Advanced search

to think Rotherham council have lost the plot over UKIP foster-carers?

(793 Posts)
londonone Sat 24-Nov-12 09:23:19


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

scottishmummy Tue 27-Nov-12 18:51:55

the sw involved can't talk to media,professional code and employment contract
we don't know full story this is v one sided
may need to wait to case review

tiggytape Tue 27-Nov-12 18:58:42

But Joyce Thacker did talk to the media to give their side (on Saturday morning on BBC Breakfast). She is Head of Children's Services so can speak for SS.
She said there were no concerns about the quality of care and the only issue was that UKIP membership made them unsuitable.

Both sides are bound by confidentiality but both sides have also spoken to the media.

ElBurroSinNombre Tue 27-Nov-12 19:13:56

I wish people would stop saying that we don't know the full story. Joyce Thacker of Rotherham Social Services has confirmed that the only reason that these children were removed is because the foster carers were members of UKIP. There is an interview on the BBC website that makes this very clear - please look at that before writing on here that 'we don't know the full story yet'. This sort of idle tittle tattling (which has no foundation) brings the reputation of the couple involved into question .
I have just watched an interview with the couple on TV. Apart from expressing shock and disbelief at the decision, they are most concerned with restoring their reputation - precisely because of the unsubstantiated innuendo like your message scottishmummy.

tiggytape Tue 27-Nov-12 19:26:24

I don't blame them for being upset about their reputation - who wouldn't be outraged at it being publically implied that they're racist (that's how the couple said they felt earlier this week)?

The council have behaved so badly that it's actions have caused a lot of people (including some here) to speculate whether there 'must be more to it' when there really isn't.
The council readily admit there is nothing more to this.
They really did take 3 children away and split them up just because their carers belonged to UKIP.
No concerns about quality of care or any other matters just purely the view that UKIP membership automatically makes a person unsuitable to care for a child of non British ethnicity.

PessaryPam Tue 27-Nov-12 19:39:11

On a lighter note, gallows humour maybe but....

LineRunner Tue 27-Nov-12 19:44:45

Why is Hitler funny?

natation Tue 27-Nov-12 19:54:02

Oh dear sense of humour failure?
The best way to counter evil is to make light of it. Several Jewish comedians post WW2 have done just that to great effect against the holocaust history.

LineRunner Tue 27-Nov-12 19:54:56

Not seeing much Syrian stand up tonight.

scottishmummy Tue 27-Nov-12 20:01:46

no I don't think we know all all
but some don't let that get in way of good speculation
least of all not mn or media

MrsTerryPratchett Tue 27-Nov-12 20:54:19

who wouldn't be outraged at it being publically implied that they're racist Who was it that went to the media, the SS dept or them? Becasue if SS went to the media and announced that the parents were racist and their FC were taken away for this reason, YANBU. If the FPs went and argued their case in the media, they get what they get. Is it a surprise to them that for some people UKIP = racist?

PessaryPam Tue 27-Nov-12 22:35:26

Linie, Downfall spoofs are all over the interweb. I think you have to possess a sense of humour though to enjoy them grin

LineRunner Tue 27-Nov-12 22:37:33


LineRunner Tue 27-Nov-12 22:42:40

(Don't mind me, I've gone all snippy. As you were etc.)

edam Tue 27-Nov-12 22:53:13

MrsTP, SS don't have to go on TV to damage your reputation. I'm sure there will have been talk locally about this couple when the children were removed. At the very least their reputation has been stained within the world of social care - where they work. Damaging someone's reputation in their field of work is a serious issue. It may sometimes be necessary where the welfare of a child is at stake but in this case it's the other way round - SS themselves were happy to harm the children's welfare by removing them from a stable, suitable placement with excellent foster carers AND separating the brother and sisters.

This couple have spoken out - responsibly, without naming the children - in order to right a wrong. In order to expose wrongdoing and to bring it to public attention that children's welfare is being damaged by wrong-headed and political decisions.

