to bring up a child, and there is a slight irony in UKIP arguing for a very inclusive fostering policy.

[LJS]

This is an appalling decision. I disagree very strongly with UKIP's stance on immigration and the EU. I think more immingration is fine and that we should be part of a federal Europe, to declare my interest. But I do not believe that UKIP is a racist party and it is certainly not racist to oppose the things I believe in.

UKIP do believe that multiculturalism has failed and propose something quite different as an alternative (they call it uniculturalism). But what they propose is not about ignorance or racism. Do they attract racist elements? Yes, yes they do, But it's worth remembering that a good number of BNP voters switched to that rabble from the Labour Party. All political parties have some unpleasant characters voting for them.

Awful, awful stuff, this.

[MPH]

Protecting a child from being brought up with discriminatory values by supporters of a party that wishes to end the promotion of multi-culturalism and abolish the Human Rights Act.

That's not vindictive or left wing, it's just common sense.

Should supporters of facism, holocaust deniers or the BNP or EDL be allowed to foster children whom the state have a responsibility to ensure their welfare?

wow... just... wow..

[Nick]

wow... just... wow..

I think surely its quite acceptable to want children to grow up in culturally appropriate surrondings. In this instance SCS did not think that this was a healthy environment for those particular children due to their nationalities and ethnicity.

[ithuriel]

If the only reason they had the children removed from their care was being members of UKIP then that is disgusting, wanting the UK to be a seperate entity from the EU is not racist but i guess some peeps see racism everywhere, (cough).

[Nick]

If the only reason they had the children removed from their care was being members of UKIP then that is disgusting, wanting the UK to be a seperate entity from the EU is not racist but i guess some peeps see racism everywhere, (cough).

Well the bbc article which has been informed by the fosters parents and the Telegraph I'm sure is a very balanced account.

Maybe one has to think about the children who were in their care and what they are paid to do. Why pay for people to bring up a child in an environment which may prove to be detrimental to their development?

[ithuriel]

If you go by the article alone, which is why i said, 'If' then it is indefensible.

Seven years as exemplary foster parents.

They were considered suitable to foster these children until quizzed about their poltical affiliation to UKIP and then based on that decision alone had these children removed from their care because UKIP wants the UK to be a seperate entity from the EU ?

Having just seen the story on the news it looks like the article is true.

Back tracking already, they do not believe UKIP is now racist but,..

[Zingari]

Protecting a child from being brought up with discriminatory values by supporters of a party that wishes to end the promotion of multi-culturalism and abolish the Human Rights Act.

That's not vindictive or left wing, it's just common sense.

Should supporters of facism, holocaust deniers or the BNP or EDL be allowed to foster children whom the state have a responsibility to ensure their welfare?

If the foster parents were in Scotland and members of the Scottish Nationalist Party would you say it would be reasonable for the social services to act in the same way?

[jamesmilner]

muslims want sharia law (just a pointer not racist) etc etc etc . kids will all have to be put down if this decision is anything to go by . come on ukip aint as bad as other sections of society . this is all about social workers making work for themselves and keeping themselves in work . social workers are worse than the parents sometimes and this is the case here . come on , lately weve had a social worker asking for social workers to go round houses to cook breakfast for parents to see if would get the parents to cook breakfast for their kids as alot of kids dont get breakfast !!! wtf ? nuff said .

[Carl the Llama]

As much as I disagree with Nigel cvnting Farage, I hardly think political affiliation is reasonable grounds for denying foster status. As long as they aren't actively teaching/acting on racist or bigoted principles then I see no problem. It should be up to the council to prove that to be the situation before any action can be taken. I'd be very pissed off if I had my kids taken because of who I vote for. Crazy.

[LJS]

muslims want sharia law (just a pointer not racist) etc etc etc . kids will all have to be put down if this decision is anything to go by . come on ukip aint as bad as other sections of society . this is all about social workers making work for themselves and keeping themselves in work . social workers are worse than the parents sometimes and this is the case here . come on , lately weve had a social worker asking for social workers to go round houses to cook breakfast for parents to see if would get the parents to cook breakfast for their kids as alot of kids dont get breakfast !!! wtf ? nuff said .

No they don't. Some extreme elements want Sharia Law.

And social work is a tough but worthy job. The breakfast thing doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

All this stuff about it being a Labour run council is irrelevant, by the way. The make up of a council makes no difference to the work of social workers any more than the make up of the government makes a difference to my work in the NHS. They are guided by a professional code, not a political one. These social workers just happen to have got it horribly wrong. It has nothing to do with politics.

[ozleicester]

Perfectly reasonable.... now they should take children away from everyone who provides them with meat, it is injurious to their health and long term damage to society.

Sarcasm

[lavrentis]

Wow, what ignorant bastards. Ah well, being a supporter of UKIP and a great fan of Farage this can only be good publicity for them.

[lavrentis]

Perfectly reasonable.... now they should take children away from everyone who provides them with meat, it is injurious to their health and long term damage to society.

Sarcasm

Good idea, we should also make people stay inside all the time to prevent them from breathing in carbon monoxide fumes in inner cities