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.

dawntigga Sat 24-Nov-12 09:29:01

On the other hand would you like to have children fostered by people who leak out that they don't really want the children in this county? And it WILL leak out regardless of what they say. They can't possibly live in I'm ok/you're ok if they hold views that contradict that for these children.

ThereWILLBeMoreToThisTiggaxx

cheekybaubles Sat 24-Nov-12 09:29:40

Don't really have a lot of sympathy for anyone who supports ukip

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 09:32:56

Leak out? What are you on about? People are able to hold personal views! Ukip arent the BNP you know!

bradywasmyfavouriteking Sat 24-Nov-12 09:33:08

Tbf I can see the councils point.

The couple joined a political party. That party feels the children do not have the right to be here. So therefore that is the couples stance. The council have to wonder if a person who thinks the child has no rights here, will look after council.

I think this is more of a case of people joining and voting for political parties they know very little about.

bradywasmyfavouriteking Sat 24-Nov-12 09:35:13

Ukip arent the BNP you know

No far off though.

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 09:35:51

Please could you link me to the UKIP policy that says the children have no right to be here? Of course we could judge them on the fact hat they have been good foster carers for many years, but it seems that wouldbe sensible.

bradywasmyfavouriteking Sat 24-Nov-12 09:36:44

Not look after council. I meant look after the children

TheMysteryCat Sat 24-Nov-12 09:39:29

By the sounds of it, then didn't just instantly remove the children, but had meetings with the parents to explore their views over several days. Would guess therefore that the council really did feel the children would be better placed elsewhere and the carers' political views were incompatible with caring for these particular children.

I understand why the huge press interest, but it does actually sound like a proper process was carried out. Dread to think what the shrieky tabloid headlines will be...

bradywasmyfavouriteking Sat 24-Nov-12 09:40:10
londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 09:41:51

Mystery - maybe you read a different article to me but it didn't sound like SW explored any ideas other than there own.

Rhinestone Sat 24-Nov-12 09:41:59

UKIP are not a racist party - they promote civic nationalism like the Scottish National Party. No-one would object to SNP members fostering children. UKIP also have a number of minority ethnic candidates - I think Rusty Lee was a candidate at the last election as was the postmaster originally from Sri Lanka, now British, who made the headlines saying that he wouldn't serve benefits claimants who made no attempt to speak English.

UKIP do believe immigration should be drastically reduced - so do lots of people, including Brits of a non-white background. It's about space, not race.

Rhinestone Sat 24-Nov-12 09:43:06

Meant to add, the BNP differ from UKIP in that the BNP promotes ethnic nationalism - also known as racism!

PessaryPam Sat 24-Nov-12 09:43:08

OP it's another step towards a totalitarian society. Even the Labour party has decried this decision.

Posterofapombear Sat 24-Nov-12 09:43:27

Just because UKIP are smarter than your average racist doesn't mean they aren't racist.

The state cannot condone children being brought up with these kinds of views. Particularly not when they are the victims of them.

ErikNorseman Sat 24-Nov-12 09:44:26

We really don't know much about this case but when I was working in a LAC role I would raise serious concerns about carers of BME (or any actually) children being members of UKIP. It demonstrates a strong commitment to a xenophobic/borderline racist ideology which is simply inappropriate in foster carers, particularly of non white children.
In my LA there would have been a lot of exploring of their views and the children would have only been removed if the carers had proved to be a)racist and/or b) really intractable and insensitive about what the membership said about their views in a wider context. It wouldn't be a snap decision.

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 09:44:33

Brady ? Did you mean to link to something that failed to back your point up?

TheMysteryCat Sat 24-Nov-12 09:44:37

It was an interview on bbc news with the head of dept that managed the case. She came across as very reasonable and was clear and not at all defensive or evasive.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 09:45:27

Taking children from people on the grounds of political support is utterly ridiculous. Rotherham council is an utter joke, hence the town being in a shambles. Can you imagine a Tory council removing children from parents with SWP or Labour membership?

TheMysteryCat Sat 24-Nov-12 09:47:31

pessarypam that's not what labour have said at all. They've just raised a query about why and what the process was.

eriknorseman that's pretty much what the council staff member just said.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 09:51:22

How many children have social services allowed to be killed or abused? There has been a massive amount of cases of girls abused by asian men in Rotherham. What is the councils response? Taking children from UKIP members! What exactly are they trying to prove?

PessaryPam Sat 24-Nov-12 09:51:40

Jimmy Savile is being made a non-person too, all trace of him is being expunged from the BBC archives. We are truly heading to a Soviet future step by step.

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 09:52:41

Erick - I would find your lack of political tolerance inappropriate in someone working in public services.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 09:52:51

This is what you get when you vote Labour. A town that is poor and getting poorer, and social services that take children away from people with the wrong views.

Bsegettiontoast Sat 24-Nov-12 09:54:16

The council have not said that the couple are to be removed as foster carers just that these particular children are to be removed from their care. As the children are from a group of people the couple have actively taken a 'stance' against by joining a particular political party then I do think the council were sensible in removing them and placing them elsewhere.
The views the couple hold must mean something to them as they have not just voted for UKIP but have paid money to join their party and as someone said up thread the views of the party and therefore of the couple are incompatible with caring for these particular children.

piprabbit Sat 24-Nov-12 09:54:21

From what I can make out, Rotherham council think that this point in the UKIP Immigration Policy:

"End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies"

is incompatible with the requirement that foster parents:

"Help [the children] to feel positive about their origins, religion and culture".

They do seem to have a point TBH and I'm sure that there is more to the decision to actually remove the children.

LoopsInHoops Sat 24-Nov-12 09:54:41

Absolutely right call to foster them elsewhere.

bradywasmyfavouriteking Sat 24-Nov-12 09:55:22

Brady ? Did you mean to link to something that failed to back your point up?

I linked to their policy. High backs up their feelings on immigration.

Did you mean to sound so rude?

As someone who was not born in this country i would imagine you know exactly what support Ukip means.

ariadneoliver Sat 24-Nov-12 09:55:25

The original article in the Telegraph says that the couple were former Labour voters presumably Rotherham explored social beliefs during its assessment of this couple, there's no indication that their underlying beliefs have changed radically they seem to have just switched parties.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 09:56:02

What is wrong with ending the promotion of multiculturalism? Shouldn't these country be brought up to be British and proud of their country?

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 09:56:45

"As someone who was not born in this country i would imagine you know exactly what support Ukip means. "
What does it mean?

MissCellania Sat 24-Nov-12 09:56:48

If the UKIP policy is, as they say, to end the practice of multicultaralism, then it was the right decision. Why would you want multicultural children to be fostered with people who don't believe in it?

CremeEggThief Sat 24-Nov-12 09:57:13

Why did the council place them with this couple in the first place? Did their political preferences only come to light afterwards? confused

I feel sorry for the children, as now they have been put through more emotional upheaval that could have been avoided sad.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 10:00:07

What are "multicultural children". What should parents be doing with multicultural children differently than with non-multicultural children?

bradywasmyfavouriteking Sat 24-Nov-12 10:00:09

cozy supporting them means actively seeking and end to immigration and multi culturalism.

I am not saying they can't be foster caters. But not to these children. These children are from a different culture and possibly could end up feeling that that is wrong.

Dawndonna Sat 24-Nov-12 10:00:27

Enforce the existing terms of the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees until Britain replaces it with an Asylum Act. To avoid disappearances, asylum seekers will be held in secure and
humane centres until applications are processed, with limited right to appeal. Those seeking asylum must do so in the first ‘designated safe country’ they enter. Existing asylum seekers who have had their application refused will be required to leave the country, along with any dependants. We oppose any amnesties for failed asylum seekers or illegal immigrants.

Repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In future British courts will not be allowed to appeal to any international treaty or convention that overrides or sets aside the provisions of any statue passed by the UK Parliament

End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies

All taken from the UKIP policy document on immigration. I too would have serious concerns about a family voting UKIP under these circumstances. It is the acceptable face of racism and when looked at clearly absolutely no different to the BNP.

As for the gentleman from Sri Lanka who lost his job at a Nottingham post office for refusing to serve customers who were unable to speak English. UKIP were jumping on a bandwagon.

bradywasmyfavouriteking Sat 24-Nov-12 10:03:00

What should parents be doing with multicultural children differently than with non-multicultural children?

Embracing, exploring BOTH cultures perhaps. Making it clear its ok to be part of both culture?

Bsegetti and pip have already said most of what I wanted to. grin

OP what Erik said is completely acceptable. Why would you place non-British children with a British couple whose stated political alliance is with a party who want to ban the 'promotion of multiculturalism'?

Tryharder Sat 24-Nov-12 10:04:07

I think this sets a dangerous precedent. If you don't vote for the right people, you will have your 'privileges' removed. This sort of thing frightens me.

I think most people see UKIP as a party that seeks to take us out of the EU which is a valid viewpoint. Presumably, if the couple in question were racist, they wouldn't have chosen to foster mixed race children.

In any case, there seems to be the opinion that mixed race = immigrant which is not true at all. My DCs are mixed race and they are 'English' by their own definition.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 10:05:15

That just sounds like "Modern Parents" nonsense. Sorry but this sort of things makes me really angry. Rotherham council are fucking awful, and the people there just keep voting Labour and their town just keeps getting worse.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 10:07:09

"OP what Erik said is completely acceptable. Why would you place non-British children with a British couple whose stated political alliance is with a party who want to ban the 'promotion of multiculturalism'? "
Would you place British children with a couple whose stated political allegiance is with a party who wants to promote multiculturalism?

Is multiculturalism inherently "good" and people who don't believe in it inherently "bad"?

bradywasmyfavouriteking Sat 24-Nov-12 10:07:13

any case, there seems to be the opinion that mixed race = immigrant which is not true at all. My DCs are mixed race and they are 'English' by their own definition.

I don't see that.

MrsDeVere Sat 24-Nov-12 10:07:37

Absolutely right decision to move them.
Any foster Carer, whatever their political alliance, would get the same treatment.
If they were openly supporting doctrines that went against the agreement they made when they became foster carers.

It's not rocket science.

The children come first. If you cannot challenge your dislike of multiculturalism and immigration you have no business being a Carer for children who are immigrants/children of immigrants.

Actively supporting a party that is open about its stance on the above is the opposite of challenging isn't it?

Cozy What is wrong with ending the promotion of multiculturalism? Shouldn't these country be brought up to be British and proud of their country?

But these children aren't British. Why can't they be proud of their heritage? It is possible to have British citizenship but be from a different culture - Bengali, Nigerian, name any country you like. I have loads of British friends whose parents are from different countries and cultures, and they follow the traditions of both backgrounds. That is multiculturalism - please explain to me why it is a bad thing?

Dawndonna Sat 24-Nov-12 10:10:50

These children are not UK children according to the BBC.
Therefore they should not be placed with people who support a party that believe these children should not be here.

Cozy
Is multiculturalism inherently "good" and people who don't believe in it inherently "bad"?
Misguided perhaps?

MrsDeVere Sat 24-Nov-12 10:10:58

tryharder I know a fair few openly racist people who have chosen to give birth to mixed race children and their income doesn't depend on it.

I don't care about this couple tbh. The children are the most important. Sibling groups are not easy to place so this decision was not taken on a whim.

The couple knew what they were doing when they joined ukip.

Boo hoo

bradywasmyfavouriteking Sat 24-Nov-12 10:14:05

Is multiculturalism inherently "good" and people who don't believe in it inherently "bad"?

No. Its an opinion. Which I believe we are all having.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 10:14:35

I think multiculturalism is misguided. I support UKIP. It's disgusting that people can have their children taken away from them for their political beliefs. This is only going to further racial tension, something Rotherham already has enough of.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 10:15:40

Orwells 1984 is becoming more and more true to life. Shame so few on the left can see it.

Dawndonna Sat 24-Nov-12 10:18:33

Orwell's 1984 is becoming more and more relevant, but not in this particular case.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 10:19:49

It is relevant. These people have had their children removed because of a thought crime.

MrsDeVere Sat 24-Nov-12 10:22:09

So cozy if a strictly observant Muslim family had children placed from a Christian background and they refused to temper their attitudes and practices in the best interests of the children.....would you think it was inappropriate to remove them?

Cozy I think you're overreacting. This couple have had non-British children removed from their care because their support of a borderline racist political party makes it an inappropriate placement. They will be able to foster other children, but this was the wrong placement for those particular children. Can't you see that?

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 10:24:58

There's nothing borderline racist about the UKIP. They are anti-immigration, not anti-immigrant.

MrsDeVere, I wouldn't think it was appropriate to place foster children with a strictly observant Muslim family in the first place. Ditto for any other religion.

Are you saying that people with religious beliefs shouldn't be allowed to foster? hmm

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 10:29:01

If their beliefs get in the way of them successfully raising the children, then no they shouldn't. They should be more concerned about whats happening in this world than the next.

MrsDeVere Sat 24-Nov-12 10:31:07

You are right.
They are not borderline.

Nicely sidestepped though.

Fact remains the couple would have been aware that they were crossing the line set out in their contracts.

