Mumsnet Talk

bbc

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

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

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

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

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.

Ukip arent the BNP you know

No far off though.

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.

Not look after council. I meant look after the children

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...

ukips immigration policy

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Absolutely right call to foster them elsewhere.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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'?

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.

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.

"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"?

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

Sorry not Asian, Eastern European.

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

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.

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?

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

Sorry I missed out a speech mark there.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

OP YABU!

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?

"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?

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 . 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.

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.

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.

Rotherham Council's record on multiculturalism/child protection:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2209261/Council-83-warnings-sex-abuse-town-Asian-sex-gang-spent-years-raping-dozens-children-young-10.html
https://rotherhampolitics.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/017_annual-assessment-of-childrens-services-as-pdf1.pdf
rotherhampolitics.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/joyce-thackers-priority-find-the-whistle-blower/
rotherhampolitics.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/the-times-in-full-heads-must-surelyroll/

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.

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?

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.

* 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?

The parents if sorry

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why are they "idiots" for being UKIP members?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

"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.

how do you know the couple think that?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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'.

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.

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?

"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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

'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.

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

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

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?

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

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.

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?

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.

* like losing part of MY soul.

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?

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.

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.

What have I posted that is patronising or racist?

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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?

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.

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.

It IS about the welfare of the children!

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.

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?

<Tries to force farls recipe out of consciousness>

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

Ooh I made discussion of the day! How exciting!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."*

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

Why are you talking about adoption?

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?

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.

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

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.

Scottish I a fairly sure the children are white.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

UKIP / foster parents

Where I found the quote from the couple.

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 ...

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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 . 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.

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

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.

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.

I came on here thinking there would be universal condemnation of Rotherham Council - I am 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

"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'.

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.

Why am I not surprised by your answer Cozy9.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

MrsDeVere are you a member of a political party?

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....

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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?

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?

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.

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

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?>

You might also want to look up how averages work.

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

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.

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.

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

london is that the best you can do? Really?

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

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

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.

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'.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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?

"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?

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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.

.

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

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!

Donnie, the children in question are definitely white.

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.

No Freudian you are misunderstanding what being a professional is.

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.

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

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..

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

"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

"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.

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?

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.

Narked - do you believe in unlimited immigration and working rights in the uk

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.

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.

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

Line runner - I imagine it would mean that various "diversity champions" employed by local authorities would no longer have a job!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Freudians as I said if they do come through and it impacts on your work THEN action should be taken.

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.

I think elburro and line runner have got it right!

I believe in many things. Why do you ask?

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?

Just out of interest Cozy should Derby social services be sacked too?

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,

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.

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.

Narked - did you not understand the question as you seem to be having a problem answering!

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?

"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.

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

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.

Murder of goths- a better solution would be to provide English lessons and ensure people attend them.

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

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.

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.

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?

And who pays for all this altruism glitter?

You can so tell who works in the private sector in this thread.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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'.

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

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?

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.

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.

There had been no mention of disability at all until your post, that was my point.

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.

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.

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.'

Dawndonna - it's not relevant to his thread

It's valid though, because we're talking about those oh so delightful UKIP policies.

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.

I think UKIP would be well advised to drop the DoM statement of policy after this.

"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.

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

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.

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.

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.

flatpack
Actually, have spent half the day re reading their manifesto.
Unlike you, as has been noted before, I tend to go with empirical evidence.

The couple are in their late 50s. They probably gained their allegiance to Labour 40 years ago. They are a very different party today.

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.

Their policy says they still want the country to meet it's obligations to refugees, they just want to detain them all (men, women and children) in prisons secure facilities.

Labour, left wing?
That's bloody laughable really.

They're not out to protect benefit claimants at all. They introduced ATOS and apparently support the Welfare Reform bill largely as it stands.

There is no real opposition in this country in some areas, just big clods of the same right wing-ism in various guises.

I agree that Labour isn't really representing the people it used to. Even when they were in power they didn't do much to help Trade Unions and people fighting for their jobs. I've heard traditional Labour voters being disillusioned by them. Not the champagne socialists types but traditional Labour people only wanting a fair system. I can't be bothered with them any more. I did vote for them in the last general election but when the results came I was pleased they didn't get in. I was quite surprised at myself.

It's interesting though that the campaign against UKIP has ratcheted up, as Mahatma Gandhi said:-

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

We are moving into the 3rd stage I think. UKIP seem to have become a contender to the 3 main parties.

Goths - believe it or not most children don't know or care about politics or political parties. The correct thing to do in this case would be to talk to and listen to the children involved and if they were happy with their placement then to leave them there.

Glitter - your last sentence is just a made up justification for bringing you agenda onto this thread. Like I said why not start a thread about what is wrong with UKIP rather t

OK, now I've read the thread and I'm

Some really nasty things being said on here, and some really closed minds.

I'm off to do bathtime now, just voting team MrsDeVere before I pop off.

Oh, and PLEASE stop calling them foster parents. THEY'RE NOT PARENTS.

Argh cross post

linerunner who is silencing you? no one

This is about what is in the best interests of vulnerable children - with the full facts and all the evidence - I am not privy to those - the social workers involved where

they may have been wrong - there is to be an investigation

but how CAN you foster children who belong to a group you don't want in this country - serious question?

Yes Debora because that is the most important issue, whether people call them carers or parents FFS you really couldn't make this shit up.

Well exactly. We're not talking about children being taken away from parents because they think that the UK should leave the EU.

gordyslovesheep Sat 24-Nov-12 19:18:58
linerunner who is silencing you? no one

gordy you've got the wrong poster.

No and only someone extremely stupid who hadn't read e article would think that!

Devora - so we shouldn't use the recognised laymans terminology bacause it is offensive in some way? And what is offensive about calling them parents - they are afterall taking on parental responsibilities.

"believe it or not most children don't know or care about politics or political parties."

Maybe. But you can't say with certainty that all children are blissfully unaware. And you can't say which category those children will fall into. Can you imagine the outcry if it was found out later that these children understood and were upset by the foster families political views? here anything wrong with erring on the side of caution in this case?

londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 19:21:24
No and only someone extremely stupid who hadn't read e article would think that!

Poor old Nigel Farage. Disparaged again.

Lol

gordy I am not londoneone <cries>

Goths - That could have been established by talking to and listening to the children as I suggested. I would guess that removing them will have traumatised them - how is that in their best interest?

Hey it's not me complaining about being silenced!,,,

ElBurro, I think they are extremely young, i.e. one is a baby.

I think it's interesting that people assume if you disagree with the councils actions you must somehow support UKIP. I certainly don't. I would be equally horrified had this stance been taken with regards to labour or conservative members for example, perhaps around a different issue.

I think it might relate to ElBurro's post?

"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. "

gordy

This is what you said;

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

You are not engaging at all in what people have to say - you are saying that people who express a view that you don't agree with 'hate this country'. I see that as an attempt to end the debate and in effect silence people.

Personally, I think that one of our great strengths id the freedom to say and think what we want. I am not actually a UKIP supporter or anything like - I just think that this decision is wrong.

gordy - you remind me of a little of Gordon Brown dismissing an old lady as a 'bigot' because she said something he did not want to hear.

