Thanks Devors - I'll stick with the rather more sane adoption one!
Yes of course it may be that they were vocal about their views on immigration but the council haven;t been backward about defending their actions and they haven't said so - they have said "There are some strong views in the UKIP party". They didn't say Mr and Mrs X are vocal in their support of UKIP's immigration policy.
As always, there will be more to this story - there will be a number of reasons they've been deemed unsuitable one of which may be that they are vocal about their views on immigration/membership of UKIP.
Its a bit confusing because despite what many people are saying - the council have specifically said its not because UKIP or the couple are racist but because UKIP seek to limit immigration and these children are not british.
If the foster carers believe that non-british people should not be living here (which as far as I know is not UKIP policy anyway) then I can quite understand how this is not a good placement for non-british children. However the statement says "There are some strong views in the UKIP party and we have to think of the future of the children" which I think is odd. There are some strong views in all political parties but I don't think that means that every person who joins that party signs up to every view of every person in it.
Surely the individual foster carers views are relevant in this case (which haven't been published AFAIK) but I'm not sure how Fred Smith's views on immigration who happens to also be a member of UKIP are relevant.
Of course there are so many good foster carers around it doesn't really matter does it?
I agree with the OP, this is an appalling decision. So we've had existing approved carers banned because of their personal religious beliefs ( even though they did int seek to impose these on children). And now others banned from fostering certain groups of children because of their membership of a political party which has nothing to do with their ability to care for the children .
This is complete and utter madness. Oh, and they wonder why more people don't come forward as foster carers?
I don't understand how it was known what the FCs' political views were - I was never asked in my adoption homestudy. I agree it appears a crazy decision, unless there's more to the story that hasn't been reported (and having heard someone senior from Rotherham Children's Service on Radio 5 this morning it doesn't seem that there was).
Those poor children, they must be wondering what they did wrong to be moved again just as they were starting to feel settled
Pretty shocked and disgusted by SW on this one I have to say. I'm not a member of ukip or a supporter or them. However Ukip are not against non-whites as alleged by these SWs and are not racistly inclined towards non-white people from other nations being in the UK. They are against membership of the EU and want stricter immigration controls than exist and have also attacked the tories immigration policies as favouring whites and being biased against people from the Commonwealth. The SW statements that the family is not an appropriate placement for non-white children seems a little odd. If the FCs had been members of the BNP I would understand and support what they did, but to say there are some 'extreme views in ukip' is ludicrous. There are extreme views in all parties and they have provided no evidence to suggest these FC were 'extreme'; would they decide middle class children best not be placed with members of the labour party, or poor children with fc's who were members of the tories? There are some pretty extreme views at either end of those parties too; but they do not reflect the majority in the midddle. The fact they are willing to continue using the couple in the future suggests there is no issue with the quality of care provided. Presumably those who are FCs or potential adopters better not have political views which differ from the SW working with them!