If they suddenly took up smoking the same thing would happen.
Why would someone who is so anti multiculturalism want to foster immigrant children and how would they promote the culture they were so against?

How would they fulfil their contract

longfingernails Sat 24-Nov-12 10:33:57

Sorry, didn't see this one, just created a thread in Politics.

This is appalling, monstrous, abominable. It reeks of some bien-pensant Trotskyite social worker ignoring the fact that the children were being well brought up in a caring home, and instead foisting their unrealistic and frankly disgusting political prejudices on an innocent couple who are doing their best to help vulnerable children.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 10:35:34

I don't think foster parents should be under any obligation to promote multiculturalism.

They should if they are fostering children from a different culture!

ShellyBoobs Sat 24-Nov-12 10:40:14

It's utterly ridiculous to think that removing these children is the right decision.

Anyone who's been to Rotherham will know what a bloody mess the place is in due to Labour fuckwittery.

This is typical of the local goverment's desire to cause controversy and court publicity.

A colleague of mine lives within the administrative area of Rotherham Council and his wife works for them in a managerial position (not related to fostering). He utterly despairs of them, based upon what his wife tells him of the internal goings on.

QuickLookBusy Sat 24-Nov-12 10:41:44

It seems to me that UkIP and the press have just hijacked this story in order to stir up a lot of shit.

The council took the correct decision. I wonder what the conversation would have gone like..

Foster Child "what do you think of immigration, foster parent?"

UKIP Foster Parent "I believe you shouldn't have been let into this country"

It was an emergency foster placement, the children were not going to be staying there permanently, the council has already been warned about failing to meet the cultural and ethnic needs of children in their care. They consulted lawyers to see what the best option was and were advised to move the children to foster carers who'd best meet their culture and ethnic needs. I really don't see the issue here.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 10:43:15

What should foster parents be doing in regards to the childrens "culture"?

Shelley; This is typical of the local goverment's desire to cause controversy and court publicity.

Which is obviously why they've ordered an investigation into why this happend because they don't agree with the decision. hmm

DyeInTheEar Sat 24-Nov-12 10:44:59

From what I understand they've been accused of being racists because they are UKIP supporters. One does not follow the other - there is a huge assumption here about how they would have treated the children based on supporting UKIP.

Many people, including Ed Milliband, are now looking at the immigration policy of the previous Labour government and questioning whether it was a sensible thing for the UK population. It's what brought down Gordon Brown in the end when he accused Gillian Duffy of being a racist. Questioning immigration is not being racist. If, and it's a big if, this couple are found to have been unable to look after these children because of their political beliefs then Rotherham have got my support. However I fail to see how removing vulnerable children from a household where they were thriving because of their UKIP support can be right. We need more information though - it's essentially speculation at this stage. Am I right though in understanding the children are Eastern European?

The Telegraph blog

I'd post something from the Guardian but couldn't find anything.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 10:46:51

They are EU migrants. There are plenty of British people in the country today that are the children and grandchildren of Italians or Polish. But you wouldn't know it unless they have a distinctive surname. Was it wrong that they assimilated into British society instead of retaining the culture of their ancestral land?

Pilgit Sat 24-Nov-12 10:48:15

Multiculturalism is what has made this country great. The uk has embraced new cultures for centuries, it is a national strength.

PessaryPam Sat 24-Nov-12 10:48:41

longfingernails exactly right. I feel so sorry for the children and the foster parents here. Apparently Rotherham were severely criticised for their handling of the Asian gangs grooming and pimping out vulnerable young girls so their response is to take away Asian children from UKIP foster carers! They seem to have a proven track record of making stupid decisions.

What should foster parents be doing in regards to the childrens "culture"?

Was that directed at me? If so, I'm not a qualified social worker - so I'm not going to sit here and discuss what foster carers ought to be doing to meet the needs of children from different cultures. What I am saying is that if the council felt the couple were not meeting those needs/could not meed those needs, I don't see the issue with removing them from their care.

PessaryPam Sat 24-Nov-12 10:50:50

Sorry not Asian, Eastern European.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 10:51:02

"Multiculturalism is what has made this country great."
Rubbish.

ShellyBoobs Sat 24-Nov-12 10:58:00

Which is obviously why they've ordered an investigation into why this happend because they don't agree with the decision

Your sarcasm is misplaced.

The Labour party itself has ordered an investigation, NOT Rotherham Borough Council.

QuickLookBusy Sat 24-Nov-12 10:59:49

Cozy9

If the Dc had asked their foster parents "what do you think of me coming to this country? How would the foster parents have answered?

DyeInTheEar Sat 24-Nov-12 11:01:06

UKIP is not against immigration. They want a similar system to Australia.

QuickLookBusy Sat 24-Nov-12 11:01:55

Sorry I missed out a speech mark there.

The question is "What do you think of me coming to this country?"

QuickLookBusy Sat 24-Nov-12 11:03:14

We are moving to a similar system to Australia aren't we? A points system is being introduced.

MainlyMaynie Sat 24-Nov-12 11:09:42

I am British and living in another country. If something happened to DH and I, would you be comfortable with our DS being sent to a foster carer who believed British people have no right to be here? Who, however subtly, would imply to him that British culture is inferior and that there was no need for him to maintain any British cultural links?

Dawndonna Sat 24-Nov-12 11:15:50

I find it scary that anyone is willing to support a party that wants to scrap The Human Rights act and wants to bring back the death sentence.
Very scary.

nightowlmostly Sat 24-Nov-12 11:22:40

Australia is quite anti immigration though, didn't they let a boat of illegal immigrants sink off the coast a few years ago rather than rescue them? I remember something about that.

I think this council got it right. The couple aren't being discriminated against, the decision has simply been made that they are not suitable foster carers for these particular children due to their belief that these children should not be in the country in the first place. They hold very intolerant views, and have even gone so far as to make it official, by joining UKIP.

Nigel Farage (interesting that his name sounds distinctly European but never mind that eh?!) was just on the BBC news saying that this couple 'should be put back on the list' for fostering, which is stirring up outrage based on a fiction - they haven't been removed from any list, it's just this one placement that has been ended.

This is what they do, they use half truths and exaggerate things to stir up the tabloids and public opinion. Anyone who supports these idiots is extremely misguided at best, and bigoted at worst. IMO.

nightowlmostly Sat 24-Nov-12 11:25:26

OP YABU!

FlaminNoraImPregnantPanda Sat 24-Nov-12 11:27:15

Personally, it's not only their immigration views that concern me. UKIP's education policy includes corporal punishment being returned to UK schools. How can the state give them other people's children to look after knowing they believe that representatives of the state should have the power to beat them?

Anniegetyourgun Sat 24-Nov-12 11:35:22

"It's disgusting that people can have their children taken away from them for their political beliefs."

And indeed it would be disgusting, if that were what had happened. What a good thing the facts of the matter are completely different, eh?

LtEveDallas Sat 24-Nov-12 11:38:51

How did the council know that the foster couple were members of UKIP?

Were they 'members' of the party, or did they simply vote for the party? (I've seen it reported both ways)

What business is it of anyone else which political party a person votes for? You know, I don't even know who DH votes for - its none of my business.

Where are the children now? Are they in a 'more suitable' home? I hope they aren't in a children's home sad. In fact, where are the parents, did they know or approve (or not) of the placement?

I do hate half hearted reporting. The leader of UKIP was interviewed on Sky News this morning and he sounded horrified by all this - at pains to point out that the SW had called the foster mother 'racist' as well as saying that membership of UKIP was racist. But then I cannot see that reported, well not by the BBC.

On the bare bones of the reporting this seems a crazy decision, there must be more to it - otherwise it seems very heavy handed. People are quick to make assumptions when the full facts aren't revealed.

bradywasmyfavouriteking Sat 24-Nov-12 12:07:17

They are members. Not just voters.

In certain positions, political affiliation is the business of others. The police for example. Positions of trust and authority.

OTheHugeManatee Sat 24-Nov-12 12:17:46

I don't think you necessarily have to be a racist to question whether multiculturalism is a good idea. Societies need some common cultural ground in order to have any sense of cohesion, but the doctrine of multiculturalism says that it's possible, indeed desirable, for multiple (possibly conflicting) cultures to coexist without making any attempt to merge.

The only way this can happen is either by reducing the differences between cultures to a set of kitsch oversimplifications (Disney 'Children of the World' style) or by encouraging the creation of ghettos with little or no intermingling.

Questioning the wisdom of either of these approaches does not imply anything about the relative merits of different cultures, or the ethnicities who espouse them. It simply makes a statement in favour of relative cultural cohesion.

Personally I don't rate UKIP as a set of politicians, but I do agree with them that multiculturalism is rooted in wishful thinking rather than any observable reality and should not be encouraged at the state level.

joanbyers Sat 24-Nov-12 12:41:02
Viviennemary Sat 24-Nov-12 12:46:30

I think it was wrong to take the children away because of the politics of the foster parents. UKIP isn't BNP is it. I am getting a bit fed up of Labour thinking. Everyone is wrong except us because we're always right. It is getting so boring. Have got right off Labour lately. They've gone back decades.

Orwellian Sat 24-Nov-12 12:52:57

Oh dear. The thought police in action. How disgusting. Poor children. I wonder if they would be removed from parents who had voted for the "Respect" party?

LineRunner Sat 24-Nov-12 12:53:15

The parentif they are members of UKIP have signed up (wittingly or unwittingly) to this:

End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies

They would have had to make that clear when they went to the foster carer application process. I'm wondering if they didn't make it clear back then, and it has since emerged.

cinnamonnut Sat 24-Nov-12 12:53:33

* I think this sets a dangerous precedent. If you don't vote for the right people, you will have your 'privileges' removed. This sort of thing frightens me. *

This.

For goodness' sake.
Can you imagine the uproar if a conservative council removed children from parents who were raging socialists because they thought socialism was dangerous?

LineRunner Sat 24-Nov-12 12:53:43

The parents if sorry

SirBoobAlot Sat 24-Nov-12 13:03:41

It sounds like they acted in the best interests of the children, tbh. If they are members of UKIP, then can totally see why there would be cause for concern of the children's emotional well being.

Orwellian Sat 24-Nov-12 13:14:34

I think Rotherham should perhaps consider twinning itself with Cairo as Rotherham council seem to share the same ideology as Morsi (there is only one correct way to think and those that do not think in this way will be punished).

All those panicking about the thought police etc - do you really think it is ok for non-British children to be placed with foster parents who feel so strongly that multiculturalism is wrong that they not only vote UKIP but are paid-up members?

Would it be ok to place Jewish children in a family of fundamentalist Muslims who support Hamas?

Or to place Nigerian children with paid-up BNP members?

I really don't see that this is any different.

Orwellian Sat 24-Nov-12 13:16:56

Maybe they should consider removing children from parents who are members of the Socialist Workers Party. After all, the Communist ideology has killed over 100 million people.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 13:18:56

The children ARE British. Something-British is still British.

If the parents were racists why would they want to foster immigrant children? Rotherham borough council are a bunch of nutters and I think this will be the scandal that causes their demise.

nightowlmostly Sat 24-Nov-12 13:20:49

This isn't about thought police FFS. It's about the welfare of vulnerable children who were mistakenly placed in a family that doesn't believe in their right to be here. It's quite simple really. That will be damaging to the children, as their attitude will filter through even if they try to hide it. At the very least they're a pair of idiots to belong to that bunch.

procrastinor Sat 24-Nov-12 13:25:01

I think the council did the right thing. I can well imagine that there is a lot more to this than is being reported.

These children have been removed from a temporary placement that does not meet their needs. The foster parents haven't been banned from being foster patents, but just that they aren't the right fit for these children.

I'd be interested to know how they found out they were UKIP members? Did something happen that instigated a further check on the foster parents? Or did it just come up through routine screening?

Whilst I can understand the argument against strict multicultarism I think that if you're unwilling to support a child coming to grips with their dual cultural background then I don't think that would be helpful to the child.

Make up your mind Cozy - are they 'something-British' or immigrants? The news report I saw said that the children were European and Nigel Farage said they were Polish.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 13:38:07

Why are they "idiots" for being UKIP members?

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 13:47:46

Quote from Nigel Farage (UKIP leader) on this

'It was the Labour government that opened the doors to uncontrolled mass immigration into this country on a scale that we have never seen in the history of the island. And then anybody who tries to discuss or debate the issue is written off as being racist.'

I don't think they're racist. I don't think it's good for the welfare of a child in an emergency foster care placement - who was apparently calling them Mum and Dad - to have their carer being openly anti immigrant. That child's parents are immigrants. That child may be an immigrant. It can't be good for them to effectively hear their family attacked.

nightowlmostly Sat 24-Nov-12 13:48:41

Because IMO they are xenophobic bigots who are trying to put an acceptable face to idiotic policies. Nigel Farage is one of the most disingenuous people, today you can see evidence of it. He's on BBC peddling a lie about how the foster carers were struck off the foster carers list, when all that happened was the council took the decision to remove these particular children from their care. That's not even remotely the same thing.

