Rotherham council takes away foster children because parents were UKIP members

[longfingernails]

This is outrageous.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9700001/Council-defends-taking-foster-children-away-from-UKIP-members.html

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

I'm no fan of UKIP but I never had them down as a particularly racist bunch. Very puzzling decision if it's been made on the basis of political allegiance alone...

[MrsMiniversCharlady]

Well we only have their word for it that being members of UKIP was the reason. There may well have been other issues. Given how difficult it is to find foster families for children I would imagine social services would have to have been really sure they weren't suitable.

[flatpackhamster]

MrsMiniversCharlady

Well we only have their word for it that being members of UKIP was the reason.

No, the council has confirmed that the foster services' ignorant and prejudices views were the reason the children were removed.


There may well have been other issues.

The couple were described as 'exemplary' foster carers.

Given how difficult it is to find foster families for children I would imagine social services would have to have been really sure they weren't suitable.

No, it seems that you can be blocked from fostering merely for belonging to a legal political party.

[MrsMiniversCharlady]

Are you guys reading another article? Because the Telegraph one does not say that the council described them as "exemplary" just that they were described. That could be a quote from anybody - a friend, a health visitor or even the couple themselves.

And the council's statement in that article doesn't even mention UKIP. We only have the couple's word for it that UKIP was the reason for their removal.

Leaving all that aside, UKIP may not be racist like the BNP, but they are known for their views that the UK is too relaxed on immigration. If they are looking after children from immigrant families (even 2+ generation back) I think there may well be concerns about their views negatively impacting on the children in their care.

[flatpackhamster]

*MrsMiniversCharlady^

Are you guys reading another article? Because the Telegraph one does not say that the council described them as "exemplary" just that they were described. That could be a quote from anybody - a friend, a health visitor or even the couple themselves.

There are several Telegraph articles, along with a Guardian article, one on the BBC site and the Mail. Take your pick.

And the council's statement in that article doesn't even mention UKIP. We only have the couple's word for it that UKIP was the reason for their removal.

The woman who made the decision was on Radio 4 this morning, piously defending her mighty attempts to purge Britain of incorrect thought and moral wickedness.

Leaving all that aside, UKIP may not be racist like the BNP, but they are known for their views that the UK is too relaxed on immigration. If they are looking after children from immigrant families (even 2+ generation back) I think there may well be concerns about their views negatively impacting on the children in their care.

Jesus wept. Your contempt for these people really knows no bounds, does it?

[MrsMiniversCharlady]

Contempt?! I just don't think it's a great idea to have people who think we have too many immigrants in the country looking after the vulnerable children of immigrants. How is that contemptuous?

[ElBurroSinNombre]

CharLady,
Wouldn't it be better if the foster couple in question were judged on their actions (which the council says are exemplary) rather than their membership of a legal political party?
You are also casting aspersions on their character from a position of complete ignorance with your 'no smoke without fire' type comments. Shame on you.

[MrsMiniversCharlady]

No, I am suggesting that it is wise to read articles critically, bearing in mind that the article linked to was fairly one-sided.

[ElBurroSinNombre]

I heard the report about this on the BBC and have not read the articles listed.
In any case, what has where I heard about the case got to do with you committing slander by saying above that there were probably 'other issues' when there is absaloutely no evidence for that? Are you going to retract that statement?

[ttosca]

ElBurro

Do you even know what 'slander' means? They way you using it doesn't make sense.

[longfingernails]

It now seems that Joyce Thacker was an advisor to "Common Purpose":

Why am I not surprised?

[edam]

ttosca's got a point re. slander (although it would in fact be libel). It is defamatory to publish statements that suggest this couple are anything other than decent foster carers who are members of UKIP. You are very unlikely to be sued, because only rich people can pursue actions for defamation, but there is a good point here. Even the council are careful to admit there is no question about this couple's fitness or characters - the only issue is their membership of an entirely legal political party.

Rotherham SS has got a flaming cheek. This is the borough that failed in its legal duty to protect children from rape and abuse by gangs of men partly for racist reasons. The police in Rotherham actually accused parents who were trying to rescue their children of racism (parents and children were even arrested and accused of racist harassment - clearly the police did that, but they were hand in glove with SS and if you read the official reports you'll see all statutory authorities were more concerned about protecting the image of Asian men than protecting children. (You need to read down to get past the stuff about what they claim they are doing now.)

[edam]

Quite, tiggy. You'd think the council would have learned after being exposed for their shameful treatment of girls who were being raped and abused by Asian gangs... (not that paedophiles don't come in all colours, but Rotherham authorities were more concerned to protect a gang of Asian paedophiles than their victims).

[edam]

Oh this gets even worse. So they've split a sibling group up, even though the children were being looked after by perfectly good foster carers, all in pursuit of some stupid incoherent political aims? Idiots. This sort of thing is not only awful for the poor kids, it gives ammunition to people who suspect what they call 'political correctness' and breeds suspicion and intolerance.

[ElBurroSinNombre]

The irony of this is that the couple involved are, according to the Telegraph, disenfranchised former Labour supporters who feel ignored and betrayed by what was once a working class movement. And they, and many others, feel betrayed and disenfranchised precisely because of decisions like this. You couldn't make it up.

[edam]

Tiggy, I think that's unfair. This isn't the fault of any of the three main parties, it's the fault of a small-minded bigoted social worker, who may for all we know vote Lib Dem or Green (probably not Tory, to be fair...). And a failing council which we know is failing vulnerable children very badly indeed. Next door council, Doncaster, is also shit for vulnerable children, with one of the worst social services depts in the country.

But my own council contracted out care for the elderly disabled and housebound to a private company that then failed to turn up, leaving helpless people without any care at all for a whole weekend. It's a Tory council. Councils of all stripes can be shit.

[claig]

I don't vote UKIP, but what an insult to the millions of good people who turn out to put a vote against UKIP candidates in elections up and down the country.

[claig]

What an insult to UKIP members, UKIP party activists, UKIP councillors, UKIP candidates and what an insult to democracy.

[nepkoztarsasag]

Imagine if, right across the country, all foster carers who voted UKIP were prevented from fostering.

There'd be nearly three children who needed to find another placement.

Imagine if the same thing was done with foster carers who were Tory supporters.

That would be another four!