Mike the Metal Ed Posted 24 November 2012 Posted 24 November 2012 I've got no time for UKIP, but this is quite clearly the wrong decision, there are people who support UKIP purely for economic reasons. Any party to the right of the Tories (and indeed the right wing of the Tories) is going to attract some people with fascist beliefs, but UKIP members aren't automatically racists. UKIP, however, love playing the victim, oppressed by the established, nasty old big 3 and will have a field day with this.
Smudge Posted 24 November 2012 Posted 24 November 2012 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? As I understand it, they are calling for the the repeal of the Human Rights Act in favour of a British Human Rights Act. I also believe that the new act would enshrine the right of liberty as described in other documents. How can taking children away from a loving family environment at Christmas time and placing them either in a home or with people they don't know, common sense?
Nick Posted 24 November 2012 Posted 24 November 2012 Joyce Thacker, strategic director of children and young people's services at the council, told the BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The fact of the matter is I have to look at the children's cultural and ethnic needs. The children have been in care proceedings before and the judge had previously criticised us for not looking after the children's cultural and ethnic needs, and we have had to really take that into consideration with the placement that they were in." Its not about wether or not they should be fostering or if the foster parents are racist or not - it's about the cultural appropriateness of the placement.
Webbo Posted 24 November 2012 Posted 24 November 2012 Joyce Thacker, strategic director of children and young people's services at the council, told the BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The fact of the matter is I have to look at the children's cultural and ethnic needs. The children have been in care proceedings before and the judge had previously criticised us for not looking after the children's cultural and ethnic needs, and we have had to really take that into consideration with the placement that they were in." Its not about wether or not they should be fostering or if the foster parents are racist or not - it's about the cultural appropriateness of the placement. They were considered appropriate for the previous 8 weeks they were with them.
Nick Posted 24 November 2012 Posted 24 November 2012 They were considered appropriate for the previous 8 weeks they were with them. Until....... what happened.........? A big ask I know but try and read between the lines.
Webbo Posted 24 November 2012 Posted 24 November 2012 Until....... what happened.........? A big ask I know but try and read between the lines. Until they got a tip off from someone that they were members of UKIP. In other words they had an exemplary record as foster parents and were considered entirely appropriate foster parents until the social workers found out they were evil UKIP supporters.
Nick Posted 24 November 2012 Posted 24 November 2012 Until they got a tip off from someone that they were members of UKIP. In other words they had an exemplary record as foster parents and were considered entirely appropriate foster parents until the social workers found out they were evil UKIP supporters. 'between the lines'
ithuriel Posted 24 November 2012 Posted 24 November 2012 Yes, you keep on defending this decision. Parents were checked beforehand to see if suitable, children were placed in their care, political affiliation considered wrong Until....... what happened.........? A big ask I know but try and read between the lines. You tell us, you obviously know something we do not about poeple that were considered good foster parents after seven years of fostering, oh, wait, their politics were not quite correct because and this is from a spokeswoman from that council as she spoke on the news earlier today, UKIP does not believe in multiculturaulism You keep on defending this Children should be protected but this is a massive own goal by social services it seems. I'd be interested in hearing from the youngsters has to whether they were happy or not.
Smudge Posted 24 November 2012 Posted 24 November 2012 Joyce Thacker, strategic director of children and young people's services at the council, told the BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The fact of the matter is I have to look at the children's cultural and ethnic needs. The children have been in care proceedings before and the judge had previously criticised us for not looking after the children's cultural and ethnic needs, and we have had to really take that into consideration with the placement that they were in." Its not about whether or not they should be fostering or if the foster parents are racist or not - it's about the cultural appropriateness of the placement. Not your words I know but making sure that the children have their cultural and ethnic needs taken care of sounds anti multicultural. Having foster parents for one race and another set of parents for another doesn't sound like something you or anyone else would support.
Nick Posted 24 November 2012 Posted 24 November 2012 Again. It's not about their ability to foster it's that Social Services are obliged to consider the cultural appropriateness of the placement.
Captain... Posted 24 November 2012 Posted 24 November 2012 Again. It's not about their ability to foster it's that Social Services are obliged to consider the cultural appropriateness of the placement. I'm sorry Nick, but based on the facts we have this decision is ludicrous and can't be defended. The reasoning seems to be that these children are not from the UK, so they can't be placed with supporters of a 'racist' party. If they were racist they wouldn't have agreed to foster non UK children. Unless you know more than the articles we have read I don't see how you can defend disrupting a foster placement after 8 weeks with experienced foster parents, for being a supporter of a serious political party, which may be nationalist but it is not racist in its views. As someone said would you deny the opportunity to foster English children to Scottish supporters of the SNP? Now if there was any actual evidence of racism then it would be different, but as far as we know there isn't.
Rincewind Posted 24 November 2012 Posted 24 November 2012 Not read the article yet in full only some replies, but I think there would be more to the story than is reported. If the couple have a good record of fostering, unless there has been evidence to warrant the removal on this occasion I doubt that the children would be taken away. For instance it would not be very wise of the couple to make what would be considered by some as racist within the hearing of others be it with the children or without them The fostering could also be for publicity to demonstrate their non-racist stance if they have one. I think something may have happened to make social workers concerned but saying that there are some that are not worthy of the job title as in all jobs.