Nancy66 Sat 24-Nov-12 13:50:54

you honestly think that after deciding they are 'racist' the council would give them any other children to foster? Of course they wouldn't.

It seems there is now to be an investigation. I suspect the social workers concerned will be sacked.

luckylou Sat 24-Nov-12 13:53:08

UKIP states unequivocally that 'Multiculturalism has split our society'. And that immigration should be frozen - and that's their public face.

Their manifesto was co-written by Aidan Rankin, who has also written for and has links with Third Way, a breakaway from the Nazi National Front.

So - ethnic minority children have been placed with a couple who belong to and subscribe to an organisation that believes that those children are from families who have wrecked 'our' society, and that those children should not be in this country in the first place.

Once this was known, the children were removed from that couple's care.

I can't see the problem.

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 13:54:02

Why should they be sacked?

Does anyone seriously think it's a good idea to have the children of eg Polish immigrants placed with people who are very strongly anti immigration? do you think those DC won't pick up on their comments?

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 13:54:09

This is no better than McCarthyism.

Surely if they support a political party who seem to mostly trade on not wanting multiculturalism or immigration then they are probably not the best people to foster children who are immigrants of a different culture?

Is it really for the best for children to be placed with people who are likely to talk to them about multiculturalism being wrong? Surely that's not going to do the kids any favours? And isn't that the important bit? Rather than worrying about offending the foster parents?

Do we know that they've been stopped from fostering totally, or is it just that it was decided that immigrants were probably not best placed with people who disagreed with immigration?

Nancy66 Sat 24-Nov-12 13:59:36

My understanding is that UKIP want tighter controls on immigration - and they think 'multiculturalism' hasn't worked and that a 'uniculturalism' should be encouraged.

You could argue that makes them more right leaning but I don't think susbscribing to those views makes you inherently racist.

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 13:59:46

Leave the political theory to one side and look at the welfare of the DC.

Is it a good idea for the children of immigrants (who may well be immigrants themselve) to be cared for by people who are openly anti immigration and believe that it has caused many of the ills of our society? Do you want DC looked after by people whose views are likely to make them ashamed of who they are.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 14:00:22

"Is it really for the best for children to be placed with people who are likely to talk to them about multiculturalism being wrong? Surely that's not going to do the kids any favours? "
I really don't understand this.

Nancy66 Sat 24-Nov-12 14:00:53

how do you know the couple think that?

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 14:01:20

And I don't think it makes them racist. I think it makes them a bad choice for these DC.

ShellyBoobs Sat 24-Nov-12 14:06:21

Why are they "idiots" for being UKIP members?

Because when it boils down to it, MN is more left-wing than the SWP.

There's very little room for any opinion which is anywhere to the right of Lib Dem.

It's sad but unfortunately true. sad

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 14:11:06

They didn't simply vote UKIP. They joined the party. So presumably they feel strongly about their policies.

From the UKIP website:

'Last year we had more arrivals than ever before (239,000 - that we know of!). Almost 500 million EU citizens are entitled to work, live and claim benefits in the UK. Britain no longer has control over her borders. This is driving unemployment up and wages down. It is causing enormous strains on housing, schools and hospitals. Britain’s borders are now effectively North Africa, Russia and Turkey; not the White Cliffs of Dover.'

UKIP's immigration policy states the party wants an 'end [to] the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government'

Would you consider these views compatable with looking after the children of immigrants who have a different culture and language which would need to be supported?

Cozy Saying that multiculturalism doesn't work is hardly going to be the best thing to tell children from another culture. Maybe this couple wouldn't ever tell the children their views, but it can't be guaranteed, and while you may shout about thought police/1984, what it boils down to is protecting the children. Who I presume have had a rough enough life in order to be put into foster care in the first place.

TandB Sat 24-Nov-12 14:17:10

The welfare of the children is always, and completely rightly, paramount.

The feelings of the foster carers will always come second - that is the whole point of foster caring - to do whatever is necessary to give the best possible care to children who have not had that care in the past, for whatever reason.

If the local authority have any concerns whatsoever that a particular set of carers are not the best possible option for a particular child or children, then they are quite right to move them to somewhere they feel is better suited to their needs. It has been recognised for a long time now that a child's cultural and ethnic identity is important and needs to be recognised and supported. It is part and parcel of caring for that child.

If the local authority had concerns about a foster carer's ability to provide a proper diet for a child with allergies or cultural dietary requirements, they would place them elsewhere. If they had concerns about a carer's ability to support an emotionally disturbed child, they would place them elsewhere. If they had concerns about a carer's ability to physically cope with a child with serious disabilities they would place them elsewhere.

In this case they have concerns about the carers' ability to appropriately nurture these children's cultural identity, so they have placed them elsewhere.

The carers should be able to accept that a decision has been made that these particular children are better served in a different environment. Going public rather smacks of this all being about them, rather than about the children.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 14:17:54

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

flatpackhamster Sat 24-Nov-12 14:18:21

Narked

Leave the political theory to one side and look at the welfare of the DC.

Is it a good idea for the children of immigrants (who may well be immigrants themselve) to be cared for by people who are openly anti immigration and believe that it has caused many of the ills of our society? Do you want DC looked after by people whose views are likely to make them ashamed of who they are.

Balderdash. D'you think the foster parents are so cretinous that they can't separate their care of children from their political views? Your contempt for the foster parents is palpable.

"Who does it benefit?"

The children.

You know, the important ones in all of this sorry mess.

Anniegetyourgun Sat 24-Nov-12 14:19:42

Amusing to hear McCarthyism cited in this context. Does anyone remember who was being rooted out by McCarthy? Answers on a postcard...

flatpackhamster Sat 24-Nov-12 14:20:18

MurderOfGoths

Cozy Saying that multiculturalism doesn't work is hardly going to be the best thing to tell children from another culture. Maybe this couple wouldn't ever tell the children their views, but it can't be guaranteed, and while you may shout about thought police/1984, what it boils down to is protecting the children. Who I presume have had a rough enough life in order to be put into foster care in the first place.

What is multiculturalism?

It's a serious question. What actually is it? I don't think that you, or any of the other Guardian-reading latte-sipping Islingtonites, actually know.

I'll tell you what it isn't. It isn't Ebony and Ivory, Living Together In Perfect Harmony. It isn't everyone being friends and getting on. It isn't social harmony.

TandB Sat 24-Nov-12 14:23:24

And it is not remotely equivalent to McCarthyism or 1984.

They aren't being told what they should believe, or even what they should vote. They aren't being punished for their beliefs. They aren't even being told what beliefs they should or should not pass on to their own children.

They simply aren't being felt to be suitable to do one of the most delicate and difficult jobs that anyone can do.

Foster carers are required to meet spectacularly high standards - standards that many of us would probably fail to meet on the basis of our bog-standard, day-to-day parenting. There are all sorts of things that they are allowed to do with their own children but not with those who have been entrusted to their care.

One of those things is clearly not to expose them to anti-multicultural beliefs.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 14:24:13

"The children.

You know, the important ones in all of this sorry mess. "
How does it benefit the children to be brought up in the culture of another country from the one they live in?

Multiculturalism is (IMO) different cultures being able to coexist, obviously it requires huge amounts of compromise to work. Just because it is hard doesn't mean it isn't worth striving for. What is the alternative really? That we are all the same? Never going to happen.

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 14:27:56

Well Cozy is a beautiful illustration of the attitudes of sone people.

Even if they would have supported eg language classes, people's attitudes come out in day to day life. When they discuss something that's in the news. When they are talking to friends. When 'immigrant' is a negative to the foster carers and the children are immigrants or their parents are, the children will get that message.

One of the DC was already calling them mum and dad. They were obviously very good carers. They were bonding fast. One of the DC is described as a baby. The danger isn't the DC being mistreated because of their origins, it's that the DC would come to view their origins and their birth family as something negative and undesirable.

"End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies"

And there you have it.

"How does it benefit the children to be brought up in the culture of another country from the one they live in?"

It's not either or. You can be brought up in the predominant culture and still have elements of the culture you come from.

bradywasmyfavouriteking Sat 24-Nov-12 14:28:55

cozy are you asking how does it benefit a child to grow up knowing and acknowledging all parts of their background?
Really?

How does it benefit children to pretend their past didn't happen and make them only acknowledge being 'british'.

TandB Sat 24-Nov-12 14:29:16

It benefits them to be brought up in the culture of the country they live in - but with a strong awareness of, and pride in, the culture they come from.

No two cultures need to be mutually exclusive. Meshing them together might take some negotiation and some decisions as to the most important features of each, but neither culture needs to smother the other.

My family are basically white British. However we have immigrant ancestry in recent generations. This is reflected in part of my name and survives in the colouring and skin tone of myself and several other memers of the family. There was no "need" for me to know about the culture of that part of my family, but my life is richer for having learned about it.

Identity is complex and incredibly important.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 14:30:42

Do you think "immigrant" is a negative to all UKIP members? You can be anti-immigration without being anti-immigrant. I don't blame immigrants for coming here, but I do blame the government for allowing it to happen.

If the couple didn't like immigrants, why would they want to foster immigrant children?

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 14:31:54

"How does it benefit children to pretend their past didn't happen and make them only acknowledge being 'british'. "
I am not advocating pretending their past didn't happen. But I am advocating making the childrens future a priority over their past.

TandB Sat 24-Nov-12 14:34:51

A child is unable to make that distinction.

There is a real risk that if a child picked up on the fact that their carers believed that their parents should not have been allowed into the UK, this would translate into their minds as there being something fundamentally wrong with their background and therefore themselves.

A child's sense of self-worth is easily damaged. The local authority chose not to take the risk. If they had the choice of placing children with a family who they believed to support multi-culturalism rather than a family who they thought might not, why would they make any other choice?

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 14:35:16

Apparently removing the children from this couple on the grounds of political allegiance is in breach of ECHR legislation. So the lefties will be hoist by their own petard, and rightfully so. This is the most fucking insane thing I have ever heard, and nothing social services do in this country surprises me anymore, it's an absolute mess, especially in Rotherham. They are far more concerned with political ideology than they are about doing the right thing for the children they are supposed to care for.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 14:37:36

Apart from anything else, do lefties really believe that cases like that reflect them well and put people off the UKIP? It won't affect anything in Rotherham because the people there are a lost cause, they'd vote for a pig with a red rosette on it, but it really makes Labour look bad on a national basis to have crazy situations like this happening under their watch.

Here's another advantage to bringing children up in an environment that promotes multiculturalism, one that focuses on their future. Knowing more than one language opens up extra possibilities for them when they are older. Knowing about different cultures and being used to them co-existing not only opens up more possibilities for them, it also makes them a more tolerant person.

With so much being done online nowadays you are only ever a few clicks away from interacting with people from cultures totally different to your own. Many many jobs nowadays are global rather than national. There are huge advantages to promoting multiculturalism in children.

Wrt language at least being bilingual at a young age actually makes it easier to learn new languages when you are older.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 14:39:49

You don't have to be brought up multicultural to learn foreign languages or learn about foreign cultures.

I think lefties are a LOT more intolerant than righties nowadays, and this thread is evidence of that.

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 14:40:04

'You can be anti-immigration without being anti-immigrant. I don't blame immigrants for coming here, but I do blame the government for allowing it to happen.'

I think that I think that that's a distinction that a pre-school child might struggle with. I also think that if you see immigration as a negative but not the immigrants 'fault', some of that negativity does attach to them. They are something to be viewed as a problem. Totally fine and your right to hold that opinion, but when you are caring for the children of immigrants it becomes an issue.

When children have to be removed from their family, it's best not to be negative about that family. For the children's sake. I think that these children have an extended family - and remember that foster care does not = cutting all ties with family - who may well be immigrants.

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 14:42:12

grin It's not a 'foreign' language to them! It's a language their parents speak, their grandparents, their cousins, aunts and uncles.

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 14:44:31

It's funny how you seem to see issues and not children.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 14:45:34

I do see children. I don't think you do.

But if someone is from another culture and you bring them up to not have any acknowledgement of that culture or a rejection of that culture, how can you then encourage them to take others culture into account?

Same with language, if you are encouraging them not to speak a language which they would have heard as a young child, then how will you encourage them to learn other languages as they get older?

bradywasmyfavouriteking Sat 24-Nov-12 14:47:20

I don't blame immigrants for coming here, but I do blame the government for allowing it to happen

So what you are essentially saying is ' I can see why you would come to our fab country. However if I had it my way you wouldn't be here.'

That's so much better

MrsDeVere Sat 24-Nov-12 14:55:34

Urgh.
What a load of hysteria and posters jumping on the 'all mumsnetters live in leftie ivory towers' bollocks.

I know what multiculturalism is thanks. I live it, I work it, its my life.
Dont tell me what it isn't.

I have also fostered.
I also work with children in care and foster carers.

This couple broke their contract. They are lucky that they are having any children placed with them at all.

Many public servants are not allowed to express political views or affiliate themselves to a particular party. It is there in black and white when you sign up for your job.

Do not whine about it when you get caught out.

Only an idiot would think it appropriate for immigrant children to be placed with a couple who are vehemently opposed to immigration.

People are using this case as a platform to spout their views. They don't care about these kids.

As a foster carer it is your JOB to foster resilience and self esteem in children who have been traumatized.
If a foster carer does not think a child has the right to be in this country or that their cultural background is unimportant or inferior, they CANNOT do this and they should not be caring for children.

It is clear. There is no argument. This couple are not suitable carers for these children.

Stop whinging about it. Move on.

MrsDeVere Sat 24-Nov-12 14:57:45

Cozy in what way is this a breach of HR legislation?

And why do you think the HR of the adults are more important than the children?
Because they vote the same as you?

FlaminNoraImPregnantPanda Sat 24-Nov-12 14:58:40

Personally I think there is something inherently racist in assuming a person's native culture is of no value when compared to the opportunity to grow up with a British culture.

Maintaining your cultural identity and connections when you are an immigrant is far more important than some people (who've never lived in a different country) can imagine. I'm an EU immigrant. If my children or I were denied our cultural heritage by our host country I would be devastated. It would feel like losing part of you soul.

FlaminNoraImPregnantPanda Sat 24-Nov-12 15:01:28

* like losing part of MY soul.

MainlyMaynie Sat 24-Nov-12 15:02:36

Cozy, I am very interested to know what you would think if my British DS was, in an emergency, placed with foster carers in our current country of residence who believed he didn't need any respect for his British cultural heritage. Would that be ok?

amicissimma Sat 24-Nov-12 15:20:27

UKIP's manifesto states that it is opposed to uncontrolled immigration. They make no mention of race.

They are opposed to the promotion of multiculturalism. They do not state that they are pro the promotion of integration and assimilation. Bearing Northern Ireland in mind, I think a debate on the merits and demerits of the two approaches is worth having and think calling people racist in an attempt to shut down that debate is unhelpful.

Some people claim that UKIP has a different agenda to its manifesto. You can say that about anything.

If the foster parents were in breach of their contract by being members of a political party, the SWs should have addressed that before placing the children. I see no reports that the FPs have only just joined UKIP.

Personally, my concern is with the children. To be taken away from parents they were forming a relationship with needs to be for a good reason. I don't consider some SW's interpretation of the manifesto of a political party to be a good enough reason for the children to go through that trauma.

LoopsInHoops Sat 24-Nov-12 15:22:25

I am finding cozy's claims that UKIP aren't racist, next to her patronising and, well, racist posts very odd.

As Mrs DV said very eloquently, they broke their contract. They are not suitable to care for these children. End of story.

But it isn't end of story, is it? The right wing crazies are turning a very simple case of inappropriate placement rectified into a political battle.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 15:23:29

What have I posted that is patronising or racist?

LoopsInHoops Sat 24-Nov-12 15:24:28

Very few people on this thread seem to have any idea of the workings of foster placements. This was an emergency placement. The family did not have 'their' children taken from them.

And, sadly, kids are moved very frequently in care for far, far less robust reasons.

TheMysteryCat Sat 24-Nov-12 15:28:38

The view that anyone's cultural and genetic heritage is second rate should be of lesser importance to their temporary or permanent place of residence is racist. As is the view that cultural and genetic heritage should not form part of a child's developing identity.

LoopsInHoops Sat 24-Nov-12 15:29:38

Cozy - these are all quotes from you. All patronising, racist or both"

"Shouldn't these country be brought up to be British and proud of their country? What should foster parents be doing in regards to the childrens "culture"?
WHY would a different culture and language need to be supported? Bring them up speaking English and with a British culture! What is the point of bringing them up in Britain with a foreign culture? Who does it benefit?
How does it benefit the children to be brought up in the culture of another country from the one they live in?
I don't blame immigrants for coming here, but I do blame the government for allowing it to happen.
You don't have to be brought up multicultural to learn foreign languages or learn about foreign cultures."

MrsDeVere Sat 24-Nov-12 15:32:53

amics
The very fact that UKIP is against the promotion of multicultralism and this couple are a member of UKIP is enough reason to remove the children.

Being against the 'promotion of' something is a weasly way of saying they are against the thing itself.

Like those who bang on about the promotion of homosexuality. 'I don't mind the Gays as long as they don't shove it down my throat by acting gay all over the place'.

What exactly is promotion? Not being negative? Being positive about it?
Making sure that children in care get a chance to learn about their background and culture?

What is wrong with that? And if you are against it, should you be caring for BME children?

I don't think so.

The FC had an obligation to declare their membership of the party to the LA. Same as if they were members of the Communist or Socialist Worker's Party.

They didnt. They got caught out. They should be sacked IMO.

bradywasmyfavouriteking Sat 24-Nov-12 15:33:22

loops it has been mentioned but ignored by those who want to rage about people having 'their children removed'.

What does concern me is that this was an emergancy foster home and the kids were calling them 'mother' and 'father' according to some reports.

One of my best friends is a foster carer and this part bothered her most.

Blimey I hope if anything ever happened that led to my children ending up in care that every effort would be made to maintain their culture. My DC's are white British but have grown up in a seperate language and culture that makes up part of Britain.

LoopsInHoops Sat 24-Nov-12 15:35:47

Yes brady, that concerned me too. Not usually advised in a temporary (if any) placement. Odd.

MrsDeVere Sat 24-Nov-12 15:36:14

Really Brady? These people have been fostering for 7 years. Imagine the damage they could have done in that time. Mother and Father?

FFS. How dare they.

bradywasmyfavouriteking Sat 24-Nov-12 15:39:38

As I said early on in the thread. I actually think this is a case of the couple not looking closely enough at the party they joined.

They are quoted as saying (when told that UKIP wants people from other European countries to be sent back) that * I wouldn’t have joined Ukip if they thought that.*

I know several people who become members of parties only knowing part of their policies. I think its possible they have signed up because they agree with some policies and not looked at the rest.

sorry daily mail

Orwellian Sat 24-Nov-12 15:42:26

How depressing that people still use the tired old "racist" smear to shut down any kind of debate they don't like. It seems to be the standard answer whenever difficult questions are posed.

MrsDeVere Sat 24-Nov-12 15:51:43

And how depressing that people cannot be bothered to understand the issues before making hysterical claims of 'thought police' etc.

If this couple joined UKIP without realising they were anti immigration and multiculturalism they are idiots and shouldn't be left in charge of small children regardless of political affiliation.

bradywasmyfavouriteking Sat 24-Nov-12 15:54:17

Completely agree mrs.

I just think they don't actually have a clue, when you read the interview. Joint a political party which you don't know alot about shows massive issues with judgment.

MrsDeVere Sat 24-Nov-12 16:02:16

Quite brady. Would anyone really want that couple looking after their children.
Particularly if they were asking the children to call them mother and father?

Kids go into FC because their parents are in hospital ffs. Imagine coming out of rehab and finding that your children had been cared for by a couple too dim to work out what their party dues are paying for AND have insisted that they are your children's 'mother and father'.

Anniegetyourgun Sat 24-Nov-12 16:11:45

Did anyone think that line about "last week I had a little baby in my arms and now I can only look at an empty cot" was a little bit, shall we say, over-emotional from an experienced carer?

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 16:14:36

Sorry but I think this is utter lunacy. And I don't think anything I have said in this thread is "racist". Multiculturalism is idiocy. It doesn't benefit the country one bit to have enclaves of people speaking different languages and living according to cultures of countries hundreds or thousands of miles away. I think the vast VAST majority of people in this country agree with this, and will be disgusted at this case as I am. Stories like this are incredibly damaging to the left, but somehow they just don't see it.

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 16:15:03

The sad thing is that the Conservatives (Gove) and Labour (Milliband) are already calling this a disgrace. They're very aware that they've both lost voters to UKIP and don't want to be seen as weak on this, so they've effectively joined Nigel Farage (UKIP) in calling it a disgrace, responding to the media frenzy. This shouldn't be about gaining/losing political capital. It should be about the welfare of those children.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 16:17:43

It IS about the welfare of the children!

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 16:20:59

How is the welfare of these three children related to 'enclaves of people speaking different languages and living according to cultures of countries hundreds or thousands of miles away.'

Put the soap box away.

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 16:23:55

So eg a child born in Spain to Spanish parent,s fostered in the UK, shouldn't be brought up as bilingual to allow them to communicate with their extended family members?

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 16:26:34

<Tries to force farls recipe out of consciousness>

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 16:28:00

If they have extended family members, why are they being fostered?

FlaminNoraImPregnantPanda Sat 24-Nov-12 16:31:02

If they have extended family members, why are they being fostered?

Probably because their parents are in the UK and as has already been pointed out, being fostered doesn't mean cutting all contact with the parents and neither is it necessarily forever.

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 16:31:02

Why are any of the children in foster care with extended family members being fostered? And this was an emergency placement. You do understand that?

RowanMumsnet (MNHQ) Sat 24-Nov-12 16:35:03

Hello

Just to let you know, we've changed the title to make it clearer what this thread is about, as we want to make it a Discussion of the Day.

Thanks,
MNHQ

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 16:35:30

Of course the irony of it all is, is that we have hundreds of BME children languishing in care because the SW are so obsessed with matching them up with families with the "correct" ethnicity. I don't know about any of you but when I was a baby I had no idea of my parents political views.

LoopsInHoops Sat 24-Nov-12 16:36:47

Oh dear lord we're trying to engage with an idiot.

Most children in care have extended family of some description. Do you think the care system is filled entirely with orphans? hmm

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 16:37:03

Ooh I made discussion of the day! How exciting!

LoopsInHoops Sat 24-Nov-12 16:38:34

ethnicity is not the same as political views.

Believe me, if you were a child living in a family who thought people like you shouldn't be in this country, you'd know it.

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 16:42:14

Of course that is not wha UKIP say though is it. It is perfectly possible to believe that immigration should be controlled and that immigrants are an asset to be welcomed.

mummymeister Sat 24-Nov-12 16:42:42

Can i just ask a stupid question? If the children came from a religious background that viewed homosexuality as a sin, then would that mean they couldnt be put with parents who were members of the labour party since they dont think it is a sin but (like other parties) promote it? or should foster carers be not allowed to belong to any political party or some clubs - i find the title "working mens club" offensive because it promotes the view that only men work and is imo sexist. is this more about someone in the council making a point about UKIP and indirectly promoting their own political views.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 16:43:39

If the family thought the children shouldn't be in the country, why would they choose to adopt them?

Please don't call me an idiot LoopsInHoops.

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 16:45:49

In this case, it's not about the foster carers' ethnicity. It's about their views clashing with the children's needs.

You might have been unaware of your parent's views as a baby, but where do you think 5/6 year olds spouting opinions in the playground get it from? And how do you think you'd feel if your carer's views were targeted at a group that includes you and your family? And how do you think you'd feel if you faced comments about 'immigrants' from other children at school to come home to your carers and have them say well yes, that was very mean, because it's not the immigrants fault it's the government! And of course they are unlikely to say that to the child directly, but DC have ears, and they hear their parents talk to friends etc.

DyeInTheEar Sat 24-Nov-12 16:46:34

I've only read good things about these foster parents - other than the fact they joined UKIP the council had no problem with them whatsoever and it seems an assumption has been made that they were racist. There was nothing mentioned about the children not being allowed / encouraged to speak another language or being "forced" to call them mum and dad. That's come from this thread and assumptions about people who support UKIP.

I don't like UKIP policies. I don't think being a UKIP member automatically means you are scum bag who shouldn't be around children though.

I can see the logic of the council's decision but I think removing the children was an overreaction. I also think there is massive amount of speculation about the foster parents on this thread because of their politics which isn't fair. A quote from the couple:

*"We feel that we were meeting the cultural needs of these children. We were actively encouraging these children to speak their own language and to teach us their language. We enjoyed singing one of their folk songs in their native language.
"Having been told of the religious denomination of these children, we also took steps to ensure that a school of their denomination was found."*

Woozley Sat 24-Nov-12 16:47:20

I had the same thought, Cozy9. I just hope there is more to this, as others have said.

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 16:47:32

Why are you talking about adoption? confused

LoopsInHoops Sat 24-Nov-12 16:48:23

No.

The other way round (homophobic religious zealots fostering gay child or child of gay parents) would not be OK, as the foster parents would be likely to hold views that affect that child. The way round that you describe would probably be best avoided as it would likely be unharmonious, but the harm would more likely be offense to the foster carers not the child, and as the carers can choose who to foster, not really an issue.

And since when did the labour party actively promote homosexuality? hmm

LoopsInHoops Sat 24-Nov-12 16:50:16

Anyone who thinks an emergency foster placement is the same as adoption is an idiot.

Fostering pays. Fostering a 3xsibling group can pay quite handsomely.

scottishmummy Sat 24-Nov-12 16:54:34

no I'm not sure full facts are known or accurately reported
ukip are strident about migrants in uk,seeking to block entry
the children are non white,and it is reasonable to ask foster parents are they respectful of children heritage and culture

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 16:56:21

Narked - I think that if i is as dye has seen reported then then they were more than fulfilling their duties. These people appear to have been professional foster carers whether they were good or not we don't know but assuming they were good foster carers then I have no doubt that they are able to manage to hold views and support children. As many SW teachers etc do.

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 16:57:40

Scottish I a fairly sure the children are white.

Dawndonna Sat 24-Nov-12 16:58:52

Just as an aside, I was aware of the political views of my parents from about five. But, that may just have been me as my parents were well known political animals.

Woozley Sat 24-Nov-12 16:59:50

Fostering pays. Fostering a 3xsibling group can pay quite handsomely.

It varies massively. I don't think anyone gets paid "handsomely" for fostering (but maybe they ought to considering the importance of what they are doing), some people don't get paid anything at all for it.

mercibucket Sat 24-Nov-12 17:01:13

Is it really part of a foster carer's contract that they declare their membership of a political party? I'm surprised. Ukip are only as anti-immigration and anti-europe as half the tory party, so I hope this policy is being applied to them as well!
It's a legitimate political party so I don't have a problem with people being members of it and fostering. This reminds me of the 80s all over again

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 17:02:47

SW and teachers aren't with children all day everyday. There's a reason that - as MrsDeVere said - foster carers aren't supposed to be members of a political party. They have a huge influence over the children in their care.

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 17:03:24

Woozley I can certainly pay well and this does mean hat some foster carers don't have the best motives

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 17:05:32

So let me get this straight. The issue isn't UKIP it is that foster carers can't be members of any political party. That is insane. Social care is more of a disgrace than I realised andi had set the bar of expectation pretty low.

LoopsInHoops Sat 24-Nov-12 17:06:16

Woozley, lots of people get paid handsomely for fostering. Less so in LAs, but private fostering agencies advertise rates from 350GBP per week per child.

And the only people who don't get paid at all are kinship carers.

DyeInTheEar Sat 24-Nov-12 17:08:07

UKIP / foster parents

Where I found the quote from the couple.

mercibucket Sat 24-Nov-12 17:09:05

I agree, londonone, if that really is the case. And tbh you'd think if you were going to take that line, you'd also want to rule out those who are members of religious organisations. And the women's institute, and scouts, and ...

mercibucket Sat 24-Nov-12 17:16:30

Surprise (for some of us on this thread I imagine)

Telegraph now reporting rotherham council is set to u-turn on this decision

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 17:17:54

Explain anti immigration vs anti immigrant to a 5 year old. As a major figure in their life. Congratulations, you've just passed on your political view on the subject. And you're not (AFAIK) a member of a political party who view immigration as a major problem. And the imaginary 5 year old isn't the children of immigrants.

These DC will have to deal with anti-immigration/immigrant comments in their lives. It will be something they discuss with whoever cares for them.

Bride1 Sat 24-Nov-12 17:19:28

Being anti-multiculturalism doesn't actually mean that you are anti-immigrants. It just means that you think the prevailing culture of the country should be the vaguely liberal-humanist-middle-of-the-road, muddling-along culture that has served Britain well. It means placing this native culture above, say, a culture that treats women like secondhand citizens, or one that has very strict religious ties. It doesn't mean that immigrants can't enjoy their own cultures, or that non-immigrants can't join in with them, too. For instance: a few years back I went to a French Epiphany celebration. My mother went to a Hindu wedding party last week.

bochead Sat 24-Nov-12 17:20:24

I think it's time we admitted that the child protection profession has itself become too policitised to be effective any longer. We need to sit down and rewrite the rule book from scratch as a matter of national urgency.

Over politicisation and lack of objectivity has led to one too many scandals - I personally can't get over the Rochdale scandal. Those poor girls were failed repeatedly by idiots more interested in chasing the current social meme than child protection at all levels. The Baby P scandal would never have happened had the father of Baby P been listened to, and allowed to take care of his own child with the aid of his ex MIL. Yet that case has led to a crazy zealotry and all sorts of rushed fear-based descision making.

The family courts are an unaccountable mess - as so many ordinary seperating couples can attest to.

Slovakia of all places is currently taking our government to the European Court over our lunatic CP methods - so far removed from other nations have our processes become. I can only hope the Slovakians win, as the UK as a nation seems to unable to police this critical area of government effectively.

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 17:22:52

Of course. Let's not pay any attention to the fact that it was an emergency placement, never meant to be long term, or that the children of immigrants might be better being cared for by foster parents who aren't member of a political party who blame immigration for many of the problems in society and, amongst other things, want 5 year residency for non-uk citizens to be able to claim benefits - because of course that's why they come here hmm. Let's just base it on the fact that the Conservatives have lost voters to UKIP and it's good press to reverse the decision. Forget the children.

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 17:24:32

And Labour have been just as keen to hop on the bandwagon.

DyeInTheEar Sat 24-Nov-12 17:25:12

We can acknowledge the political bias of the Telegraph and still read the quotes from the foster parents and see that they sound like they were more than sensitive to the cultural needs of these children.

I'd have posted from the Guardian but they've just put in a small quote from the foster parents.

This is why after a life time of being a labour supporter I've given up allowing partisan politics colour my opinion and take each situation as it comes without automatically assuming someone is right or wrong because of the newspaper they read.

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 17:26:58

In fact, lets just ignore all the guidelines. I'm sure none of you would mind foster carers taking DC to protest in front of an abortion clinic, or to hand out copies of the Socialist Worker.

SundaeGirl Sat 24-Nov-12 17:30:14

I came on here thinking there would be universal condemnation of Rotherham Council - I am shock that there are people who are saying it was the right decision.

Don't you know how hard it is for loving homes to be found for needy children?!

Rotherham Council have said the foster parents were providing a good standard of care. This presumably means they were definitely not being 'racist' towards these children. There's no insinuation that they were being anything but good carers. So, fgs, leave them to it!!

Rotherham Council, go do your meddling, unpleasant, thought policing elsewhere. If the children are being mistreated then, yes, rush in. But that was not the case here.

MrsDeVere Sat 24-Nov-12 17:31:18

Today:

I left two of my five beautiful children with their black father whilst I took one of them to his ballet lesson. I spent the half hour chatting to the Russian mother of one of his classmates.
We then went to pick up my friend who is married to a Turkish man.
We met her daughter, a beautiful mixed race girl at the Greek hair salon where she has her Saturday job.
Whilst my mixed race son had his hair cut we all chatted to each other including the Irish lady who goes in every Saturday and the English family who are also regulars.
Then we went to the local Moroccan restaurant for lunch.
Walked up the market with its myriad of stalls run by every nationality you could think of.
Quick pop in the pound shop where I spotted one of the families I work with who are from the Irish Travelling community. Quick hello and was served by a Nigerian lad.

Back home to my multicultural family.

How is any of that ^^ a bad thing? No-one mugged me, no one spurned me for being in immodest clothes, no one refused to serve me because I was speaking English and no one called me a dirty little n*** lover for having a mixed race child

All good IMO.

That is multiculturalism. I don't live in Islington and I cant drink Lattes btw.

ElBurroSinNombre Sat 24-Nov-12 17:32:12

It sounds like Rotherham Council are about to reverse the decision.

Will the people who have come on here to support the original decision and Rotherham council now have the grace to admit that they were wrong about this as well?

FWIW I think the foster carers should be judged on their actions and by all accounts these were very good carers who have done nothing wrong.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 17:34:50

Not everyones experience of "multicultural Britain" is the same as yours, MrsDever. Not everyone can afford to live in Islington, for one thing.

FreudiansSlipper Sat 24-Nov-12 17:36:14

UKIP want a similar system to Australia, not something I want this country to work towards

what are the projecting onto immigrant children

of course it is the right decision

Dominodonkey Sat 24-Nov-12 17:37:21

mrs devere

Many public servants are not allowed to express political views or affiliate themselves to a particular party. It is there in black and white when you sign up for your job.

So is the rule that no foster carer can ever be a member of a political party as it is with the police? If not then you can't pick on one particular party. I think many socialists views are abhorrent and have been proven to lead to millions of deaths, I don't think members of the SWP should be banned from fostering.

narked
I'm sure none of you would mind foster carers taking DC to protest in front of an abortion clinic, or to hand out copies of the Socialist Worker.

But there is no suggestion that the people concerned have taken any active part in UKIP campaigning at all, just joined the party.

And just because they have joined UKIP does not make them racist or even anti immigration. Do you all support every single policy of the party you support? It is most likel they are just anti the ridiculous waster of money that is the EU.

What next?

People who are Tory members not being able to foster disabled children because the Tories are cutting disability benefit. People who vote Labour not being able to look after upper class children because they might be anti-elitist.

There is NO EVIDENCE that the couple were doing anything other than bringing up the children with love and care.

Those of you who think this is ok clearly want a thought police and would be happier in Russia, China or maybe North Korea.

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 17:37:28

Rotherham council have been forced to change the decision. By Gove throwing his weight around. On the basis of what plays well in the press, not what's best for the DC.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 17:39:59

On the basis of what most people the country think is fair and reasonable, I think you mean. It is not "best for the DC" to be shunted from childrens home to foster home to childrens home on the basis of foster parents political views.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Sat 24-Nov-12 17:40:02

Wasn't Rotherham Council one of those criticised for failing to deal properly with grooming of young girls in their care? I'd laugh, if it weren't so utterly tragic for the children these dickheads are supposed to look after.

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 17:40:48

They're the children of EU immigrants. The foster carers have joined a party whose main policy is anti EU/anti immigration.

How many N Irish Catholic children are fostered by members of the Orange Order?

CurrentBun Sat 24-Nov-12 17:41:05

The whole thing is ridiculous.

Perhaps some Christians shouldn't be allowed to keep children either, their homophobic views against same sex marriages might rub off onto their children.
CofE kids will grow up in a sexist environment where women are deemed not worthy of certain roles.

Honestly, it's pathetic. Like some people mentioned up thread, there has to be more to it because you cannot take children away because of political or religous beliefs.

DyeInTheEar Sat 24-Nov-12 17:42:35

Seems like the children were happy and thriving. Seems like their cultural identity was being more than acknowledged. Sounds like the children felt safe and happy with this couple.

I'm not sure how that is political point scoring or just fact. The council have acknowledged that they were a nice couple and good foster parents.

I wonder if the couple were guilty of some political ignorance - maybe not understanding fully how Ukip policies are seen by others.

We need to be more accepting - not less and Rotherham council have made assumptions of racism without any proof of racism based on supporting Ukip.

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 17:43:26

Again, this was an emergency placement. Not meant to be long term.

And for those of you who view it as wrong that the DC should be removed, where would you draw the line? Or would you not draw it at all? Would you be fine with BNP members fostering? EDL members?

MrsDeVere Sat 24-Nov-12 17:44:22

Priceless.
If you think its ok why don't you go and live in Russia?

cozy do you have any understanding of the foster care system at all?
Do you have information about these children that we don't? For example how many placements they have had since being removed from this emergency placement?

Children's homes really? They put a baby in a children's home? Do the LA have a time machine?

MrsDeVere Sat 24-Nov-12 17:45:49

current Christians with strong views against homosexuality would have children removed from their care.
It would be unlikely they would be approved to foster in the first place.

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 17:46:49

Going to Rotherham is like stepping back into the 1980s ...

ElBurroSinNombre Sat 24-Nov-12 17:47:41

Narked - if Rotherham council have caved into Gove in reversing their decision, what does that say about their ability to act in the best interests of the children?

Surely if they really believed that removing the kids was actually the right thing to do then they should stick to that and resist the pressure.

But as has been pointed out by others, the record of Rotherham council in looking after the best interests of vulnerable kids is appalling. This is just another chapter.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 17:47:57

People should not be prevented from fostering for any political views. Having views is not against the law, and can never be. If their views are causing them to break the law, THEN you prevent them from fostering.

WildWorld2004 Sat 24-Nov-12 17:48:08

I can see the councils point. They said that it was not a good pairing. They didnt say that because they supported Ukip the couple cant foster at all.

FreudiansSlipper Sat 24-Nov-12 17:50:17

no i would not be happy with edl or bnp members being allowed to foster

or teach, work within the police, work within law or any job where they thy have influence or make decisions over peoples health, security, education

amicissimma Sat 24-Nov-12 17:50:53

"The very fact that UKIP is against the promotion of multicultralism and this couple are a member of UKIP is enough reason to remove the children."

I disagree. UKIP is not for promoting assimilation and integration either. As Cozy9 says, 'multiculturalism' is not a clearly defined term. Sadly I have met people who think it means that it is OK to reject UK culture including concepts of equality for women, people of other races, religions, the disabled etc. I'm not keen on official bodies promoting a concept that is, more frequently than I would like, thus interpreted.

And on the theme of interpretation, I think it is a massive leap of imagination to believe that wanting to take care that we have the resources to care for the current population size of the country equates to denigrating people who live here, but only came here recently (whatever 'recently' means) - and 'projecting that idea onto children'.

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 17:50:58

Narked given that it was an emergency short term placement it is even more reason for them not to have been removed and subject to more change.

Mrs devere all of what you described about your day could and does take place in countries that have more controlled immigration than the uk. There is a world of difference between being anti immigration and anti uncontrolled immigration.

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 17:51:02

Why am I not surprised by your answer Cozy9.

And grin at the idea of any local council not being cowed by the views of both the government and their party leader.

davenachfan Sat 24-Nov-12 17:53:00

These children were in emergency foster care, not with a permanent fostering family. When children are going to be placed with a permanent family, other issues will need to be taken into account. I find it concerning how many politicians are demanding an investigation. Much better that this time, money and energy was spent in preventing children being taken into the care system in the first place, paying foster carers a better rate for their work and training them.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 17:53:18

I'm sure they were cowed by the views of the PM and Labour leader. But there;s a good reason why the opposing party leaders are united in condemning the council. Because they are fucking dangerous lunatics.

MrsDeVere Sat 24-Nov-12 17:53:23

Do you ever answer questions cozy ?

Do you think perhaps you should go and do a bit of reading about fostering, foster care training, criteria, the difference between fostering and adoption, the role of the extended family etc etc etc?

Because until you do I cannot see how you can make any sort of informed comment on this case. You are concentrating on one single issue and ignoring all else.

You are hardly objective in this matter as you admit to being a UKIP voter.

FreudiansSlipper Sat 24-Nov-12 17:55:30

if you are a member of the bnp or edl you are a racist you beleive you are superior because you are white this will be projected onto others and will if can used against others

and yes i know there are some asian/black members of the bnp that are trotted out time and time again who are sadly very misguided

ukip stance may not be quite as racist but many from the far right (and i do not mean tory) have now joined because they see that they may have some politicla power that the bnp have thankfully not been able to reach

Dominodonkey Sat 24-Nov-12 17:56:10

Those of you who think that children should be taken from these foster parents Do you think any labour voting foster parents should not be allowed to foster Iraqi children. As you clearly promote bombing and killing them and their country.

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 17:56:28

Freudianslipper - I find that deeply disturbing. The moment people let their political views impact on their work then by all means take action but to forbid people who are members of legal political parties from holding certain jobs is wrong. If you believe these parties are so abhorrent then by all means campaign to have them made illegal but until they are membership of a political party Should not be a bar to employment

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 17:57:23

If I want to know the time, I look at my watch. I don't need to know the inner workings of it to be able to see what the time is.

You are hardly objective in this matter as being an vehement supporter of multiculturalism, and from Islington, no less!

Dawndonna Sat 24-Nov-12 17:57:40

Mrs DV
Cozy, Orwellian and Flatpack will all jump in with their twopennarth, as indeed they have. It is comment, rarely based on the facts of any particular case.
It has been pointed out time and again that UKIP are jumping a bandwagon, yet again. But then that's what they do, isn't it.

MrsDeVere Sat 24-Nov-12 17:58:26

london
My OH is the son of West Indian immigrants who 'flooded in' and almost caused 'rivers of blood' according to Mr Powell.
My Turkish and Greek friends are the children of those escaping a war, 'swamping' our shores
Our Irish chum is old enough to remember the 'no dogs, no blacks, no Irish' signs

I live in a borough that is not the sort of place that people arrive in, they do not work their way up to live here. Therefore it is full of the sort of people who would be refused entry for not being rich or educated enough for UKIP.

So I disagree with you.

I pay my taxes, I am London born and bred. UKIP do NOT speak on my behalf and I LIKE it the way it is.

ElBurroSinNombre Sat 24-Nov-12 17:58:27

Narked - if Rotherham council have been 'cowed' or caved into Gove and Milliband in reversing their decision, what does that say about their ability to act in the best interests of the children?

Surely if they really believed that removing the kids was actually the right thing to do then they should stick to that and resist the pressure.

But as has been pointed out by others, the record of Rotherham council in looking after the best interests of vulnerable kids is appalling. This is just another chapter.

LineRunner Sat 24-Nov-12 18:01:30

MrsDeVere is right, Cozy, when she talks of babies not going to children's homes. These days babies and younger children are placed with foster carers. There are few children's homes left, and these are small (5 or 6 bedrooms), for older children, either for asessment or for where a foster placement has broken down.

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 18:02:12

I actually feel sorry for Social Services today. They've done the right thing and are now being roasted.

PessaryPam Sat 24-Nov-12 18:02:39

MrsDeVere are you a member of a political party?

MrsDeVere Sat 24-Nov-12 18:03:22

Cozy I was born in Barnet, grew up in Harringey and lived in Islington before moving to East London.

I know about actual multiculturalism. What is the alternative to multiculturalism? Monoculturalism? What is that then?

What is your obsession with Islington anyway? You do realise that working class people live there don't you? Or do you imagine it is all Guardian journos living in mews houses?

Meanwhile back in the real world....

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 18:04:45

And it's not about voting. It's about party membership. The vast majority of the people in the UK aren't members of any political party. It's a condition they agreed to when they started fostering.

ElBurroSinNombre Sat 24-Nov-12 18:06:20

Narked, the right thing to do would have been to ask the children if they were happy with their placement and if they were to do nothing.

How is it 'the right thing to do' to remove the children where they feel safe and secure during a very traumatic time in their lives.

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 18:07:18

Mrsdevere - west Indian immigrants were invited and encouraged to come here, people fleeing war are refugees or asylum seekers so treated differently there is plenty of scope for wide ranging immigration without it being unlimited. No one is saying UKIP speak for you. I am assuming that you think there should be no limits on any sort of immigration? If so fair enough, but it is not terrible for people to disagree with you.

MrsDeVere Sat 24-Nov-12 18:08:26

No pessery I am not.
And I don't read the Guardian
I don't drink chi lattes.

I am working class.
I have fostered.
I live in a diverse area of London

And Cozy yeah you DO know to find out more about this issue because your ignorance is pretty astounding

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 18:08:41

What is the average house price in Islington, Mrs Devere? Average earnings? Do you really think it is representative of the country as a whole? Have you ever been to Rotherham?

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 18:09:26

By the waymrs devere what the hell is a Greek hair salon? Is it in fact a hair salon with owners of Greek origin or is it solely for the use of Greek people?

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 18:09:27

One of the children is described as a baby. How would that work then?

The children of immigrants, children who may well have been born outside the UK themselves, being looked after by people who have joined a party known for its anti-immigration stance is not a good match. Is that complicated?

amicissimma Sat 24-Nov-12 18:10:56

MrsDeVere, I am not particularly pro UKIP, but I like to keep up with politics in this country and I like to be aware of the difference between what 'people say' is the case and what is actually the case.

If you have any evidence that UKIP are against people who are "not [being] rich or educated enough" please could you provide a link. I would very much like to know if this is actually the case. As far as I can see, UKIP's stance on immigration is about numbers, not education or wealth. And the leadership overtly refute racism.

FreudiansSlipper Sat 24-Nov-12 18:11:31

really londonone

bnp and edl are hate parties. Do you really believe that a policeman/woman a teacher, a judge, a doctor in a hospital, a housing officer would keep be able to judge fairly when they see themselves purely because they are white, british and from a christian background as superior

how could a member of ukip teach in an area where you have a number of immigrants without projecting their feelings when they feel so stongly

as much as i hate the edl and bnp i am not in support of them being banned i fear it would cause them to join forces and we live ina a country of free speech it comes with pitfalls. but being a member you are openly supporting a racist party you have no right to have a job where you have influence or control over peoples lives because being a racist you can not be objective its is not the same as having socialist or conservative views its is judging somene on their colour or religious backgroud and disliking them for it

boaty Sat 24-Nov-12 18:11:42

If the foster carers are experienced they surely would be capable of not imposing views on the children.
As a child I had no idea of my grandparents/mothers political views, I was an adult before I found out who my mother supports, and was horrified it surprised me!
I'm sure this situation will only put off potential foster carers from applying which is sad.
Rhetorical I know, but what happens when a child from a cultural background, which holds antisemitic/homophobic views needs care,where do they place them in view of 'supporting cultural background'? How is that situation dealt with? <genuinely interested?>

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 18:12:01

You might also want to look up how averages work.

And I hope for her sake she hasn't been to Rotherham <shudder>

PessaryPam Sat 24-Nov-12 18:12:53

KarlosKKrinkelbeim

"Wasn't Rotherham Council one of those criticised for failing to deal properly with grooming of young girls in their care? I'd laugh, if it weren't so utterly tragic for the children these dickheads are supposed to look after. "

^^This.

MrsDeVere Sat 24-Nov-12 18:13:15

West Indian immigrants were invited.
Then unemployment went up.
West Indian immigrants were blamed
Enoch Powell warned that if we didn't stop them coming in and didn't start sending them back our country would descend into anarchy and white people couldn't be blamed for taking back control.

In what way are people fleeing violence and war treated differently? Really?
That isn't the way it seems to me. It is rare to hear the term Asylum Seeker without the word Bogus tacked onto the front of it.

UKIP are not a fluffy little party who want to be nice to victims of war crimes. They want to stop immigration into this country.

People are allowed to disagree with me. Please note it is not me or any of the posters who agree with me who have told anyone to go and live in North Korea.

PessaryPam Sat 24-Nov-12 18:14:53

Who decides the acceptable stance on any issue? Do you not see the precedent this sets? Fecking wibbling with WTF here!!!

MrsDeVere Sat 24-Nov-12 18:15:12

london is that the best you can do? Really?

hmm

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 18:15:15

What is wrong with wanting to stop immigration into this country?

PessaryPam Sat 24-Nov-12 18:15:37

UKIP want to regulate immigration, like every other country does.

TakingBackMonday Sat 24-Nov-12 18:16:51

Is disgusting.

We are not racists. We do not want to repatriate immigrants or their children.

What we do want is to end open door immigration in favour of work permits.

LineRunner Sat 24-Nov-12 18:17:47

I think it's UKIP's policy to

'End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies'

that could be an issue, not just 'the numbers'.

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 18:18:58

Yes Freudian slipper - I do think that professional people are able to separate their political views from their work. I believe that as long as a party illegal then membership of it should not be a bar to any profession. Otherwise it is a slippery slope. There are plenty of people who hold extremely strong religious virwsc which amount to hate. Should they be banned from professions as well? And wh would you charge with making the decision over which beliefs are ok andwhich arent?

PessaryPam Sat 24-Nov-12 18:19:30

How many people do you want here? We have massive building going on around our local towns to accommodate all the extra people. We can self support circa 30million in the UK, we already are over 70 million and still growing. We depend on JIT and cheap energy, you don't have to be feckin Einstein to see a problem if we ever encounter a big economic or global event. We should be bijoux and selective, build a society that is small and full of quality and live within our means.

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 18:19:34

They want to stop anyone who's not a UK citizen from receiving benefits until they've been here for 5 years. So, yes to benefits for 19 year olds who've never worked, no to immigrants who've paid into the system for 4 and a half years.

So you only have to have money and qualifications if you weren't born here.

Shallishanti Sat 24-Nov-12 18:19:52

nice publicity for UKIP, anyway, they get to look hard done by.

What people seem to be missing (I haven't read the whole thread)
1. It was an emergency placement which the foster parents knew was going to end soon anyway
2. the council were following legal advice to consider the children's ethnic and cultural needs- so all these people critcising the council should take it up with the court. Singing songs from their country, as the fps apparently say they did, is good, but not enough. If fundamentally you feel those children shouldn't be in this country (supported by the state, as they will be if in care)....then you are probably not the best person to look after them. Not rocket science.
3. No one has a right to be a foster parent- it's an opportunity you are given IF it's in the best interest of the child/ren
4. There may well be more to this than we know, which the council, protecting the children won't reveal, I would say the anonymity of those children is already jeapordised.

PessaryPam Sat 24-Nov-12 18:20:45

Narked they chose to come here and this policy is widely adopted globally.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 18:20:47

Hopefully this will lead to a mass clearout of Rotherhams social services. It should have happened after the child abuse scandal. There are too many people there that are more concerned with being PC and climbing the career ladder than they are about protecting children.

ElBurroSinNombre Sat 24-Nov-12 18:21:03

Narked - you seem to be unable to imagine that people could actually seperate their more abstract political beliefs from their behaviour towards vulnerable children. You do not know their motivation for joining UKIP, but if they live in Rotherham they are probably disgruntled Labour supporters registering a protest.

If the foster parents had acted in a discriminatory way towards the kids then of course removing them would have been right. There is no evidence of that and every report has emphasised what good foster parents they are. How is removing vulnerable children from a loving environment with experienced foster parents the right decision? - the kids have probably been traumatised enough already.

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 18:21:12

Mrsdevere- I was asking as you seemed keen to emphasise the differences of all the cultures you came across. I was merely pointing out that they aren't different

MrsDeVere Sat 24-Nov-12 18:21:46

Cozy when I was living in Islington it ranked 4th in the deprivation stats for London.

Have you ever been to Islington? Do you know what it is like? Have you seen the extreme poverty that many families live in?

The rich/poor divide is vast. This is a well known indicator for deprivation. It has one of the lowest ratios of green space per person in the country.

I could dig up all kinds of stats for you but you know how to spell google.

You seem to have set Islington up as some leftie, MC fetish to be pulled out as an illustration of all things you despise.

