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

[londonone]

bbc

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

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.

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.

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?