Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

UKIP Fostering Row

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 69 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 24 Nov 2012 12:12:03 GMT
Spin says:
Does a council have the right to remove fostered children from a couple who support a political ideology it disagrees with?

Posted on 24 Nov 2012 12:20:24 GMT
Last edited by the author on 24 Nov 2012 12:58:53 GMT
I wouldn't say so and tbh there solution was even worse.

I heard something about it on the news, in that their belonging to UKIP was 'racist', and the councils solution was they should only be able to foster white kids from now on, which tbf is even more racist.

Madness really. They're giving these kids who having nothing else a loving home, and as long as they're not telling them they're inferior for their skin colour or that they should go back to where they came from etc etc (which I can't imagine they would be, fosterers don't strike me as the type) then surely being housed is better than staying in care.

Posted on 24 Nov 2012 22:28:41 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Nov 2012 08:59:38 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Providing the ideology is legal- no they do not. Political correctness gone mad, and the ones that will suffer are the poor kids- as usual.

Posted on 25 Nov 2012 10:28:38 GMT
S.R.J says:
The answer to the question is yes......but as to the appropriateness of doing so, that is questionable. Foster parents are assessed for their ability to provide stability and emotional nurturing, along with providing the basics. Political persuasion of foster carers, if its a problem, should have been established during their assessment process, to remove children and provide further instability is just plain wrong. Had their politics been an issue the children should not have been placed with them in the first place.
Its possible there are issues that we are unaware of, but on the face of it, much as I loathe the politics of ukip, it srikes me as a misguided action on behalf of Rotherham s. services.

Posted on 25 Nov 2012 10:53:56 GMT
Isn't allowing unlimited numbers of foreigners to take up residence here tantamount to treason? It potentially permits a foreign government to flood the UK with its own citizens who could then (democratically?) take over. Allowing unrestrained immigration puts a strain on resources and damages our economy.

Posted on 25 Nov 2012 11:07:38 GMT
Sou'Wester says:
If this removal has been carried out purely on the grounds of the couple's membership of UKIP then it is an outrageous decision; also an incredibly naive one if those responsible didn't foresee the furore that followed. One just wonders if there were any other factors behind this decision that we're not aware of - so often with media coverage we're only given part of the story, which is why I'm always a tad suspicious of many of these "PC gone mad" news items. However, if it does transpire that UKIP membership was the only objection to the couple in question, who ever made the decision has clearly shown themselves unfit to hold that position. It's a little ironic that this story may well work to UKIP's advantage in the forthcoming elections.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Nov 2012 12:25:09 GMT
David Groom says:

There's also, on the face of it, a basic illogicality about the council's position. On the one hand they say that they have to take the best interest of the children into account. Fair enough, but how does that square with taking them away from people who the council themselves agreed were doing a perfectly good job? Not only that but the council has also said that there is no objection to these carers taking other children in the future. These are statements made by the council or its spokesperson in the media, so I'm guessing they are fundamentally correct.

So clearly if the carers were doing a good job and the council had no complaints about this, then taking the children away after they had settled was clearly for other reasons, but not ones that were in the interest of the children, leading to suspicion that the children's best interests were not what the council were concerned about.

Secondly, having said that they have no concerns about the level of care being given by these people, they then apparently said that the membership of UKIP was the issue. So, whatever spin the council puts on the 'best interest of the children' argument, it seems clear that this issue did figure largely in the decision. It was very noticeable that Joyce Thacker for Rotherham didn't exactly make a categorical denial that this was the problem, thus leading to the conclusion that it was.

My guess is that there are some very worried people in Rotherham Social Services at the moment, as I suspect that they now realise that they've made a monumental mess of this, all for their own political agenda.

On your point about us not knowing the total facts about this case, I'd agree with you, but if that were the case, I'm surprised that Rotherham weren't ready for the furore and should have put out their defence by now. The arguments that I have seen so far look very weak and defensive. What was it Joyce Thacker said - something like I've been criticised before and so I've made sure it won't happen again. Not much of a case, and one which looks like covering your rear, not doing a job properly.

Posted on 25 Nov 2012 15:18:08 GMT
Ghostgrey51 says:
I do not agree with UKIP's policies at all and could argue long into the night with party memebrs. However what has this has to do with them being good foster parents? It is a very chilling action by Rotherham Council Social Services; considered not worthy because of your political views. I can't help but wonder if this was to go unchallenged which group would be next?

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Nov 2012 15:27:20 GMT
David Groom says:
Roger from Wrexham,

'I can't help but wonder if this was to go unchallenged which group would be next?'

This is the real problem isn't it? What's next? They work for a Labour council, so do they next expect to ban conservative party members or lib-dems? Will they expect to extend it to how people vote and how will they know - do they want to check people's ballot papers? And what about jobs? Can you only get a job with Rotherham if you belong to the Labour party etc. etc. As you say a very chilling future if this is how people are allowed to act. Fortunately, unless there are some very mitigating circumstances in this case, I suspect that there are going to be some changes at Rotherham very soon.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Nov 2012 15:52:08 GMT
Ghostgrey51 says:
I would agree with you David: I am suprised those involved did not remember: Public Service, bottom line (Or as they say in the USA '101') - do not judge or decide on grounds of Race, Religion, Creed or Political Affliations, and when in doubt only on the strict legality of your particular area.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Nov 2012 16:05:02 GMT
David Groom says:
Roger from Wrexham,

'Public Service, bottom line (Or as they say in the USA '101') - do not judge or decide on grounds of Race, Religion, Creed or Political Affliations, and when in doubt only on the strict legality of your particular area.'