Jon the Hat Posted 24 November 2012 Posted 24 November 2012 Not read the article yet in full only some replies, but I think there would be more to the story than is reported. If the couple have a good record of fostering, unless there has been evidence to warrant the removal on this occasion I doubt that the children would be taken away. For instance it would not be very wise of the couple to make what would be considered by some as racist within the hearing of others be it with the children or without them The fostering could also be for publicity to demonstrate their non-racist stance if they have one. I think something may have happened to make social workers concerned but saying that there are some that are not worthy of the job title as in all jobs. Sadly not, they are just over sensitive due to the history of the kids case, and reacted on the back of ignorance regarding UKIP.
BunkMoreland Posted 24 November 2012 Posted 24 November 2012 Wowzwers, the mummy state takes a literal turn. I'm in two minds, to be honest. On the one hand it is clearly a decision infused with a level of utter stupidity that is unusual even for the left. But on the other hand, as a precedent it has great potential as a solution to the problems of 'benefit babies' and overpopulation. If we can now remove kids from the care of people who we deem to be incapable of raising a child in the correct culture, then there is huge scope for disincentivising having children. For instance, we certainly cannot allow anyone on benefits to look after children, because unemployment is an awful culture in which to bring up a child. If these people know their kids will be taken away, maybe they won't have them to begin with. A good result if you ask me. We can also take kids away from Labour supporters, the Lib Dem supporter and supporters of any of those horrendous left wing fringe parties. We can take kids away from members of any religion. We can take kids away from hippies, hipsters and apple fanbois. If we do this right, this can effectively become eugenics by stealth. Quite an exciting prospect.
surrifox Posted 24 November 2012 Posted 24 November 2012 the mind boggling arrogance of the bien pensant left - we know what's best and will entertain no opposition we will never hesitate to play the "cultural purity" racism or borderline racism card because in a nation in the grip of a psychosis on the subject this will always trump your ace
Rincewind Posted 24 November 2012 Posted 24 November 2012 That will result in a futre of children being brought up in care homes and being lfelt eft out of society as adults resulting in malfunctioned adults that feel their upbringing is to blame for their position in life. I don't think any political party can be put at fault. It seems it was individual social workers doing what they thought was best. There is no way to know where their political allegiance lies. Guidelines are drawn up by non-politicians. There are always those that if anything like this happens cry 'mad lefties' regardless of those who make the rules.
Zingari Posted 24 November 2012 Posted 24 November 2012 What are the odds of Joyce Thacker retiring early on a six figure publicly funded "severance" package ?
notnow john Posted 24 November 2012 Posted 24 November 2012 What is the definition of multi culturism? I suppose it was dreamt up by some left wing dogma junkie but what does it mean. Clearly in this case Rotherham council don't want races mixing. A sort of separate development!
Jon the Hat Posted 24 November 2012 Posted 24 November 2012 I find it great that we are worried about the ethnic needs of some kids while in other places we are utterly failing kids who remain in extremely harmful circumstances.
Rincewind Posted 24 November 2012 Posted 24 November 2012 Do the biological parents have a say in where the children are fostered? I mean can they make specifications when they have them taken away?
Carl the Llama Posted 24 November 2012 Posted 24 November 2012 I'm in two minds, to be honest. On the one hand it is clearly a decision infused with a level of utter stupidity that is unusual even for the left. the mind boggling arrogance of the bien pensant left Because Milliband has totally come out in support of the decision and not criticised it at all. Any excuse to make sweeping political digs though, eh?
Captain... Posted 24 November 2012 Posted 24 November 2012 I have no idea what this has to do with the left, it was a moronic decision from a civil servant, and therefore neutral in her decision making. This not a Labour or Lib Dem policy, it was a moronic decision, but listening to an interview with her it seems to be a response to being criticised previously, interview here: http://audioboo.fm/b...om-strong-views She doesn't come off well, says that is nothing to do with how they vote, and then starts saying the same stuff about how they shouldn't be raised by a family that supports non multi-culturalism.
Zingari Posted 24 November 2012 Posted 24 November 2012 I have no idea what this has to do with the left, it was a moronic decision from a civil servant, and therefore neutral in her decision making. This not a Labour or Lib Dem policy, it was a moronic decision, but listening to an interview with her it seems to be a response to being criticised previously, interview here: http://audioboo.fm/b...om-strong-views She doesn't come off well, says that is nothing to do with how they vote, and then starts saying the same stuff about how they shouldn't be raised by a family that supports non multi-culturalism. She was/is a Project Advisory Group member of "Common Purpose" which is thought by many to a shadowy left wing Fabian organisation . OK this may be just another NWO conspiracy theory
Bettsj2 Posted 24 November 2012 Posted 24 November 2012 She was/is a Project Advisory Group member of "Common Purpose" which is thought by many to a shadowy left wing Fabian organisation . OK this may be just another NWO conspiracy theory ??
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.