No doubt the authorities would rather the little people kept quiet and just put up with these kind of decisions. The authorities would always rather ordinary people kept quiet - that's why governments of all stripes are always trying to bring in secret courts (the present lot are doing it right now), to impose gagging orders on whistleblowers, to restrict access to justice, to restrict access to the media.

scottishmummy Tue 27-Nov-12 22:58:35

they're not quiet diffident peope,fp contacted media, have ukip support.this isnt the wee guy vs the system
imo,youre wilfully misrepresenting a lot of this and indulging in clichés of dark controlling council
the sw cannot speak out,they are held by code of practice and employment constraints. id expect a case review to elaborate and be more balanced than media or mn

izzyishavingababyAGAIN Tue 27-Nov-12 23:01:13

The Senior SW was clear - she used the words "there were no issues regarding the care of the children", this couple have done nothing wrong.

Id have gone to the press if I was them as well.

My experience of SS is that they are abysmally poor and judgemental.

scottishmummy Tue 27-Nov-12 23:06:02

i'll wait for fuller disclosure and rationale, read that
something must have triggered this be it attitudinal,observed behaviours,a precedent for these events
the sw staff directly involved have not spoken publicly.LA representatives have spoken

edam Tue 27-Nov-12 23:09:33

SM, several people have pointed out social services have spoken out. You keep claiming that SS are unable to make their case but they have, and it's there on BBC news for all to see. Which is largely why people are so appalled - it's clear from the interview that SS's concerns were solely about which political party this couple supported, not about their care of these children at all.

edam Tue 27-Nov-12 23:11:38

Scottish, SS have said it was a 'tip off' - a call from someone saying 'this couple are members of UKIP'.

Insisting that 'there must be more to it' is a slur on this couple. SS have said publicly there were NO concerns about the quality of care at all. It is purely about UKIP and SS's assumption that UKIP membership = racist.

scottishmummy Tue 27-Nov-12 23:18:43

do not paraphrase,or misquote me i have never said there must be more to it
there was tip off that was the soemthing,i so wonde if more disclsure to follow from either local authority of fp
i think potentially more info will follow, and id be interested to read it

Latara Wed 28-Nov-12 12:31:40

Interesting to see how unpleasantly UKIP supporters react when you disagree with them.

Latara Wed 28-Nov-12 12:35:23

I am not deluded, a lefty bleeding heart do-gooder, want children to not have a loving stable home etc etc.

I merely repeated what is on the UKIP's own election leaflet.
& concluded from the UKIPs own words that immigrant children are not suitable in a strongly UKIP supporting home (UKIP does not agree with immigration).

That's just my opinion.

The reactions to my comment & short opinion have been incredibly over the top.

I also agree with ScottishMummy - we don't know the full story here.

TheOriginalSteamingNit Wed 28-Nov-12 13:35:54

You can tell a rubbish effort at satire when it has to explain its play on words in brackets. Apart from that, yes, UKIP are exactly like the Jews in WWII. But exactly.

tiggytape Wed 28-Nov-12 13:51:58

I am not aware of anyone on the thread who is a UKIP supporter or who has said they are but it is a long thread so manybe I missed it.

I may not vote for UKIP but I certainly don't think they are racists or bad people. In fact, how on earth can you possibly tell what anyone thinks on issues of discrimination just from the party they vote for (well unless it is BNP - but we are talking mainstream here)?

There will be bigots and racists and criminals voting for every party just as there will be kind, lovely and tolerant people voting for every party too.
The key to fostering selection is to sift people on the basis of what they are like as individuals not who they vote for. Which is how come this couple have fostered for many years and have an exemplary record.
If they'd been flag waving, nationalist lunatics it might have been spotted and not taken an anonymous tip-off for SS to find out about the UKIP connection. SS would have close contact with this couple and their views would already have been vetted. The council has assumed UKIP voting means the couple hold hardline beliefs on immigration and therefore on immigrants which is frankly ridiculous at worst or, at best, a not very logical assumption given that all mainstream parties want to restrict immigration further so on that basis they are all anti immigrants!

As for more coming out – I don’t know what more anyone is expecting to hear. The council explained their actions on television confirming there were no problems surrounding the care this couple gave those children - it was purely UKIP affiliation that was the issue.
The couple themselves confirmed this was the only reason for the children being taken.
Given that both sides are saying the exact same thing (UKIP membership led to children being removed and the couple themselves did nothing wrong), what else could possibly be added that was relevant?

EIizaDay Wed 28-Nov-12 13:55:53

Well I'm a UKIP supporter NOW (as of about a month ago). Was always a Tory but they've lost their backbone so there's no other choice really.

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