About the only area where I can think of a case for using political bias is where the job itself is a political one. For instance, I guess Alastair Campbell wouldn't have been able to be Tony Blair's spin doctor had he not been a Labour party supporter, and for me it's fair enough in this kind of case. Otherwise, it's a no-no.

Posted on 25 Nov 2012 17:38:22 GMT
Dissident says:
I don't agree with their politics but how on earth are UKIP racist? They're not the BNP. AFAIK UKIP's only policies are leaving the EU and cutting taxes. What has that got to do with race? In my constituency, UKIP were represented at the last election by a Black man. Is he 'racist' against himself?

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Nov 2012 17:41:01 GMT
Dissident says:
Prints of Whales,

Isn't that just what has happened in America with immigrant communities and welfare mums voting in Obama?!

Posted on 25 Nov 2012 20:07:21 GMT
Anyone know any more about the person a charity has fired for being a member of UKIP ?
Don't know any more than that semi-provocative headline atm.

I thought rejecting people, firing people, prohibiting people from certain activities etc based on political ideology would surely be discrimination, and there was me thinking the UK was supposedly big on equality and on being non-discriminatory ...

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Nov 2012 20:07:35 GMT
Last edited by the author on 25 Nov 2012 20:16:39 GMT
Pipkin says:
Fostering is better than staying ''In a Care Home.'' Definitely!
But discrimination has been going on as long as I can remember..... like why does a child of mixed parentage automatically go to a black be taught black heritage.... even if they are so light skinned as to be hardly the child doesn't have a choice? Or that white FP's wouldn't be able to cover heritage? This always stuck in my craw....
By this token, many of the carers in Children's homes should be negated, but they aren't?
Foster parents per se do a fantastic job, generally, and it shouldn't matter what their politics are, or anything else.

Posted on 25 Nov 2012 20:19:21 GMT
Spin says:
I was asked whether I would object to kids being removed from foster parents who supported the BNP. Well, First, I doubt a BNP supporter would foster kids of an ethnicity they want eliminated. Second, I do not consider Nazism to be a "legitimate political belief". In my opinion, Nazism is simply bigotted thuggery and removing foster children from them is no worse than removing kids from a drug dealer. If any adult is teaching kids hatred and violence, be it based on political, religious, or cultural ideology, the kids should be removed, regardless of whether they are the natural offspring, adopted or fostered. The abuse and corruption of children does not only involve sexual crimes.

Posted on 25 Nov 2012 20:20:34 GMT
The whole system is absoluty mad. How can the council justify the removal of the children due to a political idea, that even has a party in the European Parliment [ironic I know]. The whole point of a democracy is to allow people to espouse their views wheather we like them or not. However what is more outrageous is the fact the council state they can only foster white children. That sounds awfuly like apartheid to me, something that the UN actually have declared illigal. In my view all of the senior council members should be sacked, wothout the mass payouts that they are likely to recieve. It is a damn disgrace.

Posted on 25 Nov 2012 20:26:41 GMT
Spin says:
The issue boils down to what, exactly, UKIP stand for. UKIP claims it simply wants to halt immigration. But to halt immigration is to close economic amnd political ties with those nations one is refusing entry to. So why refuse entry to the Polish but greet the Americans and Germans? Money? Racism?

Posted on 25 Nov 2012 20:37:21 GMT
Spin says:
Why does UKIP forget that UK citizens emigrate to these mnations? Are they to recall all ex-pats from those nations, european and eastern, they object to for some reason?

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Nov 2012 22:10:26 GMT
Controlling immigration does not have to be on racial grounds. We currently do not have enough housing or decent jobs for the people already here. Britain is a small country and has limited resources. Other countries with much greater resources (Australia and New Zealand come to mind) have strict limits on immigration. Why is the UK always the Fall Guy?

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Nov 2012 22:13:22 GMT
No one has mentioned repatriation except possibly the BNP. Do you know that to be UKIP policy? That's news to me.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Nov 2012 22:21:04 GMT
Spin says:
Prints: So why does one want to halt immigration from certain countries, thus recalling ex=pats from those nations, yet continue to allow immigration from other nations (notably those with cash and skills?) Stop immigration and one loses economic and political alliances. Indeed. one creates enemies. UKip accepts immigration from the US, Australia, France, Germany etc; Why? If it wants to stop immigration why is it focussing on nations that it considers "Inferior"?

Posted on 25 Nov 2012 22:24:24 GMT
Spin says:
Is UKIP to kick out all the foreign investors in this country as well? No? Only poles and Pakistanis, eh?

Posted on 26 Nov 2012 08:53:50 GMT
Dan Fante says:
I haven't got a lot of time for UKIP but that's not the point really, it's a ridiculous decision in my view. Quite apart from that there will be plenty people affiliated to more mainstream parties who may share some of their concerns about immigration, the role of Europe etc.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  17
Total posts:  69
Initial post:  24 Nov 2012
Latest post:  1 Dec 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions