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.

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...

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.