to think Rotherham council have lost the plot over UKIP foster-carers?

(793 Posts)
londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 09:23:19

bbc

I really really hope there is more to this than is being reported, otherwise I am utterly speechless.

alemci Fri 30-Nov-12 14:28:01

you express the situation very well Seabird. the 'r' term has become far too widely used in society to shut people up who are critical of the immigration situation in GB. everyone walks around on eggshells but most people are concerned about it.

even if the FP's had made a remark about immigration at some point in front of the children so what? Isn't what has happened to them now alot worse.

I've had meals with relatives and we have discussed these issues around the table in front of my own children. Kids can make their own minds up about things.

Seabird72 Fri 30-Nov-12 10:44:46

you can support a party and NOT agree with all it's policies - some support parties JUST because their parents did. I agree we should limit immigration but only because I feel the country is under a HUGE amount of presure to try and cope already. Our schools, police force and hospitals simply cannot keep up - we need to get this country back on track - be something to be proud of and then start allowing immigration again but in SENSIBLE numbers like many other countries. Illegal immigrants should be deported unless their lives are in danger although I have no sympathy with people who come to this country to spout racism and then claim their lives will be in danger if they are forced back to their own country - I don't think it's right that people should be living amoungst people they openly hate - racism is racism no matter what the colour of your own skin. If you cannot be tolerant of other people then don't place yourself with them. The UKIP want to take very radical steps to control immigration and people support this idea because they believe it has got out of hand - that's all - but I truly don't believe that in this case these people either necessarily agree with the immigration stance of the party - I don't think they would have agreed to take in the children if they were in any way racist. It's unfair to say people are racist JUST because they want to limit immigration - I have grown up hating racism yet now people feel it's ok to call me racist because I do think immigration is out of control. If the country can cope and have decent services and rights for everyone then that's great - but is an open door policy really such a good one?? Is it untrue that we can't control our borders?? We are a very tolerant country but having an open door policy on immigration has caused so many problems for so many people - and it's not just white British that this affects. It's everyone already living in this country - of any race and culture. But again - I stress - you don't have to agree with every policy of the party you choose to support.

tiggytape Fri 30-Nov-12 10:40:18

....not that I am suggesting it was ever unacceptable to vote UKIP - as I have said I may not vote for them but I don't think they have policies that are racist at all.
It is just people used to see them as very right wing and maybe a bit boring on just one issue so not want to be associated with them whereas now their mainstream-ness has been highlighted so much in the press, it suddenly doesn't seem like such an off the wall party to vote for.

tiggytape Fri 30-Nov-12 10:37:11

I agree edam - UKIP has gained sympathy and probably also votes as a direct result of what many people see as the complete injustice surrounding the fostering case.

I also think the publicity of UKIP's policies this week - the media have highlighted lots of UKIPs more popular policies - may have helped.
I mentioned one person I know who supports them because of their stance on the smoking ban but also their policiy on Europe reflects the mood of the population better now than at other times when less people cared about Europe (the majority of the UK population want to leave Europe right now).
The press coverage has sanitised UKIPs image if you like because all the coverage has been explaining that it is possible to be nationalist without being racist, everyone is more sceptical about Europe right now and immigration limits are acceptable across all parties - so now it is seen as a more acceptable to vote that way perhaps?

edam Fri 30-Nov-12 10:09:56

UKIP came second in the Rotherham by-election. The Tories were knocked into 5th place, which is astonishing, and the Lib Dems into 8th (losing their deposit). I imagine the UKIP vote was boosted by revulsion at this story - I read it as a protest against the council. (Labour still won but it's a safe Labour seat and the bulk of their supporters wouldn't want to vote UKIP and couldn't bear to vote for the Coalition. Given the Lib Dems are in government, they are no longer the place to go for a protest vote, especially for Labour supporters.)

The BNP came third. I think the council was a huge factor here - they must shoulder some of the blame for pushing people into voting for actual racists, as opposed to those they smeared as racists.

flatpackhamster Thu 29-Nov-12 16:43:36

Latara

But can you think how bad the (European, immigrant) children would have felt if the foster parents had accidentally said anything negative about Europe, Europeans, immigrants or immigration within their hearing?

They are vulnerable children anyway; yes they need a secure home together; but surely one where the foster parents aren't likely to accidentally say anything that the children could perceive as not accepting of them as immigrants would be better.

Oh gosh yes, let's worry about their possible self-esteem in a fantasy situation which doesn't exist rather than admitting that splitting the family up because of the depraved ideology of some rank socialists is a wicked, venal, spiteful thing to do.

joanbyers Thu 29-Nov-12 12:18:18

only an absolute idiot could be opposed to any restrictions on immigration, so it's a red herring.

ElBurroSinNombre Thu 29-Nov-12 12:01:43

Latara,
Could you imagine what the children actually did feel when they were removed from a loving environment and split up - which is what has happened. They would probably have felt terrible and as if they were to blame.

As others have pointed out, you no absaloutely nothing of the views of the foster parents on immigration and yet in your post you are judging them on what they 'might' say at some unknown future point. What is known about the carers actions and is in the public domain, is that the foster carers encouraged the kids to use their native language and themselves made an effort to learn nursery rhymes in Polish. These are hardly the actions of the racist bigots that you imagine them and all UKIP members to be.

Finally, I would like to correct you (again) as you keep referring to people who present a different opinion to you as 'UKIP supporters'. As I pointed out previously, I am not a supporter of UKIP or any right wing party, never have been and never will be.

I simply think it is wrong that these children have been removed on two levels;
1) It is damaging decision for the children
2) The couple's freedom of expression has been infringed

tiggytape Thu 29-Nov-12 09:34:50

Latara - wishing to restrict immigration doesn't mean being prejudiced against immigrants!
Most people in the UK and all political parties wish to restrict immigration. Thankfully very few people are prejudiced or racist against immigrants themselves let alone their children.
There is a difference you know: One is a mainstream and accepted view. One is racism.

And you don't even know if this couple do favour restricted immigration.
For all you know, they belong to UKIP to get out of the Euro zone which is in crisis or because they want the smoking ban lifted in pubs!!

I should imagine most loving foster carers are totally against children being born to drug addicts, being abused, being born to a parent who totally neglects them........
....that doesn't mean that they sit around the dinner table slagging off the birth parents who care more about their next fix than they do their own kids. Of course they don't! Even if this couple held private reservations about immigration (i.e. like most people in this country do no matter how they vote), nothing suggests they ever did anything at all that made those chidlren upset. Everyone agrees they did a good job of loving and caring for them and keeping all 3 siblings together.

Latara Thu 29-Nov-12 09:20:46

But can you think how bad the (European, immigrant) children would have felt if the foster parents had accidentally said anything negative about Europe, Europeans, immigrants or immigration within their hearing?

They are vulnerable children anyway; yes they need a secure home together; but surely one where the foster parents aren't likely to accidentally say anything that the children could perceive as not accepting of them as immigrants would be better.

Snazzyfeelingfestive Wed 28-Nov-12 23:32:42

Edam, I'm where you are politically and I agree that this hasn't been a good decision for the children at all - and their needs and security should have come first by a very long way.

edam Wed 28-Nov-12 23:14:44

(Essentially, it'll be a cold day in hell before I vote for UKIP but this injustice is appalling no matter who you vote for.)

edam Wed 28-Nov-12 23:13:36

I am a bleeding heart leftie do-gooder* and I'm appalled at the behaviour of Rotherham Social Services. They have no business discriminating against people for their political views. That's fundamentally undemocratic and entirely contrary to the mantra of 'the best interests of the child' being at the heart of decision-making.

* better than being a do-badder, I always think.

MrsBethel Wed 28-Nov-12 14:21:06

I think it all boils down to social services, amongst others, falling for this fallacy:

Want to restrict immigration = Must hate immigrants

Latara Wed 28-Nov-12 14:11:48

I don't like insulting people Begonia & no i don't think UKIP are evil etc. I just don't agree with their views & that's allowed isn't it?

tiggytape Wed 28-Nov-12 14:09:46

The couple were former Labour voters who had joined UKIP. Not that it is relevant but kind of interesting that, whereas UKIP was seen as a drain to the Tory vote, now more Labour supporters are also supporting UKIP since the whole Europe issue kicked off in a way that had noticeable consequences in the UK.
There again I know someone who says they support UKIP because they want the smoking ban changed. I am pretty sure they have absolutely no views at all on immigration or economic union let alone strong views! You really can't tell what motivates people to vote as they do (assuming they are voting for a mainstream party) which is why you cannot judge people by the party they support.

BegoniaBampot Wed 28-Nov-12 14:06:26

Latara - Interesting to see how unpleasantly UKIP supporters react when you disagree with them.

Are you serious? that the best insult you can come up with? Bet you can spot the UKIPS supporters on this thread by their evil eyed, hand wringing shifty gaze. Probably have a tail and some scales as well.

joanbyers Wed 28-Nov-12 13:58:15

There are racists in bigots in UKIP, but there are also racists and bigots in the Labour party, at least according to Gordon Brown....

EIizaDay Wed 28-Nov-12 13:55:53

Well I'm a UKIP supporter NOW (as of about a month ago). Was always a Tory but they've lost their backbone so there's no other choice really.

tiggytape Wed 28-Nov-12 13:51:58

I am not aware of anyone on the thread who is a UKIP supporter or who has said they are but it is a long thread so manybe I missed it.

I may not vote for UKIP but I certainly don't think they are racists or bad people. In fact, how on earth can you possibly tell what anyone thinks on issues of discrimination just from the party they vote for (well unless it is BNP - but we are talking mainstream here)?

There will be bigots and racists and criminals voting for every party just as there will be kind, lovely and tolerant people voting for every party too.
The key to fostering selection is to sift people on the basis of what they are like as individuals not who they vote for. Which is how come this couple have fostered for many years and have an exemplary record.
If they'd been flag waving, nationalist lunatics it might have been spotted and not taken an anonymous tip-off for SS to find out about the UKIP connection. SS would have close contact with this couple and their views would already have been vetted. The council has assumed UKIP voting means the couple hold hardline beliefs on immigration and therefore on immigrants which is frankly ridiculous at worst or, at best, a not very logical assumption given that all mainstream parties want to restrict immigration further so on that basis they are all anti immigrants!

As for more coming out – I don’t know what more anyone is expecting to hear. The council explained their actions on television confirming there were no problems surrounding the care this couple gave those children - it was purely UKIP affiliation that was the issue.
The couple themselves confirmed this was the only reason for the children being taken.
Given that both sides are saying the exact same thing (UKIP membership led to children being removed and the couple themselves did nothing wrong), what else could possibly be added that was relevant?

TheOriginalSteamingNit Wed 28-Nov-12 13:35:54

You can tell a rubbish effort at satire when it has to explain its play on words in brackets. Apart from that, yes, UKIP are exactly like the Jews in WWII. But exactly.

Latara Wed 28-Nov-12 12:35:23

I am not deluded, a lefty bleeding heart do-gooder, want children to not have a loving stable home etc etc.

I merely repeated what is on the UKIP's own election leaflet.
& concluded from the UKIPs own words that immigrant children are not suitable in a strongly UKIP supporting home (UKIP does not agree with immigration).

That's just my opinion.

The reactions to my comment & short opinion have been incredibly over the top.

I also agree with ScottishMummy - we don't know the full story here.

Latara Wed 28-Nov-12 12:31:40

Interesting to see how unpleasantly UKIP supporters react when you disagree with them.

scottishmummy Tue 27-Nov-12 23:18:43

do not paraphrase,or misquote me i have never said there must be more to it
there was tip off that was the soemthing,i so wonde if more disclsure to follow from either local authority of fp
i think potentially more info will follow, and id be interested to read it

edam Tue 27-Nov-12 23:11:38

Scottish, SS have said it was a 'tip off' - a call from someone saying 'this couple are members of UKIP'.

Insisting that 'there must be more to it' is a slur on this couple. SS have said publicly there were NO concerns about the quality of care at all. It is purely about UKIP and SS's assumption that UKIP membership = racist.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now