Why don't you pop on the train and have a wander around the Andover Estate and come back and talk some more about how privileged the residents of N7 are?

MrsDeVere Sat 24-Nov-12 18:22:51

I think that most Turkish and Greek people would beg to differ london
Or do you think they look the same so therefore are pretty much of a muchness?

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 18:22:51

"So you only have to have money and qualifications if you weren't born here. "

What exactly is wrong with that? Why should we accept people that have no money or qualifications? What benefit does it bring to this country other than putting downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on public services and housing?

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 18:24:09

Mrs devere do you believe he uk should have fully open borders with no restrictionson who has he right to live and work in the uk?

PessaryPam Sat 24-Nov-12 18:25:05

MrsDeVere

"I think that most Turkish and Greek people would beg to differ london
Or do you think they look the same so therefore are pretty much of a muchness? "

Cheap shot, try harder.

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 18:25:16

So Turkish and Greek people need separate hair salons do they?

donnie Sat 24-Nov-12 18:25:45

well either people are allowed to hold political views AND foster , or they aren't. This is what the Rotherham council seems to be suggesting.

So , what should we infer from this decision:

- that you are allowed to foster but only if you are completely apolitical?

-that you are allowed to foster but only if you hold political views which are left wing?

-that you are only allowed to foster children of the same ethnicity as you?

-that children of non white/British ethnicities should only be fostered by lefties?

- that people who are right wing shouldn't be allowed to foster?

-that anyone who fosters should be prepared to have their political views scrutinised and judged by social workers?

-that social workers and officials involved in the fostering process hold political views which are the 'right' ones?

-that all social workers and officials involved in the fostering process should all be left wing?

I agree with previous posters who have described this as a thought crime. It is completely crazy. And also, those of you condemning members of political groups who don't really understand all that group's policies, it happens ALL THE TIME. Plus there are plenty of parents who are loving and supportive - ie great , normal parents - who , politically, are as thick as pigshit.

MrsDeVere Sat 24-Nov-12 18:26:07

It isn't now is it?

Or did I miss the announcement that all boarder agencies had been shut down and passports and visas abolished confused

PessaryPam Sat 24-Nov-12 18:26:20

So if Australia needs a point system to accept immigrants and it's a democratic country does that mean it's populated by racists? Because this is where you are heading with your arguments.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Sat 24-Nov-12 18:27:41

There are plenty of deprived parts of Islington but even those are much closer to centres of economic activity and cultural amenities than deprived areas in the north like Rotherham. I'm well acquainted with both and the benighted post-industrial towns of the north are infinitely more wretched than almost anywhere in London. And "multi-culturalism" looks a lot different from there, I can tell you. I'm pretty sure the views of these foster carers were fairly representative of their area, so the irony is, the move will probably not have cured the "problem" these idiots masquerading as social workers were trying to deal with.

PessaryPam Sat 24-Nov-12 18:28:03

donnie

And they wonder why so many people are put off fostering and adopting. So glad I could have children and not have to go through this awful system.

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 18:29:12

No mrsdevere but I am asking if you think there shouldbe open borders? Because unless you do you also believe in controlled immigration, the only difference is degree

PessaryPam Sat 24-Nov-12 18:29:24

KarlosKKrinkelbeim the foster carers have been so badly let down, I hope they sue the council.

MrsDeVere Sat 24-Nov-12 18:29:56

Really Pessary?
Cheaper than you fishing for evidence that I am a middle class, fully paid up Labour activist?

You try harder.

London is being disingenuous. If she really is a 'londonone' she is perfectly aware of what a Greek hair salon is. Same as she knows what an indian take away is and what a Turkish sauna is. She knows what a Polish Supermarket is and what an Italian Deli is too.

So shall we discuss cheap shots again?

freetoanyhome Sat 24-Nov-12 18:30:04

they could always appeal to the European Court of human rights.
Oh wait....

MrsDeVere Sat 24-Nov-12 18:30:59

I am happy with the degree we have. Therefore I see no need for UKIP's manifesto.

FreudiansSlipper Sat 24-Nov-12 18:32:32

really. Then you are misunderstanding hatred and political views. Members of the bnp and edl dislike more often hate people purely because of their colour/religious background that can not be seperated at work not all the time

a teacher should not be in a position where they feel they are superior to their pupils because they are white but that is their belief it
can not be left at home its is who they are what they feel is right

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 18:33:24

I think that when your job is 24 hour care, your views may well become apparent. I think that children, especially vunerable ones, are malleable. I think that a DC who in 8 weeks had begun calling them mum and dad would be at risk of taking any views they did hear onboard very strongly. I think that the DC will find themselves exposed to anti immigration views in the street and the playground, so it's not a topic that won't come up at home.

And what Shallishanti said.

UKIP policy for anyone who's interested.

Return people found to be living illegally in the UK to their country of origin. There can be no question of an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Such amnesties merely encourage further illegal immigration

So yes, they do want to deport children and their parents.

.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 18:33:28

MrsDevere, could there ever be too much immigration for you?

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 18:33:29

So you mean a hair salon that can be used by anyone? Like an Indian takeaway or a polish deli as you put it. Or a corner shop or a car wash! I really don't understand what your point is because everything you talk about takes place in countries with fairly strict immigration regimes. Go to melbourne or new York and have a look round!

Nancy66 Sat 24-Nov-12 18:34:03

Donnie, the children in question are definitely white.

ElBurroSinNombre Sat 24-Nov-12 18:34:04

Completely agree Karlos - have lived in many of the areas that Mrs DeVere is talking about but am originally from the north. London is a completely different world to places like Rotherham - yes the multiculturism makes London a great city but it is naive to think that the rest of the country is remotely like that. And as you mention, in London if you are hard working you have achance, whoever you are.

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 18:34:20

No Freudian you are misunderstanding what being a professional is.

Bride1 Sat 24-Nov-12 18:34:47

What MRsDeVere is describing is not really multiculturalism, it is the ability to enjoy facets of various different cultures. All very attractive and reasonable, but multiculturalism, as proposed by various local authorities, is far more insidious.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 18:34:48

"So yes, they do want to deport children and their parents."
Of illegal immigrants. This is hardly an extreme view, is it?

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 18:36:27

Narked do you believe in unlimited immigration ? Mrs devere for example should be happy with hat part of the policy as those are illegal immigrants under the current system and she believes the current system to be about right!

"but multiculturalism, as proposed by various local authorities, is far more insidious"

Oh do enlighten us..

MrsDeVere Sat 24-Nov-12 18:36:56

Oh do give it up london.
Its a GREEK HAIR SALON because it is owned and run by a Greek family.

I think it is fairly well known that USA pretty much runs on cheap, immigrant labour. Non green card cheap, immigrant labour.

Australia is built on immigration. Entirely.

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 18:37:20

I agree that London is an example if how things should work in lots of ways.

ElBurroSinNombre Sat 24-Nov-12 18:38:01

narked,

What you have put in bold is the policy of all the major political parties not just UKIP because they all support the rule of law. If someone is here illegally then the government has the right to deport them.

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 18:38:02

It's fine, because the legal ones get:

'to abide by a legally binding ‘Undertaking of Residence’ ensuring they respect our laws or face deportation. Such citizens will not be eligible for benefits. People applying for British citizenship will have to have completed a period of not less then five years as a resident on ‘Permanent Leave to Remain’. New citizens should pass a citizenship test and sign a ‘Declaration of British Citizenship’ promising to uphold Britain’s democratic and tolerant way of life'

So four years of work wouldn't entitle someone to any unemployment benefit or maternity leave.

donnie Sat 24-Nov-12 18:38:19

well to be fair I don't think ANY political party in the UK has promised an amnesty on illegal immigrants has it?

This whole thing stinks.

MrsDeVere Sat 24-Nov-12 18:38:54

cozy if you want me to answer direct questions, do me a favour and go back and answer all the ones asked of you.

Thanks.

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 18:39:02

Mrsdevere I fail to see the point you are trying to make. UKIP are not anti immigration they believe in controlled immigration as do the US and Oz. why is that so hard to grasp

Shallishanti Sat 24-Nov-12 18:39:11

"So glad I could have children and not have to go through this awful system".

LISTEN- fostering isn't about the foster parents and their 'rights' it's about the children and their needs

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Sat 24-Nov-12 18:39:42

"Return people found to be living illegally in the UK to their country of origin."
I think you'll find this is official government policy at the moment. As it was under Labour, before you start howling about racist Tories (at least they're not calling us paedos anymore - let's be grateful for small mercies). If supporting this policy means you can't foster, I'd like to know who the fuck actually can.

LineRunner Sat 24-Nov-12 18:40:17

Would services in my multicultural area be unable to be funded if UKIP's policy was adopted as law? Wouldn't it come under 'the doctrine of multiculturalism', that couldn't be publicly funded?

I really struggle to get my head around, 'End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies.'

What does that even mean? My DCs are in school with other kids of all different cultural and ethnic backgrounds, mixing and mingling and melding just fine. Should they not be?

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 18:40:23

No. What happens is that the authorities are required to look at the person's circumstances. So, for example, they wouldn't deport a 15 year old who has been here since they were 3 years old and knows no-one in their country of birth and doesn't speak the language. UKIP would.

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 18:40:58

Narked - do you believe in unlimited immigration and working rights in the uk

ElBurroSinNombre Sat 24-Nov-12 18:41:20

I think teh whole thing is a red herring anyway - UKIP (and most of their supporters) are really a single issue party - they want us to leave the EU and they have not thought much beyond that.

MonthlyAFIWish Sat 24-Nov-12 18:43:28

Not read all posts.
Think agree that if family have views that people no born in the UK should not be here, then they should not be looking after children who fit their criteria. The council can't be sure they will lok after these children as well as other children they have looked after.
Sounds like the council gave it a few days too before they were taken away

Full of quality?
Would that be in line with UKIP's election manifesto in which they stated they'd put people with disabilities in 'congregate communities?

Because they're not 'quality'?

Racism is the tip of the iceberg with this lot.

FreudiansSlipper Sat 24-Nov-12 18:44:18

That is why is said not always, your true feeling will always come through at some point if you feel you are superior or they are less so it will show at some point and should such feelings have a place in schools, policeforce, the courts, hospital. I am well aware that they do but it is somethings that should not be tolerated

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 18:44:38

Line runner - I imagine it would mean that various "diversity champions" employed by local authorities would no longer have a job!

LineRunner Sat 24-Nov-12 18:45:19

I think you are right ElBurro. UKIP-HQ seems to have tried to come up with policy statements to pad out their 'Leave the EU' single issue stance, and the 'doctrine of multiculturalism' one has perhaps proved to be a bit stupid.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Sat 24-Nov-12 18:45:55

By the "doctrine of multiculturalism" I would guess they mean the approach which many public authorities have taken historically to dealing with different cultures; namely that respecting that difference means active attempts at integration should be shunned and difference should be preserved and promoted. So we don;t encourage immigrants who don't speak English to learn it; we just print our leaflets in their language. Lots of people - not just UKIP supporters - think this is misguided and I freely admit I'm one of them.
Nothing remotely to do with people of different backgrounds not being educated or housed together, however; quite the reverse.

donnie Sat 24-Nov-12 18:46:01

FOR ME THE QUESTION IT BOILS DOWN TO IS AS FOLLOWS:

Do I believe that someone can be a caring, loving and supportive foster parent to children of ethnic minorities whilst holding policital views which may be interpreted by some people as hostile to ethnic minorities?

I do.

PessaryPam Sat 24-Nov-12 18:46:06

Devere you are the mistress of cheap shots. You were implying that london would not be able to tell the difference between a Greek and a Turk, cos they all look the same, is the sub-text here.

I don't much care about whatever political party you belong to but it should not be used to decide who can do what where. Unless there is good evidence of these carers not looking after these children properly they should have been left in-situ. i am sure with your mass of experience you understand the problems of children moved from pillar to post.

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 18:46:08

Freudians as I said if they do come through and it impacts on your work THEN action should be taken.

LineRunner Sat 24-Nov-12 18:46:50

Well why not just say that, londoneone?

The actual UKIP policy statement is far more wide-reaching than that, and would have implications for the whole education system.

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 18:46:56

I think elburro and line runner have got it right!

Narked Sat 24-Nov-12 18:47:03

I believe in many things. Why do you ask?

Devora Sat 24-Nov-12 18:47:04

I've only read half the thread, and now need to go and fix tea. But just to get in my ha'aporth:

This really reminds me of the thread about the Christian foster carers with the anti gay views. Cue many tabloid headlines bewailing, "Are social services going to take away the children of all Christian parents?". A couple of points which are really vital but seem to be misunderstood by many:

Short term foster carers cannot in any sense be described as 'parents' as happened a few times upthread. They are paid carers for other people's children. So we not discussing here parents' rights to have their own views and transmit them to their children. We are discussing people who have to able to sensitively handle the fact that they will be caring for vulnerable children who will come in with their own set of allegiances and values, perhaps handed on by THEIR parents.