Guardian website has a quote from the head of the fostering network saying that membership of political parties is not banned for foster carers
There is also a quote from the head ? Of council saying foster carers are not banned if they are members of the BNP! I assume he meant UKIP - they are not at all the same thing
And finally it is ridiculous to expect any member of a political party to support each and every policy the leadership draw up. Both labour and tories should ask themselves why people are moving to parties like ukip, and also why the are not engaging with politics at all. Forty years ago, more of us would have been members of a political party and so would perhaps have been a bit more mature about what that actually meant

"I would guess that removing them will have traumatised them - how is that in their best interest?"

You do know that it was only a temporary placement anyway right?

Sorry have n't read the whole thread but I don't think UKIP are a racist party and I speak as a first generation immigrant. I think we do have to discuss the impact mass immigration over the past decade has had on this country and the lives of the people already living here (native Britons and immigrants alike). I think multicultralism was initially a good thing but has been hijackedby some groups to promote their own interests. I think multiculturalism is also to blame for the recent case of serious abuse of girls by Pakistani men. Some practices of immigrants are at odds with the beliefs and culture of the UK but we have become too scared to question these for fear of appearing racist. I think UKIP are right to question our position in the EU and mass immigration in this country and I think Rotherham council are misguided in their actions as they equate anyone who does this as being racists

Its not any particular set of beliefs that is wrong. It's simply that if you hold beliefs that directly contradict the needs of the children that could be placed with you, you are not suitable to foster. This is not a new a radical idea.
Should neo-nazi sympathisers be given jewish children to foster?
Should BNP officers be given african immigrant children to foster?
Should fundamentalist christians be given gay teens to foster?
Should fundamentalist muslims be given catholic children to foster?
No, is the obvious answer. This is not discrimination, this is COMMON SENSE.

Same for UKIP. Your beliefs mean you are not suitable. Tough bollocks.

Yes I know it was a temporary placement but moving kids from pillar to post at the drop of a hat is not good regardless - it will serve to make them feel even more insecure.

my apologies Linerunner

I am debating - I will happily debate - but i will not make my views more right wing to satisfy anyone - I do not see immigration or multiculturalism and a problem.

so I will not agree with you but I defend your right to have a view and express it - you are NOT being silenced and it's a tad melodramatic to say you are

as not and

No worries. Just as long as we are clear that I am a wanky bleeding heart liberal.

All I know about UKIP is that they want out of Europe, so I just googled UKIP commonwealth to see what they think about that and apparently they prefer the Commonwealth.

gordy - why do you say that people who disagree with you 'hate this country' - I'm pretty sure that they don't.

I wonder how much influence the upcoming by election had on this Labour council's decision to attack another party to whom they're losing voters?

A lot perhaps?

I didn't - I said some people seem to since all they do is tell you how awful it is - it isn't - I love it and I love the mixture of people that live here

And to answer your second point you will never silence me.

But just saying that someone who presents an opposing opinion 'hates this country' is very lazy and of course incorrect.

lmao
twice this week I've been referred to as a one trick pony

I'm seeing plenty of THOSE tonight too

Oh GOD linerunner I didn't realise - I get how awful that was for you now <fans LR with copy of the Guardian>

I LOVE Ponies

So does my daughter.

Obsessed.

I think alot of people will be supporting UKIP purely because they seem to be the only party who is addressing the huge issue that affects alot of peoples daily lives and that is mass uncontrolled immigration.

Its the very fact that saying you want to curb it - people call you a rascist and close the debate down is why people are being coralled and being forced to join allegiences with parties they normally wouldnt.

As others have said you can embrace all the immirgants we have here and all the communities we have here and still want more to come whilst saying - not at the same pace and volume please.

My sister in law is polish she has been here for 25 years - she said what the gov has done is utter maddness. Does she critise her own for coming here? No, who can blame anyone for wanting to better themselves? She doesnt like poland anymore - says there are no opportunities - doesnt like thier government - and feels more at home here. But she says - its common knowledge that over there you get about 10 pounds per child you have - you get 80 here - so why stay there?

My sister in law said its utter maddness and un sustainable. Is she racist? Is one of my closest friends also racsit - she is also polish - has been here for 32 years said the volume of people who have come here is far too much....

I think its really sad that true asslum seekers have become easy targets for the officals to send back because they can and then say " look at us - we ARE tough on immigration".

Its not about RACE its about VOLUME!!!!

I would open the doors wider - I don't see immigration as a problem

I find it ironic that those who benefited from it now want other not to have that opportunity

What you going to do when everyone that threatens to emigrate does

Who pays gordy?

glitter we are experiencing a new brain drain actually.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9659949/UK-facing-middle-class-brain-drain-as-professionals-seek-better-lives-abroad.html

I am sure you will say good riddance but I am concerned we are shooting ourselves in the foot here.

No I wouldn't say that.
Wouldn't that necessitate further immigration to replace them?

I'm fence-sitting on this one.

But, am getting some popcorn in to see Melanie get a good kicking on Moral Maze.
And am surprised to see cross-party support for UKIP.

I have just read on another thread that Rotherham have now split up the sibling group in order to re home them. If this is true, could someone tell me, how this decision is in the best interests of the children?
It gets worse and worse,

Yes lets export science graduates and import unqualified people, that sounds like a fine plan.

Who says all immigrants are unqualified?

Interestingly it says towards the bottom of that telegraph article that eu migrants don't tend to stay long in the uk.

Also curious to why ukip want to stay in the commonwealth when according to the same article non eu migrants, many from poorer countries do tend to stay longer.

Either way UKIP failed to win any seats at the last national election and only polled 3.1% of the votes. Wow! Such a strong contender to fight labour...

YANBU - the council have lost the plot over it. As has been pointed out endlessly supporting stronger immigration policy is not racism - even Labour agreed they were too lax in the past and have vowed to tighten things up next time. And many existing migrants to this country advocate limits on immigration even when it applies to their own native country. It has nothing to do with race. It isn't a view lots of people share but it isn't a dangeous one.

Being seen to do the right thing instead of actually doing the right thing by these children has split their family apart - from each other and from foster parents who everone agrees were doing a good job of looking after them. It is ass covering and keeping up appearances with very sad (and worrying) consequences for chidlren and for people who hold perfectly mainstream, if not entirely popular, beliefs.

tiggytape can you give me a link to the news report that verifies the children have been separated, as I can't find anything about that. Thanks

who pays for what? If EU immigrants are working then they do - with their TAXES

"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."

As a Londoner, just wanted to back this statement by MrsDevere. Anyone who really lives in London knows these things.

The women foster carer in the story says on BBC website;

"The children have now been placed with families who are white British, therefore how are these people going to meet the cultural needs of the children?" she added.

Use of the word families suggests that they have been split up. Probably also reported elsewhere as it seems to be in the public domain.

tiggy; don't worry it won't be long before someone is along to accuse you of racism

It is funny how this has morphed into a debate about immigration rather than the interests of the children involved.

There is no evidence that the children were removed because of the political party I am not a fan of UKIP but many Tory and Labour MPs agree in principal with a lot of their policies.
It is more likely the children were removed for another reason this was temporary care I would assume social workers want to reunite the children with one or both biological parents when they can so the fact the children were calling them mum and dad us very disturbing. This would be a Reason to remove them.
Of course the media and UKIP are jumping on it for their own publicity and motives and labour want to be seen to back then to scrape back votes.
The immigration debate is something the nation is divided on - and mn from this thread so an ideal way for the media to sell papers and get links and page views to their sites resulting in more money from advertising.
I really doubt this is an immigration or political issue but the media seeing links to this as a way to generate arguments and revenue.

Emsy - They were removed because the foster carers were UKIP members - that is the basis of the story - catch up!

So, the council hasn't confirmed it? It's only to be inferred from the foster career, who also didn't say directly.

Not sure that counts as a fact just yet then, does it?

Immigration is at the heart of the political interest in this story and for hours the ukip supporters on here have been going on about it (when not making ad hominem attacks on other posters).

Is it because I used data, facts, to underpin my argument. Oops, my bad.

it's always been about the interests of the children - social services, in possession of all the FACTS have decided it's best to remove them. They may well be wrong but that is for a full inquiry to establish - again, based on the full facts

Immigration is a factor since the children where from a non British background and the people fostering them belong to a party that advocates they not be here

Cat - go to the BBC website and listen to Joyce Thacker's (Rotherham Social services) rather sheepish defence of the decision. She says there pretty clearly that the kids were removed bcause the foster carers were UKIP members.

I'm not sure I understand your point. I saw that interview first thing this morning. I don't recall her saying the children were separated, if that's what you mean.

gordy - and the FACTS are that the foster carers are described by the council as 'exemplary' - except that they happen to be UKIP members.

Cat - just for the record, I am not a UKIP supporter - I just think that this decision is wrong.

25% of all GP's on the NHS are from immigrant backgrounds - hardly uneducated

londonone - actually it IS important, because this misunderstanding is fuelling a lot of the emotion in people's responses. It would be outrageous to remove children from their parents for voting UKIP. Whereas it is outrageous NOT to ensure children are placed in the best possible match for their short term care.

Read some of the responses on this thread - talking about how these fcs are 'bringing the children up', and rhetorically asking who was aware of their parents' political beliefs. Some posters seem to think that social services have torn apart a familial/parental bond because of political correctness. But that is NOT what we are talking about here. The difference is absolutely important.

yes they may be exemplary - but you don't place vulnerable children in the homes of people who don't want them in the country - surely that is common sense

and what Devora said

ElBurro, the use of the term 'foster parent' is not offensive and I didn't say it was.

It is incorrect, though. Foster carers are temporarily looking after someone else's child, and that gives them very different rights and responsibilities. Here's the difference: you have every right to raise your child as a Catholic. If something happened to you and your dh - say, you were in a bad traffic accident, and hospitalised for six weeks, and social services had to pay me to look after your kids for that time. i would have absolutely no right to try to convert them to Islam during that time and, if I tried, social services would be right to take the kids away. Which would be no comment on Islam, but would be a comment on the suitability of the match and on my sensitivity and skills as a foster carer.

Anybody who thinks this distinction isn't important is wilfully ignoring the real issues in this case.

I have spent a long time 'catching up' thanks!
I have not personally seen any evidence other than media spin and the foster carers stories which are over emotional for professional carers who would be expected to look after a number of children and give then back that implies the only reason was because of them joining UKIP.
If it really is the only reason for taking the children away then it is unreasonable. You only have to look at how divided Tory MPs are over gay marriage to see that to be a member of a party doesn't mean you 100% agree with everything they stand for.
Therefore to use this as the only reason to remove them is a prejudice in itself.
I just don't believe this is the only reason to take them away. The whole thing has been handled badly by the council but a lot of the story may be held back for confidentiality.
I am quite appalled by how people speak to each other on this thread I understand it's an emotional subject but it is a debate and from what I interpret most people are just concerned for the children's welfare as getting split up cant be a good option if it is true.

@Devora 100% agree with you well put

The couple involved have been described as disenfranchised ex Labour voters. As I said before, to me this is the real irony of all this - Labour has let good people like them down and driven them to fringe parties like UKIP precisely because of decisions like this.

I'm not going to contribute to this thread anymore - all I will say is that it is too easy and just plain lazy just to label someone as a racist because they support UKIP - as the social worker involved in this case did. It is exactly like Gordon Brown calling an old lady a bigot because she raised concerns to him about immigration. The important thing in all this should have been the interests of the kids involved - I feel that these have been sacrificed for political expediency. Rotherham social services have an appalling record on child protection and this is just one more shameful episode.

Thacker from Rotherham cc did say they held meetings with the carers over several days before deciding to remove the children, so I agree it wasn't a snap judgment.

I don't think Rotherham have handled this badly so far. It's UKIP and the carers making all the fuss and other politician a exploding the decision into a big media melee.

What does it mean to be opposed to the promotion of multiculturalism by public bodies any way, if this is the objectionable policy?

I know a man from Mauritius, he is of the opinion that if you come to the UK you learn English, try to integrate, but you stil maintain your traditions, etc. in your own home. It is not clear what needs to be 'promoted' here.

My own family is of mixed culture. We maintain links with our other country by visits, cooking food, meeting people of the same national background, watching movies and other media of our other country, and so on. None of this is promoted by public bodies, yet we still are able to do it without promotion, eg with the support of the embassy. Obviously certain cultures enjoy a greater status in Britain, with translation services, and other public services, but it is from our experience not necessary, and to me it seems that you can oppose this 'public promotion' while still engaging in private activities that might be described as multicultural (and we do).

Nobody drives anybody to UKIP. It's entirely a personal decision if you dislike foreigners and multiculturalism.

I think most people associate ukip with leaving the EU. hence their high vote in euro elections. I doubt most people have studied their manifesto, any more than many have read the Tory or labour manifestos.

but you don't place vulnerable children in the homes of people who don't want them in the country...

So now these foster carers don't want the children in the country?

WTAF.

Others on here have put it far more eloquently than I could but I back social services on this one 100%. I think the lady from Rotherham council on the bbc this morning came across really well in saying that, in THIS PARTICULAR CASE, for these PARTICULAR CHILDREN, this was the right thing to do. I watched thinking that surely this would be one of those cases where the tabloids jumped on something but when they heard the full story all the public would not understand what the issue was. Sadly, reading this thread ( and indeed hearing the view of my own DH!) , it seems I was wrong.

Do you think the children gave a damn over the foster carers political stance? Or do you think they just wanted to be safe. Them having the views of the UKIP doesn't make them bad people or abusers, they were obviously approved at some point!

Gove on the news talking about 'foster parents'.

He's just doing it to wind me up, LineRunner

It is particularly sad that the boy was taken first, and the girls a few days later. Unless someone can explain otherwise, I take that to mean they have been fostered out to 2 different families. I don't see how that has the interests of the children at heart

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9700001/Foster-parents-stigmatised-and-slandered-for-being-members-of-Ukip.html

The children have been split up. Rotherham has separated a sibling group for political ends - not because the foster carers weren't exemplary carers, merely because they belong to a political party. That is outrageous and deeply cruel to those children. What's more it is damaging the cultural needs of those children - as a sibling group they could talk to each other in their own language, now that isn't possible for the boy.

Appalling bigotry from a social services department that is already guilty of severe dereliction of duty towards vulnerable girls who were being gang-raped and abused. You would think, after failing to protect victims because their attackers were Asian (minutes record the council being more concerned about the ethnicity of the attackers than protecting children), the council would be very, very careful about throwing around accusations of racism.

I am not a UKIP voter or supporter, btw. Far from it. But I absolutely defend the right of anyone to belong to any political party they fancy without being penalised for it.

(Gove was adopted I believe - so when he talks about foster parents he may well be using the terminology that was around when he was growing up.)

But wasn't that placement actually never intended to be permanent?

I think you are missing the point. The children haven't been removed because this placement has come to an end or because the council have found a better placement - in fact, it's far worse, they have been separated from each other so are being actively harmed. The council admits these foster carers were great and the children were doing extremely well. It is purely bigotry on the part of the council. Which is ironic, given so many people are so quick to accuse UKIP members of bigotry. (Just in case there's any doubt, my own political views are decided NOT UKIP.)

joanbyers

Please don't confuse this thread with sensible real life experience

edam, the children are the ones who have had their lives turned upsidedown. It's tragic really.

Apparently Gove's adoptive family were Labour supporters.

So we are supporting multi-party stuff as long as it's not UKIP?

Wow,massive chips on shoulders coming to the surface here.

Given that it was never intended to be a long-term placement, it doesn't seem best to move them if it has meant that now the siblings are separated. Is there any suggestion that the children themselves said they were unhappy there?

I also don't like or support UKIP's views but I'm far from convinced that the council have made the right call here.

Is is offensive to use the term 'foster parents'? I can guess that 'foster carer' is now the standard term but is it actually considered bad form to use 'foster parent'?

Snazzy they are low down on the list here as far as I can see.

Basically if the children are returned it matters not in some ways, the message has been sent loud and clear to all other foster parents.

I really hate this stuff.

Try this campers. order-order.com/2012/11/24/progressive-culture-war-caused-rotheram-ukip-child-catcher/

I work with SN children, many of whom are in care. By definition, these children are always difficult to deal with: even babes-in-arms instinctively miss their mothers; older ones are often consciously or subconsciously difficult ot rebellious.

The real heroes of the care system are that small group of foster-carers who are able to provide "emergency foster care": to take in children, frequently groups of siblings who have often previously lived violently dysfunctional lives, at zero hours notice and to create from scratch (or well below scratch) a well structured loving & caring environment - that takes dedication!

The Rotherham couple were just those foster carers, able to take a group of siblings on emergency placement and provide them with a suitable environment whilst the council found a well-meaning but less experienced or less capable family to take on their long-term care. Then they find themselves banned from caring for those children simply because they have a different view about the political economy of the EU than the bureaucrats of their local council, who would probably call the police if they saw such children in their street, let alone in their homes ...

It has been a long time since a newspaper story actually made me angry; this one has made me homicidal. Just as well I don't live near Rotherham...

babytrasher xx I understand your post.

Having read as much, and listened to as many people involved, as I can about this during the day (stuck at home getting over an illness) I believe Rotherham social services made a wrong call on this, especially as they have separated the children.

If these children are in foster care, they may well need carers who can promote contact with their family - I don't know the parents' background, because they have been reported to be immigrants but to have EU citizenship - don't know whether or not that means they're white.

Lots of foster placements are quite short term and not continuedf for all kinds of reasons. If it was an emergency placement there may well be better and more appropriate foster placements with other families.

The foster family confirmed the children are now with 2 new families but haven’t emphasised how they have been split. The news reports confirmed the boy was taken first and the girls stayed for a few extra days - hence they are with families (plural) so therefore have been split up. This isn’t totally surprising – placing a sibling group larger than 2 is very difficult.

It would be genuinely impossible to match carers to children 100%. It is important however that the children are well cared for and their beliefs respected 100% which is why non religious carers would attend church if required or meat eating ones would cook veggie if required etc. Foster parents are not there to make any judgements about lifestyle – they raise the child with love and are guided by SS and the wishes of the birth family as well as the interests of the child.
If the foster carers hold views on immigration or gay marriage or politics or any other contentious issue, they should never let this influence their care of the children (and it has never been suggested that they have in this case - the council says there is no concern over the care they). They would not be approved if these views were so strong that the council felt they could compromise caring for a child but of course most people belonging to any political party don’t have political convictions that dominate their lives – they merely prefer one policy to another. It doesn’t determine who they are as a person or have any bearing on how they treat other people.
If you only want politically neutral, opinion neutral, religious neutral, sexuality neutral people to care for children then the short supply of good carers will become a lot shorter. It doesn't matter what they think about border controls or EU membership - it matters how they treat the little ones entrusted to them and the council themselves say they had no concerns on that score yet this has still happened.

I may be wrong but wasn't it Rotherham who, a few weeks ago, demoted a Housing Manager to Rent Collector when he tweeted that he was against gay marriage because he was a Christian? What would they have done if he'd been anti because he was a Muslim, I wonder..

Burnt him at the stake no doubt

Badger - I think actually it was a different area, though not a million miles away. Some part of Manchester. Another stupid decision though. He hadn't tweeted in a professional capacity and they decided to demote him without any kind of disciplinary procedure. I don't personally agree with his views but he was treated outrageously.

I saw the Head of Social Services on the news yesterday, there were no concerns about the couples care of the children, they were encouraging the children to use their native language and promoting their culture.

They were removed solely because of the foster carers political leaning.

Its absolutely appalling and even more so if the children have been separated.

Excellent post tiggytape

"If you only want politically neutral, opinion neutral, religious neutral, sexuality neutral people to care for children then the short supply of good carers will become a lot shorter. It doesn't matter what they think about border controls or EU membership - it matters how they treat the little ones entrusted to them and the council themselves say they had no concerns on that score yet this has still happened."

Three children were fostered together and now they aren't - how sad is that?

What has happened in Rotherham is disgraceful and actually imo also discriminatory. What would happen in reverse if a member of the public said they wouldn't be treated by a black nurse or deal with a very left wing social worker? These sorts of things can't happen one way and not the other and the fact they do is what I believe is making certain sectors of society increasingly fundamentalist and firing others to become increasingly Xenophobic.

FWIW DH and I are white, professional, middle class, wealthy, conservative with a small and large c (DH has been a PPC), practicing Christians. We both appreciate the rich tapestry that forms the UK but also both believe that when people settle in any country they should integrate, respect the cultural norms of the society they settle in and work and contribute economically to that society. I have no doubt whatsover that social services would turn us down if we applied to be foster carers. We would undoubtedly care lovingly and well for any children but we would expect observation of and respect for ours and their cultures to be mutual; ultimately children in the UK need to be brought up to be flexible enough and open enough to deal with many many situations.

Children who are fostered are in desperate situations; in such situations surely the most important thing is love, care, cleanliness and safety - from much of what one reads and sees of social workers, I am not sure they are the best people to determine what is and isn't appropriate - bearing in mind the appalling conditions they have believed it has been appropriate to leave children in over the years.

Finally in responses to the immigration/UKIP comments my father, grandfather (and family) and one set of great great grandparents entered the UK as refugees - the difference between then and now of course was that there was no benefit system so they came for freedom from persecution for the first two and famine for the latter). They also came to work and to put something back into the country that allowed them life (my father and a family of 7 would have been executed otherwise) and were glad to do so and glad and proud of the new lives they could build.

marriedinwhite - many refugees and non refugee immigrants still do as your family did, come here and work very hard in the new country. And refugees and immigrants also faced plenty of hostility and racism during the war, eg Jewish men who'd fled fascism were interned as enemy aliens during WWII. And those were the ones who got in, many of those who died during the Holocaust had tried to go to other countries but fell foul of quotas (or had fled Germany only to end up in another country which fell under Nazi rule, Anne Frank's family for just one example).

As for the rest of the conversation, I'm amazed by how little information people feel equipped to judge the social workers' decisions on - a few rightwing newspapers publish an article based on a very small amount of fact and a lot of very politically biassed spin and everyone is ready to accept the Daily Mail type version of the story whole.

Agree elk.

The ss apparently spoke to the foster careers over several days before making this decision. I think we have very little information about the facts of this case.

elkie, many of us have seen the head of children's services on the news and are judging her by her own words. Don't try to brush off anyone who disagrees with you by claiming they are ill-informed. It seems you haven't seen what the head of children's services said, so you are the one commenting without sufficient information - unless you did see her and have completely mis-judged the situation.

Elkiedee one takes an egg, inserts a needle at the thin end, and sucks. I really don't need you to tell me what happened to Jewish people in WW2.

Many is not good enough - all people who come to this country should be expected to work very hard until they have made enough of a contribution to be eligible for benefits. Nobody coming into this country should automatically have the right to claim.

look here before you jump to the conclusion that everyone who condemns this decision is ignorant.

And have a think about what it means to be a little child separated from your siblings, especially when you have already been separated from your parents, and what it means to be separated from your carers having already been separated from those parents. Have some compassion.

Btw, when I searched for the head of children's services' comments, one of the results that popped up was an appeal from Rotherham for foster parents saying 'Fostering in Rotherham; we need foster parents urgently'. So they are desperately short of foster parents, but prepared to reject good foster parents already on their books for political reasons.

Logically if foster families belonging to UKIP cannot host children we should confiscate the children of ALL children of UKIP members and voters (more than a million??).Take them too from anyone voting BNP.....
Why stop there? Ask these politically correct Labour fanatics if they believe the Tories are a racist party and most would reply "YES" So take away all the Tory children and indoctrinate them with good (national?) Socialist doctrine...
Hitler and Stalin would both have been proud of Rotheram Council !

elkidee - most people are shocked because the council confirmed (yesterday on BBC Breakfast - I'm not sure of that programme's right wing credentials) that the UKIP membership was the only reason for taking the children away.

It isn't just people here condemning the situation - all major political parties have condemned it and said membership of a mainstream political party should not stop people fostering and adopting.

The council were concerned that UKIP membership meant the carers could not provide for the children's cultural needs. They said they had no concerns whatsoever about the quality of care they had been given.
That's from the horse's mouth (well Joyce Thacker's anyway) and doesn't leave any doubt. You are implying there may be more to this but the council admit there is not and that is why people are a bit stunned - that membership to an unpopular but still mainstream party could be used to prove unsuitableness to care for children.

I am not sure what I thin about this at all. However the head of Children's Services made it very clear on BBC Breakfast News that they decision was based on UKIP's policies on multiculturalism.
She said that the couple could not meet the needs of the children while being members of UKIP. She also went on to say that there were no concerns about any other aspects of care.
So it doesn't seem to be media spin.

Oh sorry, x post with many.

I think we've all actually heard plenty from the horse's mouth, so to speak aka the head of children's services
We've heard there were no problems with the care that the foster carers were providing. So this is not one of those cases where extra information is being witheld. There were no problems with the care they were providing
We've heard that the problem was the membership of ukip and some of the policies on the ukip manifesto
We've heard that the children are with new families, plural

Personally I don't see what there is to defend. A sibling group, split up to suit political expediency. It is a disgrace.

exactly forcedadoption:

If Tories are the nasty party who have no sympathy with the plight of the poor in this country, how can any Conservative voter possibly foster or adopt children who come from families where 3 or 4 generations may never have worked or families who work in poorly paid jobs and live on the brink of destitution? They'd have no proper empathy with the child's birth and class heritage and be inherently prejudiced against them- so no Tory carers then.

If Christianity and Islam teaches no sex before marriage, how could CofE or Muslim families possibly look after children born in 'sinful' circumstances to unmarried mothers?! So they'd have to be banned because they couldn't provide the support for the children's natural background and their religious beliefs may make them believe the child shouldn't be here in the first place. So rule those out too.

And what about Green voters? Well presumably some believe that over population of the planet contributes to its destruction which is also at odds with families who have more children than they can cope with. So they can't possibly adopt or foster either because they are naturally prejudiced against people who over burden the earth's resources............

I reckon if you tried hard enough it would be possible to rule out everyone who had ever expressed a religious, political, sexual or moral preference as being totally unsuited to looking after children at all!!

No one is saying that UKIP supporters cannot be good foster carers.

In this particular situation the carers strong beliefs about immigration and multiculturalism meant they were not a good match for these (immigrant) children.

I haven't been able to read the whole thread, but thought I'd throw this out there incase no one else has.

The reason the council sought legal advice to remove the children from temporary emergency foster care is because they were previously warned by a court for not meeting the children's cultural needs.

It is perfectly possible that they removed the children from this temporary placement a little early, not because the social workers felt that the children were in being badly cared for or that the foster carers wouldn't try to support their cultural and ethnic needs, but because they had to make sure they were acting and seen to be acting in the best interests of the children, perhaps in respect of any legal challenge to their custody of the children.

I have no idea why these children are in care. But it is possible that their biological family is unhappy about their children being in care, and might seize upon any possibility of their children's needs not being supported to argue that the children ought to be returned to their care. Whether that is in their best interest or not. (I don't know)

Obviously this is a tricky situation legally but it is possible and might explain why the council acted the way it has. The children were not removed for political reasons, they were removed so that the council could show that they took the children's needs seriously. It may well be that those foster parents would have met the children's cultural needs, but if it was legally under any doubt the council had to move them. They sought legal advice and did it.

I don't really think this is about whether UKIP members can be good foster carers, even for immigrant children. I think its about whether the stated aims of UKIP and the foster parents membership could cast doubt over whether the council were taking care of all the children's needs (even if they were) and risk the council losing legal custody over a technicality.

My gut reaction to the headline was that it was wrong to remove the children for those reasons. But when I heard the woman who spoke on BBC breakfast, I began to suspect that it was a much more complicated situation, and her confidence that they had done the right thing (despite the outcry) and them taking legal advice that said the same made me think of this scenario. Particuarly because the woman showed no sign of predjuidice against these foster carers or their political beliefs.

If UKIP doesn't like the idea that their stance on multiculturalism and immigration might mean that someone could challenge the placement of children of immigrants with their members then maybe they need to look again at their policies.

Social services need to get their priorities in place.

They turn a blind eye to countless vulnerable children being systematically abused by paedophiles in Rotherham.

Yet they swoop in to act when they deem foster parents' political views to be not quite PC.

Unreal.

I agree with ItsAllGoingToBeFine - everyone in my estate including all my immigrant neighbours had UKIP leaflets put through their door twice recently. (local election - hope i'm not outing myself here).

The UKIP leaflet states*: ''*What UKIP will do for you by voting for me... Control immigration that threatens our public services''

I was disgusted so i kept the leaflet to warn others who don't see the UKIP's agenda.

I gather from that leaflet that UKIP supporters including the foster parents (a public service) see the immigrant foster children as ''threatening our public services''.

That is why the UKIP supporters are unsuitable foster parents to immigrant children.

My heart goes out to these children who have been split up. So it's better to wrench them away from the family they have got to know and split them up, just so long as they're with a family who support a different political party? That's what matters?

Soviet-style social engineering. Pretty scary.

*spirited wolf* I see what you are saying in a very logical way but that doesn't make what has been done right and turned on its head if my children were removed and placed with a couple who were atheists and members of the SWP, I'm quite sure that if I argued on a technicality about the fact that in the circumstances I didn't believe my family's cultural beliefs were being upheld then I would be branded as discriminatory.

As I said above discrimination works both ways and the sooner we as a society acknowledge this the better.

SpritedWolf's comment

If UKIP doesn't like the idea that their stance on multiculturalism and immigration might mean that someone could challenge the placement of children of immigrants with their members then maybe they need to look again at their policies

echoes what I was saying yesterday.

And the leaflet to which latara refers is also indicative of UKIP's weird naivety when it comes to how their 'bolt-on' policies will be seen in the Real World of family courts, schools and statutory serviecs.

Rotherham council is saying UKIP members can't be foster carers - while admitting this couple are good foster carers. The head of social services is clearly incapable of thinking logically, as well as horribly bigoted.

Latara - you say their leaflet says "control immigration". It does not, I assume, say "stop immigration" or you would have said so.

Forgive me, but, as a writer, those two words are VERY different.

It really is taking the argument to absurd extremes to claim that wanting to limit immigration makes you racist or unable to care for children whose parents come from abroad. Each of our main political parties says they want to control immigration. So by that argument, you'd have to disallow everyone who is a member of a political party - except possibly the Greens, I have no idea what their stance is on immigration.

Yet Rotherham is appealing for foster parents because they are desperately short of them!

Best interests of the child my arse, it's a very funny way to interpret best interests to split up a sibling group and remove them from what are acknowledge to be excellent foster carers. Separating siblings is not 'meeting their needs' in any way, shape or form. Social services should stop going way over their brief - especially they have already been exposed as a department that refused to tackle abuse where the perpetrators happened to be Asian.

If DH and I fostered this is what our views are:

Working is important
God is important
Education is important
Drugs are illegal
All cultures should be respected
You can't take out more than you are prepared to put in
Every act has a consequence good or bad
Manners are important
Love is important
Being nice is important
Doing your best is important
Tolerance is important
Obeying rules is important
Cleanliness is imortant
Order is important
Having goals is important
The police are generally helpful
Breaking the law is wrong
Sport, music and other interests are important

We are Conservative. We are White. We are middle class. We are educated. We are not especially PC. We both work (although I would go part-time if we did foster which we have no intention of doing). We have two lovely teenagers.

Somehow I doubt that social services would approve us.

voice of unreason

The ukip manifesto says they want to " freeze permanent immigration for five years" and "end open door immigration"

I think that's pretty clear. How much closer to stop does it need to be?

marriedinwhite Of course you would be approved.

Why haven't any parallels been drawn between the Derby couple who were prevented from fostering because of their homophobic, perceived homophobic 'Christian values' and this case. I hate the narrowness of this debate!

Just like most other EEC members then. Funny how a Slovakian au-pair of ours had to leave Germany after two years but could stay here indefinitely and asked DH and I to write her a fraudulent letter saying she worked less than 15 hour pw (she was contracted for 25) so she could claim and then got arsy when we said no way.

By the way, who took the story of the fostered children in Rotherham to the media?

Marriedinwhite's post shows quite how disastrous this policy is - because it will discourage potential foster carers when we have a massive shortage of them. Quite apart from the appalling effect on these poor children.

People can slag off UKIP all they like - wouldn't be my choice of party either - but they are perfectly legal political party. Their policies are irrelevant just as Tory policies on immigration are irrelevant, or Labour or Lib Dems. All mainstream parties support a cap on immigration.

'a few rightwing newspapers publish an article'

Including those well-known fascist rags, The Guardian and The Independent.

I've never bought the Independent since it took advertising from Dads For Convenience which lifted MN posts out of context and suggested that MN as a whole thought that all men and boys were evil sexual predators. Actually.

edam

Married in white's post shows nothing because he/she hasn't been denied the opportunity to foster.

There is nothing in the post that suggests she/he would be refused either.

The couple in question haven't been banned from fostering either.

There is a quite considerable level of hysteria and mid-information being posted from some I quarters here. None of which, I think, helps rational debate.

I also agree with a poster a few pages back who suggested the legal arguments regarding this case may be quite com

Sorry!

... May be unite complex and that it has been highlighted that legal advice led to the removal of the children.

I hope that Rotherham cc's investigation and outcome will allow them to respond with more detail on monday

why is the UKIP policy so bad anyway. I think it makes sense. I live in Greater London and see the result of the open door policy since 1997. Doesn't make people racist to support this idea. Alot of original immigrants are fed up with the system too.

There may be more to this story but if the people are kind and have an exemplary record of fostering then let them get on with. Why are people being indoctrinated with the 'council knows best mantra' all the time. I don't think they do.

It's up to the family court judge.

The family court judge grants the care order, or otherwise.

I think people who take drugs and drink to excess are a drain on our resources, it doesnt mean I dont think that their children need help.

It is entirely possible to want to control immigration (my mother is a first generation migrant) while at the same time, not wanting the children of immigrants to suffer and wanting to help them have a good life.

This is a disgusting and bigotted decision, I couldn't believe what I was listening to on (the BBC NEWS) the news last night - these children have been removed from a home where the standard of the care is not in question, because of the foster carers political preferences, absolutely appalling.

On the BBC News from the mouth of the head of Social Services.

alemci

What's wrong with the ukip position is that it is against eu law and as we are members of the eu, that makes it an untenable position and if enforced currently, it would also be illegal.

Mystery is it against the free movement of EU members? I don't really know so I am not being snidey.

Alot of the voters want to leave the EU anyway so it is actually taking notice of the electorate which the other parties don't seem to at times. Is it so wrong to want to change laws anyway?

It cannot be against eu law when Germany and Belgium both have set limits in relation to the movement of other eu members. There cannot be on law for the UK in Europe and a different law for other eu members.

The first step to being a foster carer is picking up the phone. If you already think you won't be suitable because you are not left-wing pc enough, after seeing this case on TV, then yes, of course it will be deterring future foster carers. The posters on here who don't think they will be suitable are a prime example of this

Controlling immigration is a policy of our current government, because amongst other reasons, they argue it puts too much strain on public services. It is hardly a novel idea of UKIPs

The first step to being a foster carer is picking up the phone. If you already think you won't be suitable because you are not left-wing pc enough, after seeing this case on TV, then yes, of course it will be deterring future foster carers. The posters on here who don't think they will be suitable are a prime example of this

Controlling immigration is a policy of our current government, because amongst other reasons, they argue it puts too much strain on public services. It is hardly a novel idea of UKIPs

Yes, that's it.

If it was a straight proposal to leave the eu that would be one thing, as you say offering the electorate choice, but ukip are described as "closet racists" by Cameron, so what motivates their policy may be more sinister.

