foster children removed for being UKIP members

(103 Posts)
EdgarAllanPond Sat 24-Nov-12 09:21:25

story here

it seems there were no other reasons. placement otherwise working well.

EdgarAllanPond Sat 24-Nov-12 09:46:09

no takers? they're already talking about it on Netmums

though my husband thinks this is because they aren't hungover.

this is one rare moment where i actually give some credence to something said by Nigel Farrage, ie that it spoke more of bias on the part of social services than on the part of the foster parents.

ilikefestivitea Sat 24-Nov-12 09:47:53

I would be willing to.bet there is alot more to.this story. As all these stories, the couple can say whatever they like. SS can't show.all their information due to confidentiallity.

raininginbaltimore Sat 24-Nov-12 09:49:06

Seems strange. I teach children whose foster caters leaflet for the bnp. Not saying that is right, just that surely they are more extreme than Ukip.

Catsmamma Sat 24-Nov-12 09:52:18

it just seems odd that these people are allowed to continue being foster carers if they are so unsuitable.

I'd lay money on a massive over reaction by the social services tbh.

Load of shite, there will be other reasons. I could sort of understand if it was the BNP but Ukip are too legitimate a party for that to be the reason.

There's a sentence about UKIP I never thought I'd write grin

bottersnike Sat 24-Nov-12 09:55:14

I was just about to link to this story, you got there first!
It does raise the question of whether social services should check the political views of potential foster carers.
It also, unfortunately, gives the impression that SS were more concerned about the "cultural matching" (horrible phrase) of the children and foster parents than the stability of the placement and happiness of the children.
I can understand that if there were concerns about the long-term success of the placement given justifiable, proven facts about the foster parents' views, political or otherwise, it might be right to remove the children. I'm just not sure that that was the case here.
As it is front-page news, I'm sure more will be revealed over the next few days. Let's hope it isn't another example of an ill thought-out, knee-jerk reaction from social services.

InNeedOfBrandy Sat 24-Nov-12 09:57:45

It's not just because of what party they belong to its to do with the party hold extreme views and are not pro multi culture and the foster dc are not white so ss feel they shouldn't be placed with people that are pro white. Makes sense actually.

noddyholder Sat 24-Nov-12 09:58:39

I thought it was becasue of the ethnicity of the children and their UKIP status

InNeedOfBrandy Sat 24-Nov-12 10:02:25

Could you imagine being sent to live with a family that didn't like white people and subtly made it clear. It would be awful for the dc to live like that. I'm glad ss have moved them.

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

Me too I think its progress tbh

EdgarAllanPond Sat 24-Nov-12 10:55:56

the social services said there was absolutely no problem with the care on offer.

they clearly stated they would still place other children with these people.

joanbyers Sat 24-Nov-12 11:03:04

UKIP are opposed to non-whites?

Someone should tell this guy:

insidecroydon.com/2012/04/24/croydon-questions-winston-mckenzie-ukip/

IME non-whites are often more opposed to immigration than whites.

A good 'bonkers social workers' story as far as I'm concerned.

I think we all need a pantomime villain to laugh at.

SoupDragon Sat 24-Nov-12 11:03:24

Having only the "facts" as told on the radio news, I can see SS's point. Can the needs of immigrant children be best served by foster carers who believe immigration is damaging to the UK?

joanbyers Sat 24-Nov-12 11:04:44

It's fairly unlikely that the children are immigrants.

SoupDragon Sat 24-Nov-12 11:04:49

UKIP are opposed to non-whites?

No, they believe immigration is damaging to the UK. Race is not the problem, just whether you are British I think. That is how I understood it but I cold be wrong!

SoupDragon Sat 24-Nov-12 11:06:06

It's fairly unlikely that the children are immigrants.

Oh so what does the phrase "These children are not UK children" in then news report mean?

QuickLookBusy Sat 24-Nov-12 11:06:44

The children are non British.

I think the council made the correct decision.

InNeedOfBrandy Sat 24-Nov-12 11:07:02

They have to have other ethnicity's as the law says, even bnp pull out a black guy to show they aren't racist every now and again. Are you a ukip member Joan? Do you appose immigration and hope all the immigrants go back to their own country's.

joanbyers Sat 24-Nov-12 11:09:53

Ooh, a purity test.

No I am not a UKIP member nor have I ever voted for them.

Nor for the BNP.

Have you mugged any old ladies lately?

Nancy66 Sat 24-Nov-12 11:11:39

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

InNeedOfBrandy Sat 24-Nov-12 11:24:44

I'm sure the bnp would love to have you in their ranks you sound like a vile person. Why an earth would you try and insult me asking if im mugging old ladies. Maybe you don't realise I'm white and parents are quite middle class.

joanbyers Sat 24-Nov-12 11:26:29

It should be abundantly clear btw that Rotherham's specific vision of multiculturalism is actively harmful to children. They are absolutely not in a position to make these pronouncements given their own record of harm DIRECTLY caused by their multicultural zealotry (and that's not a description of multiculturalism generally, but of Rotherham's specific approach).

"Revealing the fears over the racial element to the abuse, a 2010 report from the Rotherham Safeguarding Children Board said the crimes had ‘cultural characteristics ... which are locally sensitive in terms of diversity’, but warned of ‘sensitivities of ethnicity with potential to endanger the harmony of community relationships’."

"Denis MacShane, MP for Rotherham, said: ‘There’s a culture here of denial and cover-up and a refusal to accept the reality that we have men living in the Rotherham community who treat young girls as objects for their sexual pleasure. It’s time to tell the truth. We must root out this evil.’"

"Laura Wilson, 17, had been groomed by a string of men before she was stabbed and thrown into a canal to die for informing her abusers' families of the sexual relationships.
Her killer Ashtiaq Asghar, who was 18 at the time, was given a life sentence and will serve a minimum of 17-and-a-half years after he pleaded guilty to murdering Laura in October 2010.
But it emerged in June that Rotherham Council's social services were well aware she was at risk and had received information about certain adults suspected of targeting her from the age of 11."
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2207756/Police-turned-blind-eye-South-Yorkshire-sex-grooming-gangs-decade.html

www.itv.com/news/calendar/2012-09-24/a-decades-worth-of-sexual-exploitation-ignored-in-south-yorkshire/

"In one case, a white girl who was sexually abused by an Asian gang from the age of 12 was offered lessons in Urdu and Punjabi by her local council after her ordeal, to "try to engage her in education"."

So in fact Rotherham are in no position to lecture others about multiculturalism with respect to the care of children.

SminkoPinko Sat 24-Nov-12 11:27:13

I think it sounds quite a complex situation. As long as the children's needs have been put first I don't have a problem with the couple's political views being taken into account. I would have thought that there are situations where fairly mainstream political/ethical/religious views could have a massive impact on particular children and this may well be one of them. I wouldn't want a gay teen placed with a couple who were opposed to homosexuality on deeply held religious grounds, for example, no matter how lovely and caring the couple were otherwise. And fully paid up members of UKIP may very well not be the right carers for many children. Look at this policy and imagine how you'd feel if you were a non-British foster child of someone espousing these views. As a matter of fact, I personally would not be happy if my white British children were fostered by people who had such views.

SoupDragon Sat 24-Nov-12 11:27:18

And only lower-than-middle class non-whites mug old ladies do they?

confused

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now