Rotherham council takes away foster children because parents were UKIP members(41 Posts)
Flannel flannel flannel. Joyce Thacker head of children's services, went on TV to state clearly the issue was UKIP support by the foster carers. The birth parents may well want the children back - that doesn't affect the suitability of these foster carers v. any others. SS have clearly been unable to find other foster parents that speak the mother tongue - given we know the children have been split up. Clearly that has a huge effect on their ability to speak their mother tongue - given one of the kids is no longer with his siblings.
Haven't you read the latest updates on the UKIP/Rotherham/fostering story? Not surprisingly, it turns out that it was a rather more complicated situation than the "UKIP membership = no fostering" headlines made out.
Issues include the possibility that the birth parents might have been able to find their children at that particular foster home, and that there had been a previous court case about children from that family being fostered by people who didn't speak their mother tongue. It was also only ever intended as a short-term placement.
Exemplary carers? Encouraging children to call them mum and dad after a few months? Surely this is wrong, particularly as they have parents who want them back.
I believe there is an ongoing investigation regarding alleged abuse by the birthparents, so encouraging the children to reject them may jeopardise the lines of enquiry.
Out of all of this the people who really suffer are the 3 children who were moved from the foster parents care. It is very difficult to find a family who will foster all 3 siblings together. In any case Labour voters,Tory voters, and Liberal voters, can all be against mass immigration or more states joining the EU and more immigration, so why don't they ban all of these prospective foster parents from caring for children? They can't because of the Human Rights Act, and the article which gives the right of political expression.
IMO social workers have far too much power, and it needs to be stopped. If Im right the social work panels are normally not made up of lay people (perhaps one or two) and they make the decisions in these cases of where children should be placed. Of course personal and political judgements will all come into play.
In many familes politics are spoken about,(including mine) but it has not mentally damaged my mixed race husband, my children or my mother-in-law who is from the far East. No I tell a lie, I became so damaged I joined UKIP!
Cozy, that's a nasty swipe. Rotherham was one of the towns that lost its heavy industries - coal and steel - in the 1980s, when the then government decided to wipe out heavy industry and focus on the City of London instead. And we know how well the second half of that sentence went...
Rotherham isn't exactly left-wing, just benefit-dependent.
He's actually standing in Croydon North but the same applies - it is overwhelmingly a Labour area and the right wing candidates are seen as wasted there.
You're not wrong. Lots of parties pick crap candidates and they normally do it in throw-away elections - the area elections that they cannot win so there's no particular incentive to stand a decent candidate.
It is said in Rotherham that you could stick a red rosette on a pig and people would vote for it. That's probably not quite the case but it is a traditionally Labour and left wing area so there's no point in any other party spending a lot of time and money on that area.
Again it is a tactic all parties employ.
In Tory areas, the Labour party dredge up some wet-behind-the-ears candidate and send their decent candidates to areas where they might actually have a shot at winning. And the same is true in safe Labour areas - the Tories don;t bother much with who stands or spending much time or money on campaigning.
I really do see what you're saying, in theory.
My problem is this: as a voter who they are trying to persuade to vote for them, I have to look at what they present now that they are given the opportunity to explain it to me in their own terms. If UKIP knowingly chooses a candidate who a) holds some rather objectionable views that are utterly contrary to the party line and b) isn't particularly loyal to UKIP at all, what am I to learn from that? It's not exactly extolling their finest virtues is it, if that's the best they can offer. I can't vote for them based on their ideals. I have to vote based on the person who will be representing me and voting on these kinds of key issues in Parliament - and this guy will not be apparently towing the party line so what agenda is he following exactly? Who knows!
And both his reputation and UKIPs is being utterly trashed now. Their European agenda is utterly vanished beneath a homophobia row. And they picked him!
It makes their complaining about adoption issues sound hollow when their own man is denouncing the rights of others to adopt under a nice big picture of their logo.
All parties have to do it. You always get some MP or candidate who comes out with the sort of stuff that means their poor party spokesperson has to hurriedly shut them up and try to put things right.
A Labour MP caused his party trouble last year when he said that Britain's ambassador to Israel may have divided loyalties because he was Jewish!
The Newport West MP (Paul Flynn) said Matthew Gould, the Foreign Office's representative should be replaced with "someone with roots in the UK [who] can't be accused of having Jewish loyalty."
The Labour Chief Whip had to call him in and Ed Miliband distanced himself saying the comments were totally unacceptable.
All parties have people who show them up and come out with the kind of views that leave the rest of the party groaning with shame!
This UKIP candidate isn't even particularly wedded to UKIP it seems - he was a Labour supporter and then a member of the Conservatives and the Lib Dems for a year each as well. But you do get them in all parties.
I'd suggest that if they have to distance themselves from their own Parliamentary candidate, they really haven't got a bloody clue what they are doing.
Squitten - The London Chair of UKIP is openly gay and has made it very clear they they do not oppose gay adoption and Ukip, as a party, is not against gay adoptions. It is just that one man's personal view.
There are people in every political party who believe that kind of thing and every political party has to spend time distancing itself from the views of some of its members that it does not agree with.
I would have a lot more sympathy for UKIP's outrage if they didn't send candidates to stand in my local by-election who say things like this:
I get pissed off at the assumption that libertarians are racist. They aren't, they just want their national sovereignty back.
What? Do you think all foster carers vote Labour?
Imagine if, right across the country, all foster carers who voted UKIP were prevented from fostering.
There'd be nearly three children who needed to find another placement.
Imagine if the same thing was done with foster carers who were Tory supporters.
That would be another four!
What an insult to UKIP members, UKIP party activists, UKIP councillors, UKIP candidates and what an insult to democracy.
I don't vote UKIP, but what an insult to the millions of good people who turn out to put a vote against UKIP candidates in elections up and down the country.
Tiggy, I think that's unfair. This isn't the fault of any of the three main parties, it's the fault of a small-minded bigoted social worker, who may for all we know vote Lib Dem or Green (probably not Tory, to be fair...). And a failing council which we know is failing vulnerable children very badly indeed. Next door council, Doncaster, is also shit for vulnerable children, with one of the worst social services depts in the country.
But my own council contracted out care for the elderly disabled and housebound to a private company that then failed to turn up, leaving helpless people without any care at all for a whole weekend. It's a Tory council. Councils of all stripes can be shit.
The irony of this is that the couple involved are, according to the Telegraph, disenfranchised former Labour supporters who feel ignored and betrayed by what was once a working class movement. And they, and many others, feel betrayed and disenfranchised precisely because of decisions like this. You couldn't make it up.
Yes edam - and although the original foster carers had started to learn the children's language, the children spoke it between themselves. Now the boy is seperated from his sisters (and one of the sisters is a baby), this can nolonger happen.
The new families are also white British so do not share the children's heritage but are presumably Labour voters - so that's the main thing!
Oh this gets even worse. So they've split a sibling group up, even though the children were being looked after by perfectly good foster carers, all in pursuit of some stupid incoherent political aims? Idiots. This sort of thing is not only awful for the poor kids, it gives ammunition to people who suspect what they call 'political correctness' and breeds suspicion and intolerance.
MrsMiniversCharlady Just to prove it isn't the media distorting things - straight from the horse's mouth:
Mrs Thacker told BBC Breakfast: We have to think about the clear statements on ending multi-culturalism for example....These children are from EU migrant backgrounds and UKIP has very clear statements on ending multiculturalism, not having that going forward, and I have to think about how sensitive I am being to those children.
She added that there was no issue about the quality of care the couple provided and said she would co-operate with any investigation.
It has also been confirmed that, as a result of all this, the siblings have been split up and put with separate families which is probably far worse for them than living all together with a family who supports UKIP but where they can speak to each other in their own language, attend their church together and keep their family bonds strong.
Quite, tiggy. You'd think the council would have learned after being exposed for their shameful treatment of girls who were being raped and abused by Asian gangs... (not that paedophiles don't come in all colours, but Rotherham authorities were more concerned to protect a gang of Asian paedophiles than their victims).
The council said publically that UKIP membership was the only reason for breaking up this family. They said they 'were concerned about the childrens cultural and ethnic needs having been tipped off that the foster parents had become supporters of UKIP and worrying that immigration policy may be turned into some kind of race issue.
There is nothing more sinister to it than that - the council believed that any party with strong policy on immigration somehow were tainted by unacceptable views. This is ridiculous - anyone can agree with immigration caps or cuts without being a racist. In fact many migrants to this country also agree with controls on future immigration.
UKIP's views aren't shared by a lot of people but they aren't racist views or dangerous views. No party in fact favours uncapped immigration and Labour (since this was such an issue in the 2010 election) has gone to great lengths to say they got it wrong in the past and will be toughter on immigration next time (although they aren't in favour of breaking from Europe etc).
If you only have foster carers who hold state-sanctioned views on every single subject - you'll have no foster carers left at all. Immigration and racism are separate issues. Rotherham seems crippled by the desire to be seen to be totally politically correct even when that means the needs of children are put second or disregarded totally.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.