I'm wondering where this ends. If the couple can't foster because they belong to a political party which Rotherham council deems "racist", then does Rotherham Council apply the same standards to religious foster parents, for example, a very religious Muslim couple fostering a baby born to a lesbian mother or fostering a gay teenager? Surely they would have to remove the child in both cases as the couples religious beliefs would be incompatible with the child's welfare? Or what about a couple who are members of the Socialist Workers Party fostering a child whose parents were Conservative voters/had conservative beliefs? Would Rotherham Council be as quick to remove them?

It's no coincidence that the decision was taken by the same bunch of right-on fuckwits who turned a blind eye to te sexual abuse of teenage girls in care for fear of being seen as racist.

The common theme is a fear of being seen to discriminate, leading to a complete lack of judgement.

I think Cameron is deliberately calling UKIP racist because he knows they are taking away a lot of Conservative voters (and because he reneged on his commitment to offer a referendum on Europe which is at the forefront of the UKIP manifesto). He is trying to scare Conservative voters who are thinking of voting for UKIP away from them with the whole "if you don't embrace multiculturalism you must be a racist" diatribe and surely there is nothing worse than being called a "racist" in the politically correct UK.

I haven't read all the other posts so sorry if I'm repeating someone else.

These are my thoughts.

Just because you agree with stopping immigration, I don't believe that makes you racist (I actually believe this is a fact, it not just my opinion. Very few people hold the view that they believe immigration should be outlawed, but only for black people or people of Asian decent. They believe it should be stopped full stop. I can't see how that is racist).

Very few people believe with 100% of the platform of any political party, even if they are paid up members.

I think this is potentially dangerous... You can adopt, but only if you believe to political party x, y or z. Like it or not, UKIP is considered a mainstream political party, not like the BNP.

I don't believe in Father Christmas. It doesn't mean I won't convince my children to believe in him while they're young. Not sure that it follows that you can't promote a belief in something even if you don't fully believe in it yourself.

Most of all I believe that what the press knows/is reporting is only a fraction of the full story and yet people will jump to form an opinion whether in possession of all the facts or not. Just like the Marines who were recently arrested... People running around calling for them to be freed while knowing c0ck all about what actually happened.

Sometimes people should just shush rather than rush so quickly to get offended on behalf of other people.

God, I wish this site had an edit function... Foster, not adopt.

He made that comment in 2006 and has since softened his public view on this somewhat. What has changed between then and now is UKIP have gained wider support from both traditional working class and middle class voters who might otherwise have voted Labour or Tory. They don't have wide appeal but they do appeal to some leftwing and rightwing concerns on this issue.

Cameron now says that not all UKIP supporters are racists and, since 2006, both Labour and Conservative have themselves been much harsher about immigration policy - making it plain that being pro capping immigration isn't the same as being a racist. It has proved a distinction that has been hard for politicians to grasp - the whole Brown debacle in the last election where anyone talking about immigration was declared a bigot got the subject publicised and a more general agreement came about that a person can support immigration controls without being a racist.

Even I don't trust what Cameron says *mystery cat* and he has a vested interest in keeping his supporters from voting UKIP instead of for a party that promised to hold a referendum on Europe.

Orwellian,

That may be true but ukip do have multiple connections with the far right (VPN, national front etc.) in their members, candidates and activities in the eu.

They are a threat to far right conservatives, but Cameron is correct to call them closet racists.

Isn't the leader of UKIP married to a German lady? How does that work then?

Mystery - just because Cameron says UKIP are closet racists (and please link to where he has said that - not that I disbelieve you but I'd like to see it ) doesn't make it so.

I don't vote UKIP, btw. And I know people from all parties and none who think there should be a controlled immigration and no longer an open door. Damn. I seem to have a lot of friends who must, therefore, be racist.

So when did cameron say that then, cos at the moment, it looks like his party are ordering a separate enquiry into the whole debacle and are outraged. No talk of 'closet racists' there
if that really is a quote from 2006, how is it relevant at all?
Do we think rotherham social services bases its opinions on the views of opposition mp's from the last decade?

Vpn! Bnp I meant!

So are the SNP closet racists as well then Mystery?
Scotland currently belongs to a formal political and economic union with 3 other countries but the SNP seek to break this union and withdraw Scotland from it. They believe the union is bad for them, holding them back and doesn't reflect the views of Scottish people on major issues. Rather like UKIP's stance on being in the EU in fact. Are Scottish people who vote SNP unfit carers because of their nationalist leanings? How ridiculous!

Plus it's a tricky line to walk between making Tory supporters who have switched to UKip feel worried that they've joined a racist party, or insulted that they've been called racists and even more determined not to vote Tory again. Cameron will want to keep the door open to woo them back, not alienate them altogether.

I am actually pretty left wing by most people's standards and I am still not convinced that the right call has been made here for those children. Surely it would have been best to leave them where they were for now and put all efforts into finding them a long term placement that suited their heritage, rather than upset them further by imposing another placement and separating them to boot?

Farage set up UKIP to argue for leaving the EU. Even if we did leave, we would still be members of the Council of Europe (and bound by the European Court of Human Rights), n'est pas?

I think all Councils' social services departments are trying to do what the Family Courts expect them to do. Because that's where the decisions on care are suggested, challenged and made - in the courts.

It's relevant because it's his view.

It's certainly a view that a lawyer would be able to bring up in court.

Well as I can't be arsed googling, I shall take tiggytapes word as gospel
So, in the last decade, cameron called another opposition party 'closet racists'. Have you ever listened to what political parties call each other all the time? Funnily enough, they quite often slag each other off. It's not even necessarily what they actually believe because often politics involves lying.
Since then, he's retracted and said not all ukip members are closet racists. Good for him. It would be a bit 'pot kettle' to do otherwise, his own supporters are sometimes more out and out racist than closet

Now, more to the point, he is calling for an investigation into this debacle, as are Labour. So in essence, no major political parties support the decision of rotherham social services.

TheMysteryCat - Yes and Labour and Respect political parties both have members and supporters who have expressed virulent antiSemitism (a form of racism). But I am sure Rotherham would have no problem with parents who belonged to either of these parties.

Hilarious
I'm so surprised you didn't include the whole quote, themysterycat
'Fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists'

Sound well-reasoned argument, I call that

I've double checked and it is correct - it was April 2006 on LCB radio and Cameron said:
"Ukip is sort of a bunch of ... fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists mostly,"

He has since said they aren't all closet racists.
But the point is, it isn't just UKIP who are outraged or worried over this current incident. Labour has sought to distance themselves from it and made it plain that being a member of UKIP should not barr anyone from adopting or fostering children. All political parties agree that being a member of a mainstream party does not make someone unsuitable to foster.
It is of course possible to be a Tory racist or a Labour racist or a Green Party racist and not be suitable to foster, but that's because you are a racist not because you support any particular political party.

SpiritedWolf <Sage nod>

Can and/or will this matter now be passed to a family court to determine the issues.
It seems the most sensible option to me.

Yes, the family court will have to agree (or will already have agreed) the new placement(s).

Believing that future immigration should be controlled does not mean thinking negatively in any way of immigrants who are already in the country.

If you think it does, that is your thought, from your head. It doesn't mean another person thinks so.

It was a conservative councillor on the news defending the decision made. Why is this being seen as a labour issue? Personally given UKIP's immigration policy, I think it was the right call - they are probably fantastic foster parents, but they weren't right for these children. Would we allow someone who had strong homophobic opinions foster a gay teenager?

Othehugemanatee - that was actually Rochdale in the child grooming case, not Rotherham - different county.

Being a member of UKIP doesn't mean you have strong opinions on anything offensive at all. Just as some Scottish people want to leave the union of the United Kingdon, some UKIP members want to leave the union of the EU (and for pretty much the same reasons i.e. believe it is better for their own nation to go it alone). That isn't the same as being a homophobic or a racist. It isn't a popular view but it isn't morally wrong either.

Many faiths teach that sex outside of marriage is wrong yet couples aren't banned from fostering children born outside of marriage.
People can hold a political view or a strong moral / religious view without this having any bearing at all on how they treat anyone else in the world let alone innocent children.

Of course no outwardly homophobic person or racist person would be fit to foster any child whether that child was gay or straight, white British or other heritage. Being openly intolerant and hating other people in society makes you unfit to foster anyone at all but holding mainstream political or religious beliefs that do not influence how you act does not.

I think disagreeing with multiculturism does not, per se, make you a racist. (Though I do think being a racist probably means you disagree with multiculturism).

I also do not think people are necessarily using the same definitions of 'Multiculturalism'. This BBC article makes it clear that there are a multitude of definitions out there, all made to fit particular agenda.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12381027

www.channel4.com/media/c4-news/images/voting-to-violence%20%287%29.pdf

We then asked the same question, only alternating preparing for conflict to engaging in armed conflict. Overall, 40 per cent of the BNP supporters in our sample considered armed conflict as justifiable on similar lines, compared to 21 per cent of UKIP supporters. We then asked respondents whether violence may be needed in the future to protect their group from threats: 64 per cent of BNP followers in our sample agreed with this suggestion, whereas only 34 per cent of UKIP supporters backed this idea.

I agree that 'multiculturalism' on this thread seem to be equated with the ability to marry someone of another race, go out for a nice Moroccan meal and have friends from different countries and for racism to be unacceptable and strongly discourage. All these things are of course desirable and are not what objectors to multiculturalism object to.

UKIP policy specifically refers to 'the doctrine of multiculturalism' that should not be publicly funded. That is actually confusing for everybody, by the looks of it.

Halloween - that paper is obviously written with a particular conclusion in mind. Which is fine. A straw poll of Tory and Labour voters is just as likely to throw up some pretty extreme views on immigration (which is why the Conservative and Labour parties both talk tough now on immigration since so many of their supporters support a cap).

After Labour lost the last election and people started to realise what a political issue immigration had become, pollster YouGov surveyed Labour voters too and found: 78 per cent of those who had voted for Tony Blair in 1997 but abandoned the party by 2010 support a policy of zero net immigration.

More than two-thirds of voters who stuck with Labour want the same.

The majority of Labour voters are 'anti immigration' too! Lots of people are in fact and most of them do not belong to rightwing parties or vote rightwing at all. It is a financial issue to most people not a race one.

Are you pissed, halloweennamechange? Started early on a saturday night?

Rotherham has indeed been the centre of a long-running child grooming scandal, as a quick google showed me. Other places such as rochdale have as well of course

If it isn't a race issue and just a current immigration issue than why aren't their more people of color in their parties? It should pretty much reflect the face of Britain shouldn't it? Not every person of African or Asian decent is an immigrant? Why aren't they rushing in their masses to join UKIP? What is it about UKIP that makes them feel unwelcome?

I should clarify: most Labour voters polled are anti more people coming into this country than going out (they support zero net immigration) and most analysts believe that natural Labour voters are more likely to support tighter immigration controls than natural Tory supporters.

I don't think this means most Labour voters are violent, racist thugs though. Most people are motivated on this issue by concerns of money and public service provision not racial prejudice.

Thinking UKIP is a racist party makes me pissed? I guess thinking Tories are predominately well off and not particularly concerned with the well beingn of the working class and single mother must make me on drugs as well right? WTF are you about.

Who on earth says 'people of color' anymore???!! Let alone people who claim they are defending us all from racist thugs!! It is quite rightly considered a racist term in itself!

But as to why UKIP isn't popular generally (they have had black candidates though) - well that is more to do with them being a one trick pony in that they rather boringly bang on about taking us out of Europe and not much else.

Unless your politics revolve around that one issue, you'd vote for a party that satisfies your stance immigration but also has sane policies on other stuff too.

A bit like why lots more people don't vote Green even though lots of people are environmentally aware. They want Green policies but want a party with more to say on the other issues as well. Hence we have two main parties who try to be all things to all people.

Um Americans do tiggy. And it isnt racist. Ta.

Colo(u)red people is racist, not people of color. For the record.

HalloweenNameChange

How much credence are you willing to give to a survey conducted by a left wing organisation that admits in its opening paragraphs:

'^Any conclusions that are drawn or interpreted should be treated with caution^'

and that:

'^our sample has not been controlled for any demographic profile, and may contain bias^'

If you were a foster parent you wouldn't be allowed to use that term. Nor mixed race (it is dual heritage)

I was wondering today whether social services would think I wasn't meeting the cultural needs of my 3 dc (don't want to disclose my ethnic background as don't want to out myself) We have for the past week only had british food and my dc only know the basics of my mother tongue as dh is English and I immigrated to UK when I was 4 yrs old. We only have a few friends with the same ethnicity as us and we all speak English when we do meet up. I take them to see my parents every 3 months and as my parents speak poor english, communication btw dc and dp is quite limited. Ds1 pointed out to me the main interaction they have with my culture are the frequent visits to our favourite restaurant. We celebrate the main festivals from my country but British culture is the main influence in their lives and as their lives are here, IMO that is how it should be.

That's fine tiggy, I am not a British foster parent though and people of color does not mean dual heritage although it can include dual heritage of course.

Person of color (plural: people of color; persons of color) is a term used primarily in the United States to describe any person who is not white. The term is meant to be inclusive among non-white groups, emphasizing common experiences of racism. People of color was introduced as a preferable replacement to both non-white and minority, which are also inclusive, because it frames the subject positively; non-white defines people in terms of what they are not (white), and minority frequently carries a subordinate connotation.
Anyway, would you mind apologizing for calling me a racist?

Yes I apologise.

thank you

'Ignorant violent racist thugs are people too! How dare you vilotate their right to make money off the state'

Sorry, my mistake, sounded like the ramblings of a pissed person, but apparently not. So in this libel of the foster couple, are you basing it purely on the newspaper article, or just the fact that they are members of Ukip? Nice, either way

I think politicians don't want voters to have sensible discussions/ debate on immigration because they have no idea what to do re: controlling it hence its easier to label people who want to discuss it publicly a racist or bigot ,aka Gordon Brown.

The hope is that the panel process weeds out people who are unsuitable to care for children based on what they believe and how they behave not how they vote. The two things just aren't the same when you are talking about mainstream parties.

Just as you can get racist Tory and Labour voters, so some UKIP members will only be concerned with the EU membership issue which isn't a race issue at all. It is a nationalist issue - like the SNP calling for Scottish independence isn't being racist.

Of course there will be people in UKIP (as in any party) who hold pretty objectionable views on race and equality in general. Those people should be vetted and weeded out. Whether they vote UKIP, Labour, Green or Tory - if they hold views that compromise their ability to care for all children of all backgrounds and races, they should not be in that role.

I think the problem is trying to say that you can tell what a person thinks about everyone else in the world from one political (or religious or social) affiliation that they hold.