ALL foster carers (and, to a lesser extent, adopters) have to demonstrate that they understand and can manage this. So Christian is fine; preaching homophobia is not (what is they foster children of gay parents, or gay children?). Muslim is fine, preaching holy jihad to vulnerable children is not. Being lesbian feminist is fine (to use myself as an example), telling children that their fathers are sexist pigs is not.

I am sure there are certain religious/political views that would rule you out entirely. Being BNP or in an extreme religious sect has to rule you out, because it is hard to imagine the authority could find many suitable placements for you.

It is not clear from this report whether UKIP was deemed out of bounds in principle, or whether in this particular case the couple's expression of their political views was problematic. I have to say I'm not convinced that voting UKIP is incompatible with foster care. But fervent, vocal and uncompromising allegiance to the extreme end of those views might well be.

"So we don;t encourage immigrants who don't speak English to learn it; we just print our leaflets in their language."

So a better solution would be to offer no assistance in their language at all? That would encourage integration would it?

Dawndonna Sat 24-Nov-12 18:49:14

Just out of interest Cozy should Derby social services be sacked too?

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 18:49:26

Glitterknickaz - it wouldn't be a mumsne political thread if someone didn't try and relate it to disability! Surprised you didn't manage to shoehorn in the fact that DLA is not an out of work benefit,

MUM2BLESS Sat 24-Nov-12 18:49:41

Things have gone wrong in the past with children in care. They have the childrens best interest at heart. The council is just being careful, I cannot blame them for that.

"It is not clear from this report whether UKIP was deemed out of bounds in principle, or whether in this particular case the couple's expression of their political views was problematic. I have to say I'm not convinced that voting UKIP is incompatible with foster care. But fervent, vocal and uncompromising allegiance to the extreme end of those views might well be."

Absolutely.

gordyslovesheep Sat 24-Nov-12 18:50:02

Jesus - so will UKIP help getting all the ex pats back to the uk then?

You do realise that immigrants don't get give handfulls of gov cash as a rule? They can get benefit if they from an UE member state - as can Brits in those countries ...

I would not want to see vulnerable children fostered by people who didn't want them in the UK - that is unlikely to be a nice welcoming environment

and what Mrs DV said really.

Just pointing out the context of UKIP beliefs.
Someone else brought up the vision of 'quality' communities.
Whether that be on grounds of race, ability or lack of it.
Gives a sense of the ideology going on there.

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 18:50:53

Narked - did you not understand the question as you seem to be having a problem answering!

PessaryPam Sat 24-Nov-12 18:51:34

Glitterknickaz

"Full of quality?"

I assume that is directed at me.

Australia recruits immigrants based on it's needs. This is a normal immigration policy. it doesn't want people with skills it doesn't need, or no skills or people who are too old. They are looking after their own interests.

Why is this impossible for us without being deemed racist?

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Sat 24-Nov-12 18:51:39

"So a better solution would be to offer no assistance in their language at all? That would encourage integration would it?"

Life is too short to offer assistance to people who won't read. So I won't dignify this with an answer. intelligent readers will understand the contrasting positions the example was intended to illustrate.

FreudiansSlipper Sat 24-Nov-12 18:52:13

what a child should be made to feel less equal then action taken how many children have to feel this way beforee action is taken

Makes far more sense that action is taken before by not allowing people to get the chance to project their hatred onto innocent people especially children

I think head teachers are allowed to sack a teacher if theynfind out they are a Member of the bnp, i am not sure i hope this is right i would rather that membership to such parties would be banned in some professions especially dealing with children

Dawndonna Sat 24-Nov-12 18:52:17

Those of you who think that this is 'thought crime', do grow up. It isn't. It's about matching the right children with the family that is appropriate for them. Legal advice was taken. That would be impartial legal advice. Taken and followed. Yes there are times that the law is an ass (Guildford four and Birmingham six will always spring to mind). However, why put non uk children with people who support a party that have openly suggested repatriation? That isn't thought crime, that's a serious protection issue. If you are unable to see that, then obviously, you have a problem.

Ooh.... ageism there too. UKIP, party of isms then.

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 18:53:09

Murder of goths- a better solution would be to provide English lessons and ensure people attend them.

Shallishanti Sat 24-Nov-12 18:53:09

From what the head of children's services said on the bbc ws, I don't think they were ruled out on principle, just for these particular childre, but that doesn't fit the 'oh we're so discriminated against' vibe that some people like to play on

LineRunner Sat 24-Nov-12 18:55:21

I don't think I can have got anything right, OP, when I am just asking questions.

I do personally think UKIP are guilty of a gormless policy statement error on 'the doctrine of multiculturalism', not unusual with a relatively inexperienced political party.

If UKIP had stuck with 'leaving the EU for economic reasons' there would be no issue today to discuss.

PessaryPam Sat 24-Nov-12 18:55:25

FFS glitter, life with you must be one long line of offence at 'isms.

Do you suggest we fill this island with the worlds oldies too? We are having such a success with our own.

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 18:55:45

Oh dear glitter you must find he entire Australian nation ageist in that case.

Freudian - who would you have decide which views are acceptable and which aren't?

PessaryPam Sat 24-Nov-12 18:55:57

And who pays for all this altruism glitter?

PessaryPam Sat 24-Nov-12 18:56:34

You can so tell who works in the private sector in this thread.

flatpackhamster Sat 24-Nov-12 18:56:37

MurderOfGoths

So a better solution would be to offer no assistance in their language at all? That would encourage integration would it?

How do you encourage integration by ensuring that a migrant can't speak English?

A better solution would be to require all migrants except successful asylum seeker claimants to pass an English test and to make that a mandatory part of being here.

Can't believe you're arguing that ensuring it isn't necessary to learn English in the UK promotes cohesion.

ElBurroSinNombre Sat 24-Nov-12 18:56:47

The irony of this is that I'd bet that the foster parents are disenfranchised Labour supporters who feel betrayed and let down by Labour. And precisely because of this sort of thing.

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 18:57:26

Line runner that is what I meant I was agreeing with you and el burro that they are a single issue party and the rest of te policies are a bit of an afterthought

It's not about offence. It's about being aware of some of the ignorance and hate that is doled out to some of the more vulnerable in society.

It's about accepting the people of this country for who they are not in terms of 'what they can contribute' which is entirely subjective anyway.

Dawndonna Sat 24-Nov-12 18:58:12

Glitterknickaz - it wouldn't be a mumsne political thread if someone didn't try and relate it to disability! Surprised you didn't manage to shoehorn in the fact that DLA is not an out of work benefit
Did you mean to be quite so rude, OP?

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 18:58:21

I bet you can't pessrypam!

"Life is too short to offer assistance to people who won't read."

I don't know about you, but when I was learning new languages, one of the most effective ways was to see things written in both the new language and my own native language. It's very hard to pick up a new language without being able to compare it to your own.

Only giving out information in English doesn't actually help people learn English.

gordyslovesheep Sat 24-Nov-12 18:59:36

gosh - people do seem to hate this country don't they - and want so badly to change it from the fair, just, island that fights for the underdog to some kind of closed minded, closed state where people will forced into things

If UKIP came to power you wouldn;t have to deport me!

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 19:00:08

Yes dawndonna I did as I am fed up of every political thread on mumsnet being turned around to a disability issue. This is not about disability in any way. Of course glitter managed to respond, you on the other hand it seems like to be offended on others behalf!

Exactly gordy, it's so closed minded. The ideology of 'i'm alright jack, pull up the ladder'.

FreudiansSlipper Sat 24-Nov-12 19:01:33

the views of the bnp and edl

ukip again but as their stance is very much on not being part of europe some may be members becuase but certainly as foster parents you can not be fostering or adopting immigrant children

being a member of the edl or bnp you are full of hate

i am off out to dinner not running away from this debate

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 19:02:09

Enjoy dinner!

I didn't make it all about disability at all.
A UKIP supporter referred to 'quality' and I asked if that related to part of the UKIP general election manifesto in order to give context to UKIP ideology.

You're just champing at the bit for a scrap, aren't you?

flatpackhamster Sat 24-Nov-12 19:04:04

ElBurroSinNombre

The irony of this is that I'd bet that the foster parents are disenfranchised Labour supporters who feel betrayed and let down by Labour. And precisely because of this sort of thing.

According to the Telegraph article, they were indeed Labour voters.

It's quite scary that many former Labour voters think UKIP is even remotely similar. It isn't.

Dawndonna Sat 24-Nov-12 19:05:15

No, London
Three years ago, my dh, a philosophy lecturer acquired an infection. He was prescribed drugs that are banned in America. He cannot walk. He cannot dress himself, toilet himself etc. He can't eat somedays and has gone from eleven and a half stone to eight and a half. UKIP would like to put him in a community, along with my three kids with ASD. All of whom, I might add, have better manners and far more empathy than you appear to. But heyho, that's life and I intend to keep fighting UKIP and their ilk so that I can look after my husband and children at home.
Funnily enough, the three children with ASDs are all extraordinarily intelligent and will grow up to be productive members of society, something that UKIP would presumably remove if they are to go to a community.
Oh no, they would be productive in said community, just as they were in the workhouses of yore. Yep, managed to bring that in too.

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 19:05:24

There had been no mention of disability at all until your post, that was my point.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 19:05:57

Labour really need a kicking in Rotherham, they are so arrogant. Don't see it happening though, too many people there are reliant on benefits and won't bite the hand that feeds them.

ElBurroSinNombre Sat 24-Nov-12 19:06:00

gordy, Glittar

I am no supporter of UKIP. But we have a long tradition of tolerence and freedom of expression in the UK. To me it is 'closed minded' and against our traditions to try to silence people who do not share the same opinions as you.

LineRunner Sat 24-Nov-12 19:06:03

I think if I really wanted to become a foster carer, I would be prepared to do things like giving up smoking (a requirement for looking after under-5s) and taking care not to join a political party that had such an odd view on 'doctrine of multiculturalism.'

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 19:06:15

Dawndonna - it's not relevant to his thread

Dawndonna Sat 24-Nov-12 19:07:36

It's valid though, because we're talking about those oh so delightful UKIP policies.

flatpackhamster Sat 24-Nov-12 19:08:14

Glitterknickaz

It's quite scary that many former Labour voters think UKIP is even remotely similar. It isn't.

Something like 1/3 of UKIP members are ex-Labour voters. Labour has lost its core vote and UKIP speaks to that vote. Labour doesn't represent traditional Labour voters and hasn't for, probably, 15-20 years.

Dawndonna

Three years ago, my dh, a philosophy lecturer acquired an infection. He was prescribed drugs that are banned in America. He cannot walk. He cannot dress himself, toilet himself etc. He can't eat somedays and has gone from eleven and a half stone to eight and a half. UKIP would like to put him in a community, along with my three kids with ASD. All of whom, I might add, have better manners and far more empathy than you appear to. But heyho, that's life and I intend to keep fighting UKIP and their ilk so that I can look after my husband and children at home.
Funnily enough, the three children with ASDs are all extraordinarily intelligent and will grow up to be productive members of society, something that UKIP would presumably remove if they are to go to a community.
Oh no, they would be productive in said community, just as they were in the workhouses of yore. Yep, managed to bring that in too.

Like so many people who hate UKIP, you actually know nothing about it beyond what you think you read in the Guardian.

LineRunner Sat 24-Nov-12 19:08:47

I think UKIP would be well advised to drop the DoM statement of policy after this.

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 19:08:51

"It's quite scary that many former Labour voters think UKIP is even remotely
similar. It isn't."

That's probably why they've switched their vote. Labour is driving voters away with their left-wing lunacy.

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 19:09:04

If you want to discuss UKIP policies in general then do start a thread! I am no great supporter of them and think some of their policies frankly bonkers but that is not what this thread is meant to be about. But it's an open forum so post what you want but don't get pissed off if people point out its irrelevant

Cozy9 Sat 24-Nov-12 19:10:31

Labour would be in major trouble without it's voters that are reliant on benefits. How many of their voters are actually in favour of Labours policies regarding immigration, multiculturalism etc? I would guess not nearly enough to get them anywhere close to power.

PessaryPam Sat 24-Nov-12 19:10:57

Glitterknickaz Sat 24-Nov-12 19:03:03

I didn't make it all about disability at all.
A UKIP supporter referred to 'quality' and I asked if that related to part of the UKIP general election manifesto in order to give context to UKIP ideology.

So you assume I am a UKIP supporter? I am just a person who can see a politically motivated spite crime.

"to try to silence people who do not share the same opinions as you"

Who is silencing them? All I'm seeing is not wanting children to be placed with someone whose personal views are potentially in opposition to the needs of the children.

Not particularly closed minded when concerns regard parties who are against characteristics protected in law in this country.

Ie discrimination based on race, age, gender or disability.

I don't see what the issue is on bringing other policies of a political party into a discussion about some of their members and fitness to do their job. In this case their unsuitability based on party membership may not merely be based on UKIP immigration policy.

ElBurroSinNombre Sat 24-Nov-12 19:12:55

They don't think UKIP is similar to Labour but they have no where to go politically because they feel the political establishment does not listen to the likes of them - and as I said they think like that precisely because of decisions like this one.