to think Rotherham council have lost the plot over UKIP foster-carers?(793 Posts)
I really really hope there is more to this than is being reported, otherwise I am utterly speechless.
It was a conservative councillor on the news defending the decision made. Why is this being seen as a labour issue? Personally given UKIP's immigration policy, I think it was the right call - they are probably fantastic foster parents, but they weren't right for these children. Would we allow someone who had strong homophobic opinions foster a gay teenager?
Othehugemanatee - that was actually Rochdale in the child grooming case, not Rotherham - different county.
Being a member of UKIP doesn't mean you have strong opinions on anything offensive at all. Just as some Scottish people want to leave the union of the United Kingdon, some UKIP members want to leave the union of the EU (and for pretty much the same reasons i.e. believe it is better for their own nation to go it alone). That isn't the same as being a homophobic or a racist. It isn't a popular view but it isn't morally wrong either.
Many faiths teach that sex outside of marriage is wrong yet couples aren't banned from fostering children born outside of marriage.
People can hold a political view or a strong moral / religious view without this having any bearing at all on how they treat anyone else in the world let alone innocent children.
Of course no outwardly homophobic person or racist person would be fit to foster any child whether that child was gay or straight, white British or other heritage. Being openly intolerant and hating other people in society makes you unfit to foster anyone at all but holding mainstream political or religious beliefs that do not influence how you act does not.
I think disagreeing with multiculturism does not, per se, make you a racist. (Though I do think being a racist probably means you disagree with multiculturism).
I also do not think people are necessarily using the same definitions of 'Multiculturalism'. This BBC article makes it clear that there are a multitude of definitions out there, all made to fit particular agenda.
We then asked the same question, only alternating preparing for conflict to engaging in armed conflict. Overall, 40 per cent of the BNP supporters in our sample considered armed conflict as justifiable on similar lines, compared to 21 per cent of UKIP supporters. We then asked respondents whether violence may be needed in the future to protect their group from threats: 64 per cent of BNP followers in our sample agreed with this suggestion, whereas only 34 per cent of UKIP supporters backed this idea.
I agree that 'multiculturalism' on this thread seem to be equated with the ability to marry someone of another race, go out for a nice Moroccan meal and have friends from different countries and for racism to be unacceptable and strongly discourage. All these things are of course desirable and are not what objectors to multiculturalism object to.
UKIP policy specifically refers to 'the doctrine of multiculturalism' that should not be publicly funded. That is actually confusing for everybody, by the looks of it.
Halloween - that paper is obviously written with a particular conclusion in mind. Which is fine. A straw poll of Tory and Labour voters is just as likely to throw up some pretty extreme views on immigration (which is why the Conservative and Labour parties both talk tough now on immigration since so many of their supporters support a cap).
After Labour lost the last election and people started to realise what a political issue immigration had become, pollster YouGov surveyed Labour voters too and found: 78 per cent of those who had voted for Tony Blair in 1997 but abandoned the party by 2010 support a policy of zero net immigration.
More than two-thirds of voters who stuck with Labour want the same.
The majority of Labour voters are 'anti immigration' too! Lots of people are in fact and most of them do not belong to rightwing parties or vote rightwing at all. It is a financial issue to most people not a race one.
Are you pissed, halloweennamechange? Started early on a saturday night?
Rotherham has indeed been the centre of a long-running child grooming scandal, as a quick google showed me. Other places such as rochdale have as well of course
If it isn't a race issue and just a current immigration issue than why aren't their more people of color in their parties? It should pretty much reflect the face of Britain shouldn't it? Not every person of African or Asian decent is an immigrant? Why aren't they rushing in their masses to join UKIP? What is it about UKIP that makes them feel unwelcome?
I should clarify: most Labour voters polled are anti more people coming into this country than going out (they support zero net immigration) and most analysts believe that natural Labour voters are more likely to support tighter immigration controls than natural Tory supporters.
I don't think this means most Labour voters are violent, racist thugs though. Most people are motivated on this issue by concerns of money and public service provision not racial prejudice.
Thinking UKIP is a racist party makes me pissed? I guess thinking Tories are predominately well off and not particularly concerned with the well beingn of the working class and single mother must make me on drugs as well right? WTF are you about.
Who on earth says 'people of color' anymore???!! Let alone people who claim they are defending us all from racist thugs!! It is quite rightly considered a racist term in itself!
But as to why UKIP isn't popular generally (they have had black candidates though) - well that is more to do with them being a one trick pony in that they rather boringly bang on about taking us out of Europe and not much else.
Unless your politics revolve around that one issue, you'd vote for a party that satisfies your stance immigration but also has sane policies on other stuff too.
A bit like why lots more people don't vote Green even though lots of people are environmentally aware. They want Green policies but want a party with more to say on the other issues as well. Hence we have two main parties who try to be all things to all people.
Um Americans do tiggy. And it isnt racist. Ta.
Colo(u)red people is racist, not people of color. For the record.
How much credence are you willing to give to a survey conducted by a left wing organisation that admits in its opening paragraphs:
'^Any conclusions that are drawn or interpreted should be treated with caution^'
'^our sample has not been controlled for any demographic profile, and may contain bias^'
If you were a foster parent you wouldn't be allowed to use that term. Nor mixed race (it is dual heritage)
I was wondering today whether social services would think I wasn't meeting the cultural needs of my 3 dc (don't want to disclose my ethnic background as don't want to out myself) We have for the past week only had british food and my dc only know the basics of my mother tongue as dh is English and I immigrated to UK when I was 4 yrs old. We only have a few friends with the same ethnicity as us and we all speak English when we do meet up. I take them to see my parents every 3 months and as my parents speak poor english, communication btw dc and dp is quite limited. Ds1 pointed out to me the main interaction they have with my culture are the frequent visits to our favourite restaurant. We celebrate the main festivals from my country but British culture is the main influence in their lives and as their lives are here, IMO that is how it should be.
That's fine tiggy, I am not a British foster parent though and people of color does not mean dual heritage although it can include dual heritage of course.
Person of color (plural: people of color; persons of color) is a term used primarily in the United States to describe any person who is not white. The term is meant to be inclusive among non-white groups, emphasizing common experiences of racism. People of color was introduced as a preferable replacement to both non-white and minority, which are also inclusive, because it frames the subject positively; non-white defines people in terms of what they are not (white), and minority frequently carries a subordinate connotation.
Anyway, would you mind apologizing for calling me a racist?
'Ignorant violent racist thugs are people too! How dare you vilotate their right to make money off the state'
Sorry, my mistake, sounded like the ramblings of a pissed person, but apparently not. So in this libel of the foster couple, are you basing it purely on the newspaper article, or just the fact that they are members of Ukip? Nice, either way
I think politicians don't want voters to have sensible discussions/ debate on immigration because they have no idea what to do re: controlling it hence its easier to label people who want to discuss it publicly a racist or bigot ,aka Gordon